I'm so into animal testing, it's not funny UPDATE

[Hitaro_Mitsuka]

I've worked in animal research and have a certificate in biotechnology. (I hate monsanto.) This is actually something I'm interested in as well. I wouldn't mind giving you a different view point. I'm also interested in veterinary medicine and plan on becoming a fish and game warden.

1) There are laws against torturing animals. Some people get away with it, but only because they haven't been caught or they have ties in the government.

2) There are laws against using prisoners for human trials. The government is too afraid to send something out for clinical trials if they don't have some sort of idea on how it will affect people.

3) We may have technology, but a computer is only as smart as its programmer. In order for the computer to know the output, someone has to input know data. So, if you're looking for a particular pattern based on a known chemical combination, you're fine. But if you're dealing with an untested chemical combination, or even an unknown chemical compound, there would be know way the computer would know the outcome.

4) The actual biology of animals is similar to humans, even though the physical anatomy is different. It's the same way you can give an animal a smaller dosage of human medications.

5) I agree. No animal should have to suffer cosmetic testing. I actually refuse to wear makeup.

6) Cosmetics started with animal testing, but because cosmetics have come so far, there is no longer any need to test them on animals.

7) Again, most animal testing is government fear. Originally, all medicines were found without the use of animals.

cool Original medicines were the natural medicines we use now. The government doesn't support these because they aren't a chemical you can patent because they appear in nature. Most minor infections can be cure without having to resort to a doctor's prescription. But in the end, medicine is still medicine, whether prescription or organic.  

[Moth Feathers]

Rofl, love the last one ("Medicines are useless, we got herbs and stuff!").

About the technology statement, I don't have any sources, but I can say this: Technology can't accurately simulate an /entire/ organism. For the sole reason that we don't even know everything about how entire organisms work. There's a lot about physiology (even at the microscopic level) of things that we just don't understand or have any clue about. Let alone, of course, for human physiology, which is even more complex. We find out so much new information, medical textbooks are outdated after five years (or somewhere around that).

For the first statement, "it's cruel because animals are being tortured!", I would also add a reference to the UFAW Care and Management of Laboratory Animals if you haven't already done so. This is the book that sets the husbandry standards for most, if not all, animal testing. It would be great to add to your argument that zoos and aquaria also use this SAME book as a guideline for their own husbandry. If zoos and aquariums are doing it, it can't be that bad (unless the person thinks zoos and aquariums are inhumane, in which case there are issues beyond this).

I'll try to think of other stuff to add. This is a great idea!  

[Sachie Whitby]

Jiti

The majority of the people fear of trying out new medicines without seeing how it affects another person or a living being.

That's what clinical trials are for. The people who are participating in it are essentially being used as voluntary guinea pigs. Until a medication is actually tested on humans, you're not going to have accurate information on the medication's effectiveness, potential adverse effects and safe dosing levels.

I think it would be very naive to believe that animal testing alone will give all the data that is needed to determine if a potential new medication is safe for humans at the desired dose levels or not. An animal isn't going to be able to properly communicate that it is suddenly experiencing suicidal thoughts that it didn't have a week ago, and some medications do have this on their list of potential adverse effects.  

[Hitaro_Mitsuka]

Jiti

Gwen_Katara

[♫=♥]


Thanks!
Instead of government, I would have to say people fear since the government seem to represent people. The majority of the people fear of trying out new medicines without seeing how it affects another person or a living being.

About cosmetic:
Are they still using cosmetic testing on animals in fear of lawsuits from people? Are they really telling the truth behind the bottles of shampoo saying they are not tested on animals? How would I know? Who is responsible of whatever is written behind the shampoo bottles? I also wonder what defines cosmetic. Is there animal testing that is both cosmetic and medical? Are there any benefits to cosmetic?

One of the human rights conventions actually states that we can't do human trials without animal trials first.

As for cosmetics:
There are still companies that use animal testing for cosmetics. It's mainly the big name brands who have been doing it for years. There's an information act of some sort that states companies cannot advertise falsely on their product. So companies that say they don't use animal testing are generally telling the truth.
Cosmetic testing and medical testing are two different things. Medical testing can be regulated where most of cosmetic testing isn't.
Cosmetics can be defined as any product that is applied to the body to improve its appearance. So, perfume, make up, lotions, and shampoo would be the big ones that almost everyone uses.
Originally, makeup was used for ceremonies or war. Then you started seeing the rich wear it to protect their skin from the sun. Makeup didn't become popular in the US until the invention of the TV.
The French used perfume to mask the smell of body odor.

Looking into the pros and cons of makeup, I found an article stating that the heavy Egyptian eye makeup actually had low levels of lead that helped prevent eye disease. But reading into natural mineral makeup, most makeup actually damages your skin because it keeps oxygen and sunlight from reaching the skin. (Same reason you don't put nail polish on a turtle's back. It'll suffocate from lack of oxygen.) Plus, there are a lot of people who are allergic to the chemicals in makeup.

Off topic: Personally, I stick with only using toothpaste, shampoo, and deodorant. The bare minimum. If you think of how cosmetics are made, that's almost more cruel than testing them. Lipstick is made with fish scales; perfume is made with bat guano. Why would any woman want to put that on her skin?  

[Sachie Whitby]

Jiti

Here's something you might want to think about in regards to animal testing for cosmetic purposes...

I got a second degree chemical burn [where the skin turns red and blisters] which covered my scalp, face, hands, shoulders and part of my back from a shampoo that was tested on animals thus was obviously safe to use, right? However this same proven safe through animal testing shampoo also contained methylisothiazolinone, which is known a neurotoxin as proven through in virto studies involving laboratory rats. The chemical is suspected of being both an allergenic and cytotoxic in humans, but it continues to find its way into shampoo, conditioner, shower gel, facial cleanser, and bubble bath that continue to be tested on animals.

Stuff like that does make me think twice about using any cosmetic product that is being tested on animals. If they're knowing putting stuff into my bubble bath or moisturizer that harms cells thus makes them feel that they need to be testing it out on some mice first, I probably don't want to be using it either.  

[Sachie Whitby]

Jiti

Sachie Whitby

Oh. I even found this website that actually lists products with Methylisothiazolinone.
I also found an information on that chemical:
"Human Toxicity Excerpts :
/CASE REPORTS/ ... The purpose of this report was to collect clinical cases in which a single exposure had resulted in contact dermatitis suspected to be allergic. Only patients without previous relevant skin symptoms were included. ... 6 patients developed occupational allergic contact dermatitis from accidental exposure. Patch testing revealed allergy to diglycidylether of bisphenol A epoxy resin, polyfunctional aziridine hardener, methyl acrylate, phenol-formaldehyde resin, and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (Kathon LX), respectively..." [1]
What was the name of the product you used?

It was Head & Shoulders shampoo. It wasn't even mine as it belonged to someone else that was spending the night over and left it in my shower, so you could say it was an accidental exposure as I don't even have a dandruff problem.

Ironically I did develop eczema [which is related to contact dermatitis] at some point after the incident but never considered the possibility that they could have been related.  

[Sachie Whitby]

Jiti

Sachie Whitby

Jiti

Sachie Whitby

Oh. I even found this website that actually lists products with Methylisothiazolinone.
I also found an information on that chemical:
"Human Toxicity Excerpts :
/CASE REPORTS/ ... The purpose of this report was to collect clinical cases in which a single exposure had resulted in contact dermatitis suspected to be allergic. Only patients without previous relevant skin symptoms were included. ... 6 patients developed occupational allergic contact dermatitis from accidental exposure. Patch testing revealed allergy to diglycidylether of bisphenol A epoxy resin, polyfunctional aziridine hardener, methyl acrylate, phenol-formaldehyde resin, and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (Kathon LX), respectively..." [1]
What was the name of the product you used?

It was Head & Shoulders shampoo. It wasn't even mine as it belonged to someone else that was spending the night over and left it in my shower, so you could say it was an accidental exposure as I don't even have a dandruff problem.

Ironically I did develop eczema [which is related to contact dermatitis] at some point after the incident but never considered the possibility that they could have been related.

[♫=♥]


That is ironic because Head and Shoulders is known to treat eczema, from what I read.
I used to use Head & Shoulders even if I do not have a dandruff problem. I just liked the smell of it. I never had any problems with Head & Shoulders before.
Was there ever a possibility that Head & Shoulders was mixed with another product?

No. I just know the person was using it for a dandruff problem. I get eczema primarily on my hands, but it will start to spread up my arms. I don't know how far it would go from there only because I do have medication for when it starts to get bad and will start using it before it gets really bad.