Debunking PETA!

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Re: Debunking PETA!

#221  Postby Mr.Samsa » Sep 23, 2011 4:07 am

laklak wrote:"Computer simulations". Lol. How many people here have every actually designed and written a complex software system? I don't mean some web app or DB mining system, I mean a real, live, multiple-linked-mainframe, thousand-man-year system? If you have ever managed (or even participated in) a project of that scale you would never, in 10,000 million years, trust your life to a drug trial conducted in a simulated environment. We can't keep fucking Facebook up and running on a daily basis, let alone model an incredibly complicated biological system that we don't even fully understand. It's utter nonsense, complete bullshit.

There is no system out there and no system on the horizon that will do that. How in the world can we do anything of the sort until we understand, down to a molecular level, exactly what the human body will do under any given set of inputs? FFS we don't even know how most of the medicines we use every day actually work. We have no clue. Just look up common drugs in the Physician's Desk Reference - I'll wager you will be stunned at the number of entries that say something like "the exact mechanism is unknown".

It's a scam, hokum promulgated by people and organizations with a political ax to grind.


The argument also ignores the fact that most drugs and experiments are actually first run through a computer simulation. This is often done as a proof-of-concept trial, but these trials are usually done before any animal testing begins (using the most sophisticated software and computer equipment that is available). The next stage of trials is to test the concept using in-vitro testing; where they isolate specific cells or tissue mass and see what happens when they introduce their drug. At this point we find that our results differ wildly from the computer simulations. The next step is animal testing; and here we often find that our results wildly differ from in-vitro testing and now don't even resemble the results found in computer simulations. Then we go from animals to humans, and whilst there can be significant differences in our results, most of the time we will have successfully used the data to identify ideal dosage requirements and any negative complications that can be avoided.

The idea that we can use computer simulations instead of animal testing is ridiculous though.
Image
User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Suspended User
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 28

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking PETA!

#222  Postby VictorTheSixth » Sep 27, 2011 8:04 pm

laklak wrote:"Computer simulations". Lol. How many people here have every actually designed and written a complex software system? I don't mean some web app or DB mining system, I mean a real, live, multiple-linked-mainframe, thousand-man-year system? If you have ever managed (or even participated in) a project of that scale you would never, in 10,000 million years, trust your life to a drug trial conducted in a simulated environment. We can't keep fucking Facebook up and running on a daily basis, let alone model an incredibly complicated biological system that we don't even fully understand. It's utter nonsense, complete bullshit.

There is no system out there and no system on the horizon that will do that. How in the world can we do anything of the sort until we understand, down to a molecular level, exactly what the human body will do under any given set of inputs? FFS we don't even know how most of the medicines we use every day actually work. We have no clue. Just look up common drugs in the Physician's Desk Reference - I'll wager you will be stunned at the number of entries that say something like "the exact mechanism is unknown".

It's a scam, hokum promulgated by people and organizations with a political ax to grind.


I HAVE!

I would like to say too, that, despite my love of Computers and my own confidence in them, I agree entire with Laklak's statement. I know someone who was the lead programmer for a large medical research firm. As they put it: "The number one rule of biology is no matter how well you plan out your experiment, how carefully you track your parameters, and how you set it up; an organism will do whatever it damn well pleases". Even random number generators aren't (the best you get is a time-based algorithm that mashes up the numbers enough to produce seemingly random results). Enough said on how well Computers can simulate things here.
VictorTheSixth
 
Posts: 502

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#223  Postby tnjrp » Sep 28, 2011 11:45 am

laklak wrote:How many people here have every actually designed and written a complex software system? I don't mean some web app or DB mining system, I mean a real, live, multiple-linked-mainframe, thousand-man-year system?
On their own, single-handedly? Try 0. But the obvious hyberbole aside, maybe one or two could have managed such a feat without help. Am rather doubtfull tho.

Generally, having participated in a number of large software projects and even having some actual scientific training in computer science I agree of course. You can't simulate anything very complex on a computer yet so that it actually conforms to the reality.

Why are we even talking about this again?
The dog, the dog, he's at it again!
tnjrp
 
Posts: 3587
Age: 49
Male

Finland (fi)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#224  Postby CRasch » Dec 22, 2011 5:03 pm

I wonder how many PETA and ALF supporters actually gone though a medical trial?
I have no faith in reality.
Science is a philosophy of discovery, where religion is a philosophy of ignorance.
CRasch
 
Name: Charlie Rasch
Posts: 270
Age: 39
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#225  Postby Mick » Dec 22, 2011 5:36 pm

CRasch wrote:I wonder how many PETA and ALF supporters actually gone though a medical trial?


Not I. However, I don't think my position requires this of me.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#226  Postby Mick » Dec 22, 2011 5:38 pm

I recently read something from a psychologist who said that the Animal Welfare Act excludes mice, rats and birds as beings which fall under what is understood as animals. If this is true, then I have a whole new hostility towards the animal experimentation lobbyists and politicans responsible for this abuse.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#227  Postby Mr.Samsa » Dec 22, 2011 11:34 pm

CRasch wrote:I wonder how many PETA and ALF supporters actually gone though a medical trial?


What does the "gone through a medical trial" mean? Does it mean to actually take part, or to walk through a lab and oversee what's going on?

If the former, then I agree with Mick that it's irrelevant to their position. If the latter, then I would agree that it's a useful thing to do and I think many people's opinion on animal research would change if they walked through a lab. The problem is that what most people know of "animal research" is undercover video 'evidence' from some shitty little lab in Mexico, which is usually under investigation from the authorities and currently shunned by the scientific community.

Mick wrote:I recently read something from a psychologist who said that the Animal Welfare Act excludes mice, rats and birds as beings which fall under what is understood as animals. If this is true, then I have a whole new hostility towards the animal experimentation lobbyists and politicans responsible for this abuse.


This is in America, and it's true - but not in the way you seem to be imagining. The AWA now currently excludes laboratory mice, rats and birds. The 'laboratory' part is important because this means that excluding them from the AWA does not mean that they aren't protected by welfare laws and institutes. The health and well-being of these animals are covered by multiple other laws, and are overseen by other groups like the National Institutes of Health, the Association for Assessment, Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, as well as local ethics boards and committees. The reason why the law was changed to exclude laboratory animals was because the law introduced extra costs and complicating inapplicable guidelines that added nothing to the health or well-being of the animals.

I just think it's important to keep in mind that keeping laboratory animals healthy and happy is the prime concern of all serious researchers. This is partly because most people who work in labs are animal lovers and don't want to see an animal suffer, but there's also the pragmatic reason that if your animals are not happy and healthy, then your scientific results are useless and you have to throw out the last few months/years of work. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of lab animals are far happier and healthier than the average household pet - this is due to the rigorousness of scientific research which requires them to be so, as well as the fact that the laws that require us to ensure the welfare of the lab animals are more strictly enforced than pet welfare laws.
Image
User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Suspended User
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 28

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking PETA!

#228  Postby Mick » Dec 23, 2011 1:26 am

What other laws?
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#229  Postby Mick » Dec 23, 2011 1:27 am

That is, by what welfare laws are they protected by?
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#230  Postby Mr.Samsa » Dec 23, 2011 1:57 am

Mick wrote:That is, by what welfare laws are they protected by?


I'm not actually in America so I'm not too sure, but there is the Health Research Extension Act of 1985, which covers basic humane treatment, ensuring that all people in contact with animals are properly trained, and regular inspections, and there's the U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training. The National Association for Biomedical Research has a section of their website dedicated to the laws governing proper animal care here. The main one I think is the Animal Welfare Regulations, which is essentially a more specialised form of the Animal Welfare Act.
Image
User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Suspended User
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 28

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#231  Postby Mick » Dec 23, 2011 2:08 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Mick wrote:That is, by what welfare laws are they protected by?


I'm not actually in America so I'm not too sure, but there is the Health Research Extension Act of 1985, which covers basic humane treatment, ensuring that all people in contact with animals are properly trained, and regular inspections, and there's the U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research, and Training. The National Association for Biomedical Research has a section of their website dedicated to the laws governing proper animal care here. The main one I think is the Animal Welfare Regulations, which is essentially a more specialised form of the Animal Welfare Act.


The Research Extension Act in 1985 does cover mice and the sort, but it's just for federally funded programs. Privately funded programs can safely ignore it. I'll have to examine the others, though I bet I'll find a limited scope if any at all.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#232  Postby Mr.Samsa » Dec 23, 2011 3:27 am

Mick wrote:The Research Extension Act in 1985 does cover mice and the sort, but it's just for federally funded programs. Privately funded programs can safely ignore it. I'll have to examine the others, though I bet I'll find a limited scope if any at all.


It covers those funded by the National Institutes of Health, which accounts for over half of all animal research in the US. So whilst that single law does not cover all animal research, that single law out of many accounts for a technical majority of all animal research. As far as I know, all research facilities are covered by the Animal Welfare Regulations though - which extra federal and local laws that provide even more stringent guidelines.
Image
User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Suspended User
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 28

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#233  Postby Mick » Dec 23, 2011 6:21 am

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Mick wrote:The Research Extension Act in 1985 does cover mice and the sort, but it's just for federally funded programs. Privately funded programs can safely ignore it. I'll have to examine the others, though I bet I'll find a limited scope if any at all.


It covers those funded by the National Institutes of Health, which accounts for over half of all animal research in the US. So whilst that single law does not cover all animal research, that single law out of many accounts for a technical majority of all animal research. As far as I know, all research facilities are covered by the Animal Welfare Regulations though - which extra federal and local laws that provide even more stringent guidelines.



Your AWR doesn't seem to help you much here. It respects the legal distinction between animals and birds, mice and rats bred for lab use. I don't see anything in particular which is noteworthy here. It's my understanding that NIH does fund a lot of animal research, though whether this is covered by the Act or 50% of all animal experimentation does not sway me. It'd still be 50% which are not covered, and I find that unacceptable. Of course any animal experimentation is unacceptable for me, so this is hardly surprising.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#234  Postby Mr.Samsa » Dec 23, 2011 10:14 am

Mick wrote:
Mr.Samsa wrote:
Mick wrote:The Research Extension Act in 1985 does cover mice and the sort, but it's just for federally funded programs. Privately funded programs can safely ignore it. I'll have to examine the others, though I bet I'll find a limited scope if any at all.


It covers those funded by the National Institutes of Health, which accounts for over half of all animal research in the US. So whilst that single law does not cover all animal research, that single law out of many accounts for a technical majority of all animal research. As far as I know, all research facilities are covered by the Animal Welfare Regulations though - which extra federal and local laws that provide even more stringent guidelines.



Your AWR doesn't seem to help you much here. It respects the legal distinction between animals and birds, mice and rats bred for lab use. I don't see anything in particular which is noteworthy here.


Well feel free to browse through the laws yourself to find the ones that are applicable.

Mick wrote:It's my understanding that NIH does fund a lot of animal research, though whether this is covered by the Act or 50% of all animal experimentation does not sway me. It'd still be 50% which are not covered, and I find that unacceptable.


I found another resource which claimed that NIH actually funds 95% of animal research, which would change things a bit. And yes, the excluded percentage would be troubling, if they weren't covered already by various other federal and state laws.

Mick wrote:Of course any animal experimentation is unacceptable for me, so this is hardly surprising.


That seems like a strong statement. "ALL" animal experimentation? Even behavioral tests?
Image
User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Suspended User
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 28

Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#235  Postby Mick » Dec 23, 2011 5:42 pm

I asked you what other laws protected them. The only noteworthy law you mentioned was the 1985 Act, though we determined that was delimited to federal funding. If you have other laws protecting them, now's the chance to provide them.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking PETA!

#236  Postby HughMcB » Mar 26, 2013 3:50 pm

Guess what's STILL going on.... :coffee:

PETA killed more than 1,600 cats and dogs at its Virginia headquarters last year
Almost 90% of the animals handed over to the charity's American shelter

By KATIE DAVIES
PUBLISHED: 20:57 GMT, 20 March 2013 |
UPDATED: 01:01 GMT, 21 March 2013


Animal rights charity PETA killed almost 90 per cent of dogs and cats placed in the care of the shelter at its Virginia headquarters last year, it has been revealed today.

The charity, well-known for attention grabbing publicity campaigns such as the 'I'd rather go naked' anti-fur campaign, euthanized 1,647 cats and dogs last year and only placed 19 in new homes according to the data submitted to the Virginia Department for Agriculture and Consumer Services.

PETA told Mail Online that the animals they take in at the center are 'unadoptable', however 89.4 per cent of pets is much higher than their own approximation that half of animals taken to shelters end up being euthanized.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2Of4NgZIv
"Call Kenny Loggins...'cuz you're in the Danger Zone" - Archer
User avatar
HughMcB
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 18393
Age: 30
Male

Country: Canada
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#237  Postby SafeAsMilk » Mar 26, 2013 4:11 pm

Ah well. I guess it's time to exploit some more naked girls in cages, should bring in some more funding.
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Posts: 5226
Age: 34
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#238  Postby Wiðercora » Mar 26, 2013 4:14 pm

Well, bugger me with a fish fork. A Daily Mail article that's actually true!

Though I do wonder what happened to the 43 'Miscellaneous' cases. Er, on second thoughts, maybe ignorance is bliss.
If the unemployed learned to be better managers they would be visibly better off, and I fancy it would not be long before the dole was docked correspondingly.
-- George Orwell


Infrequently updated photo blog.
User avatar
Wiðercora
 
Name: Call me 'Betty'.
Posts: 7079
Age: 24
Male

Country: The Grim North.
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#239  Postby UtilityMonster » Mar 26, 2013 4:30 pm

HughMcB wrote:Guess what's STILL going on.... :coffee:

PETA killed more than 1,600 cats and dogs at its Virginia headquarters last year
Almost 90% of the animals handed over to the charity's American shelter

By KATIE DAVIES
PUBLISHED: 20:57 GMT, 20 March 2013 |
UPDATED: 01:01 GMT, 21 March 2013


Animal rights charity PETA killed almost 90 per cent of dogs and cats placed in the care of the shelter at its Virginia headquarters last year, it has been revealed today.

The charity, well-known for attention grabbing publicity campaigns such as the 'I'd rather go naked' anti-fur campaign, euthanized 1,647 cats and dogs last year and only placed 19 in new homes according to the data submitted to the Virginia Department for Agriculture and Consumer Services.

PETA told Mail Online that the animals they take in at the center are 'unadoptable', however 89.4 per cent of pets is much higher than their own approximation that half of animals taken to shelters end up being euthanized.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2Of4NgZIv


What would you prefer be done with unadoptable pets? Why is it worse to be painlessly put to death than to live an existence of suffering, neglect, and eventually painful death?
The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"
User avatar
UtilityMonster
 
Posts: 1412
Age: 23
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking PETA!

#240  Postby ED209 » Mar 26, 2013 4:34 pm

I think they should be made to fight to the death in pay-per-view events, with the proceeds going to PETA so they can campaign more and reduce overall animal suffering :coffee:
It's been taught that your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your own wicked thoughts.
User avatar
ED209
 
Posts: 5647

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest