Guest guest Posted July 27, 2000 Report Share Posted July 27, 2000 , <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > To detect that type of > response > an animal model is more appropriate... " > > > >>and unfortunately animal models do not always apply to humans > Alon As you might suspect, I am not altogether comfortable with animal research. But while animal research is often not applicable to humans, I wonder if research that uses the animal as a host for observing a virus/drug interaction is considered more reliable than merely observing the action of a drug upon physiology. My thought process is that in the former case we are studying the drug and the virus, moreso than the host, per se. But in the latter case, we would be studying the direct action of a drug upon the animal. So if the animals physiology is distinctly different from humans (say, as in a cat), drug action may not be very meaningful. On the other hand, some of these formulae probably do not act by direct antiviral action, at least not completely, but rather affect various aspects of immunity and hormone balance, as well. In that case, the animal model may be more likely to fail if their physiology is very different. I suppose this altogether begs the very question of the ethics of vivisection, as they used to call it. I'm not sure where to draw the line. Clearly certain animals are so different from humans that vivisection really makes no scientific sense (such as with cats and dogs). On the other hand, some animals are so similar to humans that using them raises serious ethical questions even for many researchers (such as with chimpanzees). Now, it is my understanding that computer modeling may soon be able to replace much (but never all) animal experimentation. Is this true? I think this is a real dilemma for those who support research in chinese herbs. Are we opening a pandora's box of animal slaughter to prove what we already know to be true in most cases? Is it OK to kill mice for this purpose, even? My cat kills mice and I have egged him on. I appreciate living in a mouse free house. But that's nature. He only gets the dumb or injured or sick ones for a little while. The rest finally leave before tempting fate. I'm OK with that. But inducing cancer or testing pain thresholds in sentient creatures, there's almost something, well, psychotic about this method, don't you think? (BTW, I did eat some dark chocolate and drink a Reed's Rasberry Gingerale a couple hours before writing this, so forgive my altered state) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 I abhor politically-correct stances, and in fear of coming across as taking one, I maintain animal research is among the highest forms of self-centered behavior that a human can exhibit. Anyone who places human life above animal life, simply, is not a true healer. That should anger a few of you, but I do not apologize. It can only be one's ego that becomes offended by this position and I'm not going to assuage that petty tyrannt should it decide to throw a tantrum. Everything dies and, because of that inevitable event, the actions of men can, in no way, be considered superior to any other living thing. The Grim Reaper levels everything to an even playing field, including you who read this. Where is the superiority of man if he dies, decays and is eaten up like every other creature on this planet? Where is his edge, his advantage, his entitlement ? Yet man persists in the infantile and repulsive belief that his welfare is the concern of the gods and insists that he is separate from the web of interconnectedness that binds every living thing to every other living thing. One could make the case that this is the very definition of insanity. There is a direct correlation between institutionalized slavery and animal vivisection. Living creatures, whether men or animals, are reduced to " things " . The USA has earned the distinction of having been one of the world's greatest slave-owning societies and also remains at the forefront of animal research. Coincidence? I don't think so. Gary Cordova , <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > To detect that type of > response > an animal model is more appropriate... " > > > >>and unfortunately animal models do not always apply to humans > Alon As you might suspect, I am not altogether comfortable with animal research. But while animal research is often not applicable to humans, I wonder if research that uses the animal as a host for observing a virus/drug interaction is considered more reliable than merely observing the action of a drug upon physiology. My thought process is that in the former case we are studying the drug and the virus, moreso than the host, per se. But in the latter case, we would be studying the direct action of a drug upon the animal. So if the animals physiology is distinctly different from humans (say, as in a cat), drug action may not be very meaningful. On the other hand, some of these formulae probably do not act by direct antiviral action, at least not completely, but rather affect various aspects of immunity and hormone balance, as well. In that case, the animal model may be more likely to fail if their physiology is very different. I suppose this altogether begs the very question of the ethics of vivisection, as they used to call it. I'm not sure where to draw the line. Clearly certain animals are so different from humans that vivisection really makes no scientific sense (such as with cats and dogs). On the other hand, some animals are so similar to humans that using them raises serious ethical questions even for many researchers (such as with chimpanzees). Now, it is my understanding that computer modeling may soon be able to replace much (but never all) animal experimentation. Is this true? I think this is a real dilemma for those who support research in chinese herbs. Are we opening a pandora's box of animal slaughter to prove what we already know to be true in most cases? Is it OK to kill mice for this purpose, even? My cat kills mice and I have egged him on. I appreciate living in a mouse free house. But that's nature. He only gets the dumb or injured or sick ones for a little while. The rest finally leave before tempting fate. I'm OK with that. But inducing cancer or testing pain thresholds in sentient creatures, there's almost something, well, psychotic about this method, don't you think? (BTW, I did eat some dark chocolate and drink a Reed's Rasberry Gingerale a couple hours before writing this, so forgive my altered state) Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 But it is alright to kill and eat plants? - " tenzin " <tenzin Tuesday, August 01, 2000 3:58 PM Re: vivisection > I abhor politically-correct stances, and in fear of coming across as taking > one, I maintain animal research is among the highest forms of self-centered > behavior that a human can exhibit. Anyone who places human life above > animal life, simply, is not a true healer. That should anger a few of you, > but I do not apologize. It can only be one's ego that becomes offended by > this position and I'm not going to assuage that petty tyrannt should it > decide to throw a tantrum. > > Everything dies and, because of that inevitable event, the actions of men > can, in no way, be considered superior to any other living thing. The Grim > Reaper levels everything to an even playing field, including you who read > this. Where is the superiority of man if he dies, decays and is eaten up > like every other creature on this planet? Where is his edge, his advantage, > his entitlement ? Yet man persists in the infantile and repulsive belief > that his welfare is the concern of the gods and insists that he is separate > from the web of interconnectedness that binds every living thing to every > other living thing. One could make the case that this is the very > definition of insanity. > > There is a direct correlation between institutionalized slavery and animal > vivisection. Living creatures, whether men or animals, are reduced to > " things " . The USA has earned the distinction of having been one of the > world's greatest slave-owning societies and also remains at the forefront of > animal research. Coincidence? I don't think so. > > Gary Cordova > > > , <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > > To detect that type of > > response > > an animal model is more appropriate... " > > > > > > >>and unfortunately animal models do not always apply to humans > > Alon > > As you might suspect, I am not altogether comfortable with animal > research. But while animal research is often not applicable to > humans, > I wonder if research that uses the animal as a host for observing a > virus/drug interaction is considered more reliable than merely > observing the action of a drug upon physiology. My thought process > is > that in the former case we are studying the drug and the virus, > moreso > than the host, per se. But in the latter case, we would be studying > the direct action of a drug upon the animal. So if the animals > physiology is distinctly different from humans (say, as in a cat), > drug > action may not be very meaningful. On the other hand, some of these > formulae probably do not act by direct antiviral action, at least not > completely, but rather affect various aspects of immunity and hormone > balance, as well. In that case, the animal model may be more likely > to > fail if their physiology is very different. > > I suppose this altogether begs the very question of the ethics of > vivisection, as they used to call it. I'm not sure where to draw the > line. Clearly certain animals are so different from humans that > vivisection really makes no scientific sense (such as with cats and > dogs). On the other hand, some animals are so similar to humans that > using them raises serious ethical questions even for many researchers > (such as with chimpanzees). Now, it is my understanding that > computer > modeling may soon be able to replace much (but never all) animal > experimentation. Is this true? > > I think this is a real dilemma for those who support research in > chinese herbs. Are we opening a pandora's box of animal slaughter to > prove what we already know to be true in most cases? Is it OK to > kill > mice for this purpose, even? My cat kills mice and I have egged him > on. I appreciate living in a mouse free house. But that's nature. > He > only gets the dumb or injured or sick ones for a little while. The > rest > finally leave before tempting fate. I'm OK with that. But inducing > cancer or testing pain thresholds in sentient creatures, there's > almost > something, well, psychotic about this method, don't you think? (BTW, > I > did eat some dark chocolate and drink a Reed's Rasberry Gingerale a > couple hours before writing this, so forgive my altered state) > > > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare > practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing > in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, > including board approved online continuing education. > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 Who's talking about food? The word was not even mentioned below in connection with animal research. Unless I am missing something in my own argument! Gary Cordova - " Mark Reese " <tcm2 Tuesday, August 01, 2000 7:01 PM Re: vivisection But it is alright to kill and eat plants? - " tenzin " <tenzin Tuesday, August 01, 2000 3:58 PM Re: vivisection > I abhor politically-correct stances, and in fear of coming across as taking > one, I maintain animal research is among the highest forms of self-centered > behavior that a human can exhibit. Anyone who places human life above > animal life, simply, is not a true healer. That should anger a few of you, > but I do not apologize. It can only be one's ego that becomes offended by > this position and I'm not going to assuage that petty tyrannt should it > decide to throw a tantrum. > > Everything dies and, because of that inevitable event, the actions of men > can, in no way, be considered superior to any other living thing. The Grim > Reaper levels everything to an even playing field, including you who read > this. Where is the superiority of man if he dies, decays and is eaten up > like every other creature on this planet? Where is his edge, his advantage, > his entitlement ? Yet man persists in the infantile and repulsive belief > that his welfare is the concern of the gods and insists that he is separate > from the web of interconnectedness that binds every living thing to every > other living thing. One could make the case that this is the very > definition of insanity. > > There is a direct correlation between institutionalized slavery and animal > vivisection. Living creatures, whether men or animals, are reduced to > " things " . The USA has earned the distinction of having been one of the > world's greatest slave-owning societies and also remains at the forefront of > animal research. Coincidence? I don't think so. > > Gary Cordova > > > , <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > > To detect that type of > > response > > an animal model is more appropriate... " > > > > > > >>and unfortunately animal models do not always apply to humans > > Alon > > As you might suspect, I am not altogether comfortable with animal > research. But while animal research is often not applicable to > humans, > I wonder if research that uses the animal as a host for observing a > virus/drug interaction is considered more reliable than merely > observing the action of a drug upon physiology. My thought process > is > that in the former case we are studying the drug and the virus, > moreso > than the host, per se. But in the latter case, we would be studying > the direct action of a drug upon the animal. So if the animals > physiology is distinctly different from humans (say, as in a cat), > drug > action may not be very meaningful. On the other hand, some of these > formulae probably do not act by direct antiviral action, at least not > completely, but rather affect various aspects of immunity and hormone > balance, as well. In that case, the animal model may be more likely > to > fail if their physiology is very different. > > I suppose this altogether begs the very question of the ethics of > vivisection, as they used to call it. I'm not sure where to draw the > line. Clearly certain animals are so different from humans that > vivisection really makes no scientific sense (such as with cats and > dogs). On the other hand, some animals are so similar to humans that > using them raises serious ethical questions even for many researchers > (such as with chimpanzees). Now, it is my understanding that > computer > modeling may soon be able to replace much (but never all) animal > experimentation. Is this true? > > I think this is a real dilemma for those who support research in > chinese herbs. Are we opening a pandora's box of animal slaughter to > prove what we already know to be true in most cases? Is it OK to > kill > mice for this purpose, even? My cat kills mice and I have egged him > on. I appreciate living in a mouse free house. But that's nature. > He > only gets the dumb or injured or sick ones for a little while. The > rest > finally leave before tempting fate. I'm OK with that. But inducing > cancer or testing pain thresholds in sentient creatures, there's > almost > something, well, psychotic about this method, don't you think? (BTW, > I > did eat some dark chocolate and drink a Reed's Rasberry Gingerale a > couple hours before writing this, so forgive my altered state) > > > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare > practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing > in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, > including board approved online continuing education. > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2000 Report Share Posted August 2, 2000 , " tenzin " <tenzin@f...> wrote: > Who's talking about food? The word was not even mentioned below in > connection with animal research. Unless I am missing something in my own > argument! > > Gary Cordova But don't animals need to be enslaved to provide food (or animal based medicine)? I thought this was also implied with your emphasis on enslavement as a central evil in this issue. I have wrestled with this in regard to medicine. Except for occasional use of earthworm, I am able to avoid all animal " herbs " in my practice. Just a personal predilection. I'll also use deer antler because the animal is not killed, tortured or harmed. But the dead bugs and animal parts don't interest me very much. Guess I am a plant person. However, I don't think I would rule out all such use in all circumstances. That remains to be seen. If you were trapped in the cold, like Hans Solo in one of the first Star Wars, would you or could you cut open your animal companion to preserve yourself or a loved one inside the warm carcass. Thats the scenario that puts my mind to the test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.