Dogs see grass and sunlight for the first time

[Fritzo]

I...have something in my eye...*sniff*...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c12_1322417967

 

[darkswordsman17]

JHumeC STFU and let them out of the cage already.

 

[Wyndru]

Was Sarah Mclachlan there?

 

[CRXican]

Beagles, yuck!

 

[Schfifty Five]

Aw, touching video. Poor dogs. Hope they end up adjusting to a normal life.

 

[Perknose]

Ok, I know I'm being emotionally yanked and all, but about 2/3rd's of the way through I admit I was beginning to tear up.

In my experience, beagles are especially sensitive to how they are treated, even among dogs.

 

[Linflas]

I can't see the video from work but being the lucky owner of 2 rescued Beagles I know it will make me cry.

 

[NFS4]

I guess I'm a big pussy. I started getting tears in my eyes at 1:30 when she opened the cage and those big eyes didn't know what to make of it 🙁

 

[Josh123]

Hmmm, I was expecting to read about some procedure that helped blind dogs see. Still a good video.

 

[Krazy4Real]

Hmmm, I was expecting to read about some procedure that helped blind dogs see.

this

 

[Schfifty Five]

Hmmm, I was expecting to read about some procedure that helped blind dogs see. Still a good video.

hehe, yeah same here. I was expecting a video similar to that one where a baby was able to hear for the first time.

Wasn't expecting this, but again still very touching video.

 

[zinfamous]

that's nice and all, but it will mostly serve to inflame the ignorant masses to try and end cancer, disease, and medical research and such.

Don't get me wrong--I found it quite difficult to sacrifice hordes of lab mice in my time, and I never wanted to work with dogs (as far as I know, Beagles are generally only used as worm farms (c. elegans) and are always completely d-wormed upon release and prior to adoption--but this kind of thing is completely normal.

Touching, but all I see is bullshit PETA anti-medicine propaganda.

 

[BladeVenom]

PLEASE DO NOT BUY PRODUCTS TESTED ON ANIMALS! You can see their faces now..... buy only products that have the cruelty-free symbol..

So do those idiots refuse medicine and medical care? It was all tested on animals.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

So do those idiots refuse medicine and medical care? It was all tested on animals.

I'd prefer we stop testing on animals. WE have a thriving prison population. Why can't we use them for medical testing? As it is, if you are convicted of a felony you loose Constitutional rights. Therefore it should be legal to test on inmates.

 

[Perknose]

So do those idiots refuse medicine and medical care? It was all tested on animals.

I wouldn't, but, historically, cosmetics have been cruelly and unnecessarily tested on animals, for marketing rather than scientific or human safety reasons, and in instances where more humane and scientifically rigorous alternatives exist.

Every year, millions of animals suffer and die in painful tests to determine the "safety" of cosmetics and household products. Substances ranging from eye shadow and soap to furniture polish and oven cleaner are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that test results do not help prevent or treat human illness or injury.

In these tests, a liquid, flake, granule, or powdered substance is dropped into the eyes of a group of albino rabbits. The animals are often immobilized in stocks from which only their heads protrude. They usually receive no anesthesia during the tests.
After placing the substance in the rabbits' eyes, laboratory technicians record the damage to the eye tissue at specific intervals over an average period of 72 hours, with tests sometimes lasting 7 to 18 days. Reactions to the substances include swollen eyelids, inflamed irises, ulceration, bleeding, massive deterioration, and blindness.

During the tests, the rabbits' eyelids are held open with clips. Many animals break their necks as they struggle to escape.

The results of eye irritancy tests are questionable, as they vary from laboratory to laboratory-and even from rabbit to rabbit.

Acute toxicity tests, commonly called lethal dose or poisoning tests, determine the amount of a substance that will kill a percentage, even up to 100 percent, of a group of test animals.

In these tests, a substance is forced by tube into the animals' stomachs or through holes cut into their throats. It may also be injected under the skin, into a vein, or into the lining of the abdomen; mixed into lab chow; inhaled through a gas mask; or introduced into the eyes, rectum, or vagina. Experimenters observe the animals' reactions, which can include convulsions, labored breathing, diarrhea, constipation, emaciation, skin eruptions, abnormal posture, and bleeding from the eyes, nose, or mouth.

The widely used lethal dose 50 (LD50) test was developed in 1927. The LD50 testing period continues until at least 50 percent of the animals die, usually in two to four weeks.

Like eye irritancy tests, lethal dose tests are unreliable at best. Says Microbiological Associates' Rodger D. Curren, researchers looking for non-animal alternatives must prove that these in vitro models perform "at least as well as animal tests. But as we conduct these validation exercises, it's become more apparent that the animal tests themselves are highly variable." The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods' Dr. Michael Ball puts it more strongly: "The scientific basis" for animal safety tests is "weak."

No law requires animal testing for cosmetics and household products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires only that each ingredient in a cosmetics product be "adequately substantiated for safety" prior to marketing or that the product carry a warning label indicating that its safety has not been determined. The FDA does not have the authority to require any particular product test. Likewise, household products, which are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the agency that administers the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), do not have to be tested on animals. A summary of the CPSC's animal-testing policy, printed in the Federal Register, states, "t is important to keep in mind that neither the FHSA nor the Commission's regulations require any firm to perform animal tests. The statute and its implementing regulations only require that a product be labeled to reflect the hazards associated with that product."

Testing methods, therefore, are determined by manufacturers. The very unreliability of animal tests may make them appealing to some companies, since these tests allow manufacturers to put virtually any product on the market. Companies can also use the fact that their products were tested to help defend themselves against consumer lawsuits. Others believe that testing on animals helps them compete in the marketplace: Consumers demand products with exciting new ingredients, such as alpha-hydroxy acids, and animal tests are often considered the easiest and cheapest way to "prove" that new ingredients are "safe."

Such arguments carry little weight with the more than 500 manufacturers of cosmetics and household products that have shunned animal tests.
These companies take advantage of the many alternatives available today, including cell cultures, tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models. Companies can also formulate products using ingredients already determined to be safe by the FDA. Most cruelty-free companies use a combination of methods to ensure safety, such as maintaining extensive databases of ingredient and formula information and employing in vitro tests and human clinical studies.
Tom's of Maine went one step further. For seven years, the cruelty-free company petitioned the American Dental Association (ADA) to grant its seal of approval to Tom's of Maine toothpastes. Other toothpaste companies unquestioningly conducted lethal tests on rats in order to be eligible for the ADA seal (researchers brush rats' teeth for more than a month, then kill the animals and examine their teeth under a microscope). But Tom's of Maine worked with researchers to develop fluoride tests that could safely be conducted on human volunteers. The ADA finally accepted the results of these tests and granted its seal to several of the company's toothpastes in 1995. The groundbreaking effort by Tom's of Maine to find a humane alternative to accepted-but cruel-practices sets a precedent that other manufacturers can follow in the future.

The Humane Society of the United States says:

Everyone agrees that things like cosmetics, detergents and chemicals should be tested—for the safety of people, animals, and the environment. But how? The usual approach is to pump a substance into an animal’s stomach or airways, or apply it to their eyes or on their skin. Most of these tests are crude, decades-old procedures.

More effective are sophisticated alternatives like Episkin®, artificial human skin that can replace some animal tests in a fraction of the time and cost. Technologies like these are being continually developed. At the same time, the public’s desire to buy products that haven’t been tested on animals has dramatically increased.

http://video.humanesociety.org/video/801038706001

 

[halik]

Too much mello and shitty music an not enough dogs walking on grass. Meh.


One of my buddies has killed excess of 1000 lab mice in his neuro research. C'est la vie.

 

[OutHouse]

that's nice and all, but it will mostly serve to inflame the ignorant masses to try and end cancer, disease, and medical research and such.

Don't get me wrong--I found it quite difficult to sacrifice hordes of lab mice in my time, and I never wanted to work with dogs (as far as I know, Beagles are generally only used as worm farms (c. elegans) and are always completely d-wormed upon release and prior to adoption--but this kind of thing is completely normal.

Touching, but all I see is bullshit PETA anti-medicine propaganda.

I dont see that at all

 

[halik]

Graphic emotional pleas generally demonstrate lack of rational argument. See anti-abortion people showing fetus pictures.

 

[waggy]

Graphic emotional pleas generally demonstrate lack of rational argument. See anti-abortion people showing fetus pictures.

/this

i would rather we kill 100 mice/rabbits/dogs then 1 human. i have no issue testing stuff on them.

I do wish makeup company's could do it without using animals. but no way can they do medical research without them.


Sure we have a prison population but that was outlawed long time ago.

 

[Miramonti]

Testing on animals can be some pretty horrific sh!t. We don't see the worst of it.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Dammit perk, did u really have to post those nasty pictures?

 

[BladeVenom]

I wouldn't, but, historically, cosmetics have been cruelly and unnecessarily tested on animals, for marketing rather than scientific or human safety reasons, and in instances where more humane and scientifically rigorous alternatives exist.

You believe their propaganda? The pictures of the rabbits proves they need to test on animals. It would be a lot worse if that had had been a little girl instead of a rabbit.

 

[alfa147x]

That song in the back ruins it.

 

[Perknose]

You believe their propaganda? The pictures of the rabbits proves they need to test on animals. It would be a lot worse if that had had been a little girl instead of a rabbit.

Please READ and try to comprehend why this COSMETIC testing doesn't need to be done on these animals, how scientifically unreliable it is anyway, and how BETTER, more humane and more reliable methods that don't involve any little girls whatsover are readily available, you absolutely, inexcusably, lazy and ignorant asshole.

Just follow this one convenient link. 😡

 

[uclaLabrat]

Too much mello and shitty music an not enough dogs walking on grass. Meh.


One of my buddies has killed excess of 1000 lab mice in his neuro research. C'est la vie.

No, such is death!