Yes, well if we all lived in the outback, there'd be no need for hairspray, hair dye, perfumes, washing powder, artificially generated organs, vaccinations, processed food, chemicals to make food grow more quickly, chemicals to make food more red, chemicals to make cleaning fluids, chemicals to put in wine, plastic by the ton, disinfectants, nuclear experiments on piglets ( where they put them in a tube the same size and blow them up with radiation, they don't all come out dead ! ) We don't need mink coats, 60 minks for one coat.

At the end of the day, there is no need to keep animals caged without any physical contact with their own kind, for 30/40 or 50 yrs There is no need to use a 50,000 pigs each year for experiments such as :
one pig: US military trauma training.“They shot him twice in the face with a 9-millimeter pistol, and then six times with an AK-47 and then twice with a 12-gauge shotgun. And then he was set on fire !! Lived for 15 hours afterwards.

The general consensus is that we are living too long, so science seems to be developing more to keep us alive for longer . The world population is about to explode, which means more wars created by those who want more land for their own people, e.g. China.

Now the 'Liverpool Pathway' has been finally stopped, the pensioners are being blamed again for living too long,. (strange we didn't hear that when it was in force) but they are trying to make us live longer.....
Instead of more and more experiment (with animals) they need to decide where all the bodies of the dead will end up, where all the garbage will end up and where all the convicts will end up. Make a place over populated and uninhabitable and crime soars.

Thinking that I may have gone off track a little, but hey ho, nothing new.

Absolutely not! Use bloody humans, it's they that benefit - let them suffer

Every pet owner who has had their pet operated on is benefitting from previous animal testing.......ironic....don't you think?

If we humans had to undergo what animals have to undergo (with absolutely no choice whatsoever), then maybe it would be fair ...... food for thought!

Sorry, but I do not believe that for one second.

The AK round is a 7.62 short (7.62x39) with a muzzle energy of around 1,600 ft.lbs (an air rifle in the UK has a limit of 12ft.lbs).

Even without hitting a vital organ or artery, this round will cause significant trauma in one shot.
Even a standard 9mm has a muzzle energy of around 400 ft.lbs

Smells like Bull poop to me.

I know this will never happen, but IF testing drugs/poisons/operations and pain, was performed on HUMANS in order to trial medicines for veterinary use- in other words the tables were turned, no doubt everyone would be saying that results were irrelevant as humans and animals reacted differently.

So why do they not think this when animal testing results are applied tohumans, how come they are suddenly relevant this way round?
Can you see what I am saying?

I get very frustrated when I know what I'm trying to say but it doesn't come out right in writing!

And I still question the mind and emotions of the people who can do this work day in, day out. How can anyone see the fear and pain in any living creature, then deliberately hurt it even more. I would be haunted forever with guilt.
I have a lump in my throat and want to weep, just imagining it, and I don't give a toss who agrees or disagrees.

I dont disagree with testing for battlefield medical treatment....in fact anything that helps injured troops is fine by me.

...But if any one of us found that the only treatment that would save the life of our child had been developed through testing on rats,
I reckon precious few of us would say "nah - let the kid die".

On reflection, I agree.
A few anaesthetized pigs are despatched fairly quickly (apparently), and this enables field medics to better treat tissue damage suffered by maybe thousands of wounded troops in the future.



I note the eerie silence to this too