Comments on: PeTA – Anti Animal Testing http://in-humanity.net/peta-anti-animal-testing/ Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:15:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Nathan Rodriguez http://in-humanity.net/peta-anti-animal-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Nathan Rodriguez Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:15:47 +0000 http://in-humanity.net/?p=3#comment-29 my brother and i are members of PETA, we really want to support animal rights. ":- my brother and i are members of PETA, we really want to support animal rights. “:-

]]> By: James http://in-humanity.net/peta-anti-animal-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-22 James Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:18:47 +0000 http://in-humanity.net/?p=3#comment-22 It has no scientific value..."Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24] The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong. Animal experimentation is not scientific because it is not predictive. The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening.[25] refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984. 24# Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78. 25# Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4." It has no scientific value…”Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it’s not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]

The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different “human” cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong. Animal experimentation is not scientific because it is not predictive.

The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening.[25]
refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
24# Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78.
25# Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4.”

]]> By: Cole Powell http://in-humanity.net/peta-anti-animal-testing/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Cole Powell Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:37:08 +0000 http://in-humanity.net/?p=3#comment-21 I always support the cause of PETA.*`` I always support the cause of PETA.*“

]]>