Posted by Frankie on April 28, 2000
In Reply to: Re: The rabbit died posted by ESC on April 28, 2000
: : : : : Where did "The rabbit died" come from?
: : : : Back in the old days, rabbits were used in pregnancy testing. I'm a little shaky on the details. So I'll just guess. I think the woman's urine was injected into the rabbit. The animal was killed and examined. Maybe someone else has better information. Is there a doctor in the house?
: : : : (How about this for a pregnancy phase -- "wearing her apron high.")
: : : You've managed to surprise me ESC. Why post a contribution which implies such gross cruelty to animals when, in truth, it simply didn't happen like that. I'm reluctant to be dogmatic without further research but it was an extract from the urine which was injected and it wasn't necessary to kill the rabbit to determine whether or not the urine sample came from a pregnant woman.
: : :From the FDA website----Now regulated by the FDA, pregnancy tests have come far since the early to mid-1900's when toads, rats and rabbits were used in testing. Now, over-the-counter home pregnancy kits can detect pregnancy as early as six days after conception. All pregnancy tests are based on the presence of a hormone, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), that the pregnant woman produces after conception. The hormone is however poisonous to toads, rats and rabbits. A blood or urine sample injected into the small animal would kill the creature if the hormone was present.
: : Hence "The rabbit died ---you're pregnant". Unfortunately not accurate because the small animal could have died do to a blood disease present in a woman who was not pregnant.
: : The first self tests of the 1970's used ring, or "tube agglutination," tests consisting of prepackaged red blood cells to detect HCG in urine. A ring at the bottom of the tube indicated a positive result. Sensitive to movement and human error, ring tests are now rarely used.
: : Today's brands, such as e.p.t. and First Response, contain monoclonal antibodies that detect minute traces of HCG. These antibodies are molecules coated with a substance that bonds to the pregnancy hormone, if it's present, to produce either a positive or negative result.
: That's what I said. The rabbit had to be killed. Now that we're on the subject, what's up with "animal testing" of other products. My child (and I agree) insists that we only buy shampoo, etc., that says "Not tested on animals." Do they put the shampoo in an animal's eyes or something? Seriously, I'd like to know.
: Sorry to do this, but you asked. (And it merely scratches the surface.)
In 1997, an American Red Cross (ARC) representative wrote, "Animals used in our laboratory work are well treated and not tortured in any way." Yet, ARC has funded studies in which genetically-altered mice were allowed to develop ailments including neural tumors, gastrointestinal tissue malformations, shaking tremors, seizures, and paralysis. In another ARC-funded experiment, rabbits had 22 to 30 percent of their blood volume bled every two weeks.
Each year, thousands of animals die in laboratories--the victims of painful product tests. Procter & Gamble claims to be "committed" to eliminating tests on animals, but after a decade of empty promises, the household, personal care, and pharmaceutical product manufacturer continues to poison and kill animals.
To test products, workers typically force chemicals into rabbits' eyes and rub them onto animals' shaved and abraded skin. The animals are forced into restraining devices so they can't escape the pain; usually they are not sedated or given painkillers. Some animals have broken their necks or backs trying to escape.
More than 550 companies, including large corporations like Gillette and Avon, ensure their customers' safety by using more accurate non-animal tests. Yet, P&G has refused to stop animal tests even for products that are not required to be tested on animals by law, such as cosmetics and household goods which make up the majority of P&G's products. Animal tests are not accurate and data from them cannot be extrapolated to human use because of the enormous differences in metabolism and physiology among rats, rabbits, dogs, pigs, and humans. The stressful laboratory conditions and often sloppy handling methods can impair immune function and alter heart and pulse rates of animals in laboratories as well. More than half of all prescription drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985 on the strength of animal tests caused side effects so serious that the drugs had to be relabeled or removed from the market.
The modern, non-animal test methods used by other companies can be interpreted more accurately and objectively than animal tests, leading to safer products.
From "The Nature of Wellness" http://home.earthlink.net/~supress
Animals are similar enough to human beings to justify experimenting on them.
SCIENTIFIC FACT #1:
The word "similar" in the world of true science is totally meaningless. If you were told that in the room next door there is no oxygen, but rather, a gas "very similar" to oxygen, would you go inside? If you needed a blood transfusion, but were told that there is no human blood available but only a substance "very similar" to human blood, would you go for it? If I told you that my lotto numbers are "very similar" to the winning numbers, would you congratulate me?
It is possible to recreate a naturally occurring human disease in a healthy animal (what researchers call "the animal model of human disease").
SCIENTIFIC FACT #2:
It is by definition impossible. Trying to recreate spontaneous human diseases (naturally occurring diseases that arise from within) in a healthy being constitutes "experimental research." It is impossible to recreate a naturally occurring disease in a healthy animal (or in a healthy human being for that matter) simply because once it is "recreated," it is artificial and is no longer the original, natural disease. Clearly, "recreated" and "spontaneous" are contradictory terms. It then follows that experimental research cannot find cures for any diseases, no matter how many millions of animal or human experiments are performed (human experiments are also commonplace).
It is sometimes possible to recreate some of the symptoms of a disease, but never the disease itself. The exception to this fact is the case of infectious diseases. However, animals do not get human infectious diseases and we do not get theirs. This is why vivisectors cannot infect a single animal with human AIDS, despite massive efforts aimed at creating "an animal model of human AIDS." Besides, a nonhuman animal cannot have a human disease because each species is a different biomechanical and biochemical entity.
It is possible to learn human anatomy and physiology by studying four legged animals (quadrupeds), amphibians, fish and/or birds.
SCIENTIFIC FACT #3:
Animals are totally different from human beings and from each other genetically, histologically, anatomically, physiologically, immunologically, emotionally, psychologically, sexually and socially. It is clear that human medicine cannot be based on veterinary medicine.
It is possible to predict human reactions to drugs, vaccines and other chemicals by testing them on animals.
SCIENTIFIC FACT #4:
Animals react differently to drugs, vaccines and other chemicals not only from human beings but also from each other. Hence the incalculable damage to human health caused by animal tested pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.
Animal experimentation is useful in order to learn about animal diseases in veterinary schools.
SCIENTIFIC FACT #5:
No knowledge about animal diseases can be obtained by looking at artificially diseased animals (experimental research). Same reasons as in Scientific Fact #2.
Center for alternatives to animal testing:---- http://altweb.jhsph.edu/~caat