I'm sure that the people who instigated the current outbreak by eating fruit bats had clearly been told that fruit bats carried the virus & it could be passed on that way, a bit like smokers moaning & expecting the NHS to roll out the red carpet when they get lung cancer.
Firstly, I would go and have a read about stem cell research and come back and explain how it could possibly be used to help with Ebola.
Secondly, as you so charmingly pointed out in one of your earlier posts, parts of Africa are very under developed and people do not know about bush meat and Ebola and they don't have campaigns like stop smoking campaigns because they do not even have resource for enough doctors, let alone country wide public health camapigns reaching people in villages with no electricity.
They particularly did not know about bush meat and Ebola in Guinea and the other West African countries affected since there has never, ever been a human outbreak of Ebola in that part of Africa until the index case in a two year old child last December.
Thirdly, if you are going to make sweeping statements about how this outbreak started, then I think the least you could do is get your facts right.
You seem to think this epidemic was caused by hundreds of Africans chowing down on fruits bats morning noon and night and that it is continuing because of that. The epidemic is cause by human to human contact - nothing to do with animals.
This outbreak started with ONE person - a young child.
There is no evidence that this child ate any bush meat - they could however have come into contact with a dead creature whilst out playing. This child got an acute severe illness and died, soon followed by his mum who nursed him and then his gran who probably nursed his mum. Four healthcare workers also died and then several people picked up Ebola at the various funerals and took it back to their own villages. WHO PH workers have been able to trace hundreds of cases back to that one child.
At this early point, no one knew what the illness was (because they had never seen it before) and no one understood where or how they were contracting it because it can take up to 21 days to develop any symptoms after you first contract the infection.
In fact it was not until March that the WHO made their first announcement about an Ebola epidemic on their website.
I am not a scientist but I do know that it renders vivisection impotent.
Well I am a scientist and I know it doesn't. Stem cell research is a valuable tool and reduces the need for animal testing just as computer modelling and other methods do but the subject is still in its infancy. The use of animals pharmaceutical industry has massively reduced over the last few decades but it cannot be eliminated totally.
I would also say that a prisoner - no matter what they have done - has more rights than a mouse.
[QUOTE=Jenny_Sawyer;74732293 these people are unhealthy anyway (the ones with good immune systems survive) & if it wasn't ebola then they'd probably succumb to some other tropical disease or disease associated with poverty.[/QUOTE]
Good god! are you one of those people who value animals more than people? And are people only viable and worth saving if they are fit and healthy to start with? We know who in history believed that and where it lead.
The fact that they are human and sick is reason enough to help, arguments about animal testing are just a diversion from the real issue. It's more important to look at why they are so vulnerable to exposure to this disease and the conditions that enable its spread.
Would you be protesting about experiments on kittens and cute baby monkeys if your kid was dying and bleding to death in front of you?
Well I am a scientist and I know it doesn't. Stem cell research is a valuable tool and reduces the need for animal testing just as computer modelling and other methods do but the subject is still in its infancy. The use of animals pharmaceutical industry has massively reduced over the last few decades but it cannot be eliminated totally.
I would also say that a prisoner - no matter what they have done - has more rights than a mouse.
I think that mice have more rights than the likes of Ian Brady & younger versions of him as he's too old to be a decent specimen for experiments, & if you're a scientist then you'll know that each species is different & that a mouse is not comparable with a human.
It seems some people deserve less concern than animals.... The money raised overnight for the Manchester dogs home is staggering. Perhaps if cute fluffy animals were suffering from Ebola instead of poorly educated Africans we'd have a vaccine already( one tested on animals by necessity).
Hundreds isn't may - it's not like it's millions, & these people are unhealthy anyway (the ones with good immune systems survive) & if it wasn't ebola then they'd probably succumb to some other tropical disease or disease associated with poverty.
I've seen some strange shit on forums I've been on in the past....but this takes the biscuit.
I'm sure that the people who instigated the current outbreak by eating fruit bats had clearly been told that fruit bats carried the virus & it could be passed on that way, a bit like smokers moaning & expecting the NHS to roll out the red carpet when they get lung cancer.
It seems some people deserve less concern than animals.... The money raised overnight for the Manchester dogs home is staggering. Perhaps if cute fluffy animals were suffering from Ebola instead of poorly educated Africans we'd have a vaccine already( one tested on animals by necessity).
I donated 5 quid to the Manchester dogs even though I'm skint.
This programme has made me really angry, that doctor sitting there acting like he's a saint when he's admitted deliberately infecting mice & monkeys with ebola; there's no need for such cruelty (he could've used stem cell research), especially in this case when right from the start they told us that eating fruit bats started it in the first place - stop eating the ****ing fruit bats! Oh yes & the fruit bats carry it but don't get it..... Vivisection is wrong. As for these white people that go over to Africa & contract it - more fool them, a bit like playing Russian roulette.
If you need food you eat what you can catch. As no one knew about the fruit bats carrying the disease no one could warn them.
I can understand you being against animal testing but you need to avoid that feeling blinding you to the science involved. The fact that some species aren't affected by a disease does not invalidate animal testing in research against that disease.
I thought the nurse from MSF summed it up beautifully when she said if Dante had written a 10th circle of hell, this would be it.
I so admire the selflessness shown by people who work with Ebola victims whether to aid a recovery or give them some semblance of dignity in death. I cannot imagine what it is like, and I know I don't have the ability to do it. Thank goodness there are better people than I out there.
One was where the "plant scientist" admitted that his CEO wasn't interested in researching a cure for Ebola because it only killed poor people - before 9/11 upped the ante!!
The other was in the final two "slides" right at the end when they stated that it was going to be 3 months before the next batch of the drug would be ready and it would be enough to treat 30 people - meanwhile over 2000 had already died and it's increasing exponentially.
One was where the "plant scientist" admitted that his CEO wasn't interested in researching a cure for Ebola because it only killed poor people - before 9/11 upped the ante!!
The other was in the final two "slides" right at the end when they stated that it was going to be 3 months before the next batch of the drug would be ready and it would be enough to treat 30 people - meanwhile over 2000 had already died and it's increasing exponentially.
K
The CEOs decision is understandable and logical financially. Big Pharma is a commercial business. If it didn't make profits there would be no new drugs. All new drugs are very expensive, regardless of how much they cost to make, to recover development costs.
As for the amount produced he also explained why. They haven't found a way to scale up production. It's not a deliberate decision to restrict supply.
One was where the "plant scientist" admitted that his CEO wasn't interested in researching a cure for Ebola because it only killed poor people - before 9/11 upped the ante!!
The other was in the final two "slides" right at the end when they stated that it was going to be 3 months before the next batch of the drug would be ready and it would be enough to treat 30 people - meanwhile over 2000 had already died and it's increasing exponentially.
K
I'm still undecided whether I found the scientist's brutal honesty regarding Ebola research refreshing or pretty cold hearted. Maybe they are one and the same in the science world for good reason.
I just do not understand how there will only be enough for 30 people in three months time. How sad and frustrating for those working with this truly appalling disease.
Well a hell of a lot of people share my opinions on replacing animals in vivisection labs with serious criminals.
I've no idea what age group JS belongs to but she and those sharing her opinions mus be aware of the cataclysmic events that beset Europe from the mid-thirties to the mid-forties.
Those who caused the cataclysm had many animal lovers, but simultaneously had a whole human group they so hated that they wanted them experimented on, worked to death exterminated.
I've no idea what age group JS belongs to but she and those sharing her opinions mus be aware of the cataclysmic events that beset Europe from the mid-thirties to the mid-forties.
Those who caused the cataclysm had many animal lovers, but simultaneously had a whole human group they so hated that they wanted them experimented on, worked to death exterminated.
Comments
Firstly, I would go and have a read about stem cell research and come back and explain how it could possibly be used to help with Ebola.
Secondly, as you so charmingly pointed out in one of your earlier posts, parts of Africa are very under developed and people do not know about bush meat and Ebola and they don't have campaigns like stop smoking campaigns because they do not even have resource for enough doctors, let alone country wide public health camapigns reaching people in villages with no electricity.
They particularly did not know about bush meat and Ebola in Guinea and the other West African countries affected since there has never, ever been a human outbreak of Ebola in that part of Africa until the index case in a two year old child last December.
Thirdly, if you are going to make sweeping statements about how this outbreak started, then I think the least you could do is get your facts right.
You seem to think this epidemic was caused by hundreds of Africans chowing down on fruits bats morning noon and night and that it is continuing because of that. The epidemic is cause by human to human contact - nothing to do with animals.
This outbreak started with ONE person - a young child.
There is no evidence that this child ate any bush meat - they could however have come into contact with a dead creature whilst out playing. This child got an acute severe illness and died, soon followed by his mum who nursed him and then his gran who probably nursed his mum. Four healthcare workers also died and then several people picked up Ebola at the various funerals and took it back to their own villages. WHO PH workers have been able to trace hundreds of cases back to that one child.
At this early point, no one knew what the illness was (because they had never seen it before) and no one understood where or how they were contracting it because it can take up to 21 days to develop any symptoms after you first contract the infection.
In fact it was not until March that the WHO made their first announcement about an Ebola epidemic on their website.
Well I am a scientist and I know it doesn't. Stem cell research is a valuable tool and reduces the need for animal testing just as computer modelling and other methods do but the subject is still in its infancy. The use of animals pharmaceutical industry has massively reduced over the last few decades but it cannot be eliminated totally.
I would also say that a prisoner - no matter what they have done - has more rights than a mouse.
Good god! are you one of those people who value animals more than people? And are people only viable and worth saving if they are fit and healthy to start with? We know who in history believed that and where it lead.
The fact that they are human and sick is reason enough to help, arguments about animal testing are just a diversion from the real issue. It's more important to look at why they are so vulnerable to exposure to this disease and the conditions that enable its spread.
Would you be protesting about experiments on kittens and cute baby monkeys if your kid was dying and bleding to death in front of you?
I think that mice have more rights than the likes of Ian Brady & younger versions of him as he's too old to be a decent specimen for experiments, & if you're a scientist then you'll know that each species is different & that a mouse is not comparable with a human.
I've seen some strange shit on forums I've been on in the past....but this takes the biscuit.
And again....You should be ashamed of yourself.
well I'm not!!!:p
I donated 5 quid to the Manchester dogs even though I'm skint.
What's the weather like up there, on the moral high ground?
I can understand you being against animal testing but you need to avoid that feeling blinding you to the science involved. The fact that some species aren't affected by a disease does not invalidate animal testing in research against that disease.
I so admire the selflessness shown by people who work with Ebola victims whether to aid a recovery or give them some semblance of dignity in death. I cannot imagine what it is like, and I know I don't have the ability to do it. Thank goodness there are better people than I out there.
I'm talking about murderers & rapists - not shoplifters.
One was where the "plant scientist" admitted that his CEO wasn't interested in researching a cure for Ebola because it only killed poor people - before 9/11 upped the ante!!
The other was in the final two "slides" right at the end when they stated that it was going to be 3 months before the next batch of the drug would be ready and it would be enough to treat 30 people - meanwhile over 2000 had already died and it's increasing exponentially.
K
Some animals kill for fun too, cats for example. Perhaps it's ok to experiment on them.
If you are going to take a moral stand against animal testing it makes no sense not to apply the same standard to humans.
As for the amount produced he also explained why. They haven't found a way to scale up production. It's not a deliberate decision to restrict supply.
K
Well a hell of a lot of people share my opinions on replacing animals in vivisection labs with serious criminals.
I'm still undecided whether I found the scientist's brutal honesty regarding Ebola research refreshing or pretty cold hearted. Maybe they are one and the same in the science world for good reason.
I just do not understand how there will only be enough for 30 people in three months time. How sad and frustrating for those working with this truly appalling disease.
I've no idea what age group JS belongs to but she and those sharing her opinions mus be aware of the cataclysmic events that beset Europe from the mid-thirties to the mid-forties.
Those who caused the cataclysm had many animal lovers, but simultaneously had a whole human group they so hated that they wanted them experimented on, worked to death exterminated.
I suggest that anyone who holds views like JS readshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany
Irrelevant, Hitler targeted innocent people.
K
No I mean ordinary 21st century people - not Nazis.
I think it's already been established that Hitler was unhinged.......