Well, you know, I'm opposed to testing shampoo or soap or whatever on animals. But when it comes to medical experiments, especially very necessary experiments, I have to disagree with you. Yeah, a lot of those cats had to die so there would be a vaccine. But how many future cats did they save? How many cats have died of FIV in the years before they were able to get this far in the experiment? If you want the vaccine, then I think you have to accept how you get it.
As for the potential HIV vaccine - well, we're going to have to disagree there, too. Because I think if some cats can help us find a vaccine that will save 10 million kids in Africa, then it's a worthy price to pay. I don't want to torture or hurt any cats needlessly, but until there's some other alternative, it's what we have to do. Absolutely those cats, and all the other animals, deserve our respect and our thanks. Many of us would probably not be here without the sacrifices the animal race has made. And don't forget that the alpha interferon we use for our cats was found by researchers looking for a way to help humans with cancer. So, it's not like these experiments don't ultimately have some benefit for the cat population, as well. > > Jamie, > > I had exactly the same thoughts when I read it. So many cats sacrificed > does seem a high price to pay. It hits me very hard because I have an ex > "lab" cat. Carolina could well have been one of those sacrificed had she > remained in the lab environment. Cats are the unsung heroes of medical > research and should be treated with reverence by humans. > > Sharon > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 5:39 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: FIV vaccine > > > That is great! However, I can't help but dwell on that part where they > exposed cats to FIV intentionally. That's great that 67% of the vaccinated > cats did not get the disease, but 33% got it who wouldn't have otherwise. > Not to mention the 74% of the nonvaccinated cats who also became infected. > I just wish there was some other way to test these things. You know, they > pointed out how "AIDS" in cats, monkeys and humans is not the same. So that > begs the question, are they going to intentionally expose HIV- HUMANS to the > virus to test that vaccine when they develop it? It would possibly help > millions of people, so sacrificing a few humans for the greater good is > acceptable and should be done right? Right. Sounds ridiculous, but why is > that an acceptable thought process for dealing with cats? > Grrrr. Just > another of my soapbox issues! Sorry! :) > > Jamie
