I just got my 2nd dog from the pound yesterday (my other one is going on 8).

What a sad, sad place! Overrun by cats (and dogs), animals stuffed in every corner of the place. The dog I got was in the laundry room, living with two cats in small cages. He actually had the best digs out of all the dogs there.

Please people, if you can, adopt a shelter pet! My holiday is going to be great now and so is his. And instead of buying people gifts, I am donating $$ to PETA in their names.

Posted by: Stacy P | December 13, 2007 02:01 PM

Stacy I'm so glad you got a dog from the pound!!! That is so nice!!

:o)

Posted by: Jaclyn | December 13, 2007 04:01 PM

Great concept, Jeff!

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 14, 2007 10:17 AM

I am more than happy to support animals and PETA's cause ... but my mother is dying from cancer. I don't know if I can continue to support no animal testing in support of finding a cure for cancer.

If anyone can give me guidance here - a happy medium - I would be more than happy. Thank you guys!

Posted by: Kirsten | December 16, 2007 12:57 AM

Kirsten,

Here's the URL to cancer charities that don't do animal testing: http://www.humaneseal.org/search.php?ap=y&cat=18 (you'll have to cut and paste into your browser).
It is possible to support animal rights AND cancer research! I know what you're going through...my dad went through chemotherapy for leukemia this year. I'll say a prayer for your mom.

Posted by: BullyDawg | December 17, 2007 10:33 AM

Kirsten, that is too bad to hear about your mom's cancer... I hope she is not in too much pain.

Unfortunately, scientists have spent decades and billions of dollars curing (induced) cancer in mice, and have wasted so much time that could have been used to test with methods that actually help humans.

A really good source of information to answer your questions is www.curedisease.com because it is very complex. The bottom line is, animal testing does harm humans, and your mother will unfortunately not benefit from the continued use of animals in testing.

Take care...

Posted by: Michele | December 17, 2007 12:14 PM

kirsten, sorry to hear what your mums going through.
It is possible to make a distinction on the merits of animal testing for medical advancement versus testing shampoos ,perfumes or chocolate.

Who would volunteer to be first to go through chemotherapy if at least some guide hadn't been set through animal testing? Or that chemo was even possible.

Yes we could say that animal experiments haven't cured human cancer, and ergo they are ineffectual. This is only because we're in the middle of, rather than looking back on, animal research into cancer.

Best wishes

Posted by: rojo | December 17, 2007 07:22 PM

How exactly does animal testing harm humans?

Posted by: Pure | December 18, 2007 08:26 AM

Pure, there is a whole website that can answer your question - go to www.curedisease.com. Or, get the book "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" - it is a real eye opener! When I started to purchase products that were from companies who did not conduct animal testing, it was solely for the benefit of the non-human animals, but now that I have researched the issue further, I realized that animal testing also had implications for my fellow human earthlings.

Posted by: Michele | December 18, 2007 02:12 PM

Kirsten,

Sorry to hear about your mom. I wish her all the best.

Pure,

To add further to Michele's post, human adverse drug reactions to animal-approved drugs cause much suffering and, unfortunately, have lethal consequences in many cases. This is why you hear of drugs pulled from the market, even though they successfully passed animal testing.

All of us have a different genetic makeup. That's why people are told never to take another's medication. Animal tests are just not predictive of a human's reaction to a given drug, especially since there is already such a variance between individual humans. Medicine based upon your unique genetic makeup (pharmacogenetics) will provide the best chance of a positive outcome to medication in the future.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 18, 2007 07:11 PM

mike Q, if we follow that argument to the full then why test at all. Just put it on the market and withdraw the drug when too many people die of adverse effects.
When we look closely at adverse reactions, generally only a small proportion, usually less than 1 in a 1000, have such. This means the rest are deprived of an otherwise valuable drug. It may well be better to genetically screen patients in the future for potential reaction, rather than discard the drug entirely.

Around 5% of drugs are withdrawn from the market due to adverse reactions. I think that is a pretty good track record, given the variations between people. Maybe animal testing does work.

Posted by: rojo | December 19, 2007 06:46 PM

Rojo,

That's what I've been saying all along. With microdosing you can ensure a certain drug is safe for a given human's genetic make-up and metabolism.

Animals tests are harmful or lethal to people:

"Although some adverse drug reactions (ADR) are not very serious, others cause the death, hospitalization, or serious injury of more than 2 million people in the United States each year, including more than 100,000 fatalities. In fact, adverse drug reactions are one of the leading causes of death in the United States." (Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of the American Medical Association Apr 15, 1998; 279: 1200 - 1205.)"

Remember, these are all drugs that passed animal testing with flying colors. Animal testing gives absolutely no assurance of subsequent drug safety with humans.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | December 20, 2007 01:34 PM