The next time you see someone with jewelry that says “trust no man,” don’t judge them for their “man hating” or “bougie” ways. Rather, commend them for their superb taste in music.
“Trust no man” is actually a reference to a reference to a 1926 song of the same name by Gertrude “Ma” Rainey, a Georgian and African-American pioneer of blues music.
I want all you women to listen to me
Don’t trust your man no further than your eyes can see
I trusted my man with my best friend
But that was a bad bargain in the end
A feminist before there was really a term for it, Rainey was also notorious for getting into trouble with small-town authorities over her “women-only parties.” She was a brazen lady-lovin’ badass well-worthy of a 21st century signal boost.
Ma Rainey literally had a song Prove it On Me Blues where she pretty much said “I’m a big fat lesbian but you’re never going to catch me and if you dont think thats some of the dopest shit i dont wanna talk to you
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this.
I am not quite sure what this “silence” is that you attribute to tumblr vegans… I can’t speak for anyone else in the community but for me personally there has been very little information released about the vaccine in its early stages and I dislike commenting on things without a good amount of information. For that reason I’m mostly going to talk about animal testing more generally here.
You are making a bit of a fallacy in this claim, in that you are assuming the only way this drug could have possibly been developed is through animal testing. The effective drugs on the market have been tested on animals, but it does not follow that these things have been effective because they have been tested on animals. In the UK for example, any new drug must be tested on at least two mammals to be considered fit for market. Now, that does not mean those drugs came about because they were tested on animals, they could be (and in many cases, are) the result of much more advanced and less victorian methods of testing drugs.
It is not the case that we treat this by testing on animals or we don’t treat it at all. There are a wealth of alternatives like en vitro, test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures, computerised patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials, computer models and simulations, stem cell and genetic testing methods, non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans, and micro dosing, to name a few. There are many well respected figures in the bio-medical community who do not believe animal testing is in any way helpful anymore. We have undoubtedly gained a great deal from animal testing in the past, but people like Nobel-prize winning biologist Sir Peter Medawar pointed out that we will be at a point where we can dispense with animal research altogether in as few as ten years time, and that was in 1972.
Even ignoring ethical considerations, the animal model of research is deeply flawed, 9 out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests still go on to fail or cause harm in clinical trials. UK based companies like Pharmagene use human tissue exclusively, not out of any ethical considerations, but because they believe that the animal testing model is scientifically redundant. Animals do not get many of the diseases that humans do, so these diseases must be artificially inducted. This simply does not give us an accurate measure of how authentically caught diseases will respond to treatment, human cell tissue gives us a much more accurate picture. To use cancer as an example, Fran Visco, founder of the National Breast Cancer Coalition said, “Animals don’t reflect the reality of cancer in humans. We cure cancer in animals all the time, but not in people.” As for the metholodolgy, it is widely known that animal experiments have serious limitations in that results in humans cannot be extrapolated from results in animals. A mixture of high dosage, stress conditions of animals in confinement mean there are simply too many variables to gain reliable results. Lets also look at what we actually gain from animal testing. Last year, globally, we killed 115 million animals in scientific experiments, yet the FDA approved only 35 new treatments. 115 million lives, for 35 new drugs? Does that sound like an efficient research model to you? Today’s drug companies do the actual research with computer based and stem cell models, and are simply obliged to test on animals once that process has been completed, in many cases slowing down the process rather than helping it. For every research organisation you can name me that is testing on animals, I can link you one that is having equal or superior results using non-animal models.
What is happening in West Africa and elsewhere is horrific, but you are making a mistake if you assume that the only two options we have available are animal testing or let everyone die. I think you are guilty of a rather obvious confirmation bias here. You’re assuming because animal research has been done, that animal research is the only way it could have possibly done, with very little possible evidence to back up that claim. Animal testing is inefficient, expensive, out of date and utterly unethical. On a personal level, I absolutely do not believe that animal lives have any less inherent value than human lives. You may believe it is perfectly okay for 115 million animals to suffer every year so long as it benefits a higher number of humans, but we do not have to look very far into our own human history to see horrific examples of this cold, utilitarian idea in which it is acceptable for a minority to suffer for the good of the majority. The idea that some lives matter less than others has been responsible for some of the most horrific injustices in human history, and I do not believe this is an ethos any serious thinker should entertain.I honestly believe that at this point, the only thing we still have to learn from animal testing is the depths of cruelty that humans are willing to inflict on sentient beings.
asked by Anonymous