Russian Dog Experiment (Video is fake)
- Thread starter Robert1986
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
not at all, i just don't like the fact that people keep saying i'm condemning it as evil, when i haven't
the concentration camps were like butlins compared to the japanese with UNIT731.
Vivisections on living people with no anesthesia so they could see how the bodys organs react to various poisons etc.
women having there babys cut out with no anesthesia
people having parts of there body frozen and then quickly heated up in hot water etc with the skin falling off the limb and just the bone remaining all while they are fully concious and with no anesthesia.
women , men and children , babys tied to wooden steaks at varying distances in a radius around a grenade to see what injurys they would suffer.
Other experiments
Prisoners were subjected to other experiments such as:
* being hung upside down to see how long it would take for them to choke to death.[11]
* having air injected into their arteries to determine the time until the onset of embolism.[11]
* having horse urine injected into their kidneys.[11]
* being deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death.
* being placed into high-pressure chambers until death.
* being exposed to extreme temperatures and developing frostbite to determine how long humans could survive with such an affliction, and to determine the effects of rotting and gangrene on human flesh.[11]
* having experiments performed upon prisoners to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival.
* being placed into centrifuges and spun until dead.
* having animal blood injected and the effects studied.
* being exposed to lethal doses of x-ray radiation.
* having various chemical weapons tested on prisoners inside gas chambers.
* being injected with sea water to determine if it could be a substitute for saline.
* being buried alive. (This practice included infants.)
many of the "scientists" were later saved off any war crimes by the united states aslong as the good old USA could have some nice medical data..... most of them became top surgeons.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 8,537
i know that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,505
- Location
- West Sussex
looked and sounded like a Dharma initiative video
and it amazes me that people actually pay for Bupa
Last edited:
A discussion that's probably more suited to SC, really, though it's probably already been done to death there anyway.
I don't think any scientist around nowadays uses animal experimentation where there is no valid alternative in which the same tests can be achieved. In vitro testing of tissues/organs will only take you so far, however, and realistically, I don't believe we're ever going to completely eliminate the need for animal testing in trials of new drugs that are brought to market. It can be reduced, but not eliminated.
The situation is difficult, though. Just because the means of testing in the past is not politically correct nowadays, it doesn't mean we can't benefit from it. The first smallpox 'vaccine' was tested on a boy who was then deliberately infected - something that's not going to happen nowadays, but is still of relevance. Knowledge of frostbite and skin thawing was gained through repeated live limb freeze-thaw experiments by the Japanese in WWII. Though it isn't right, if it wasn't useful, the Americans wouldn't have granted the scientists clemency.
Now many might say that testing for vaccines and pharmaceuticals is a bit different to keeping a dog's head alive (if they even did). But is it? A lot of things have been found out through these sort of experiments. Until the mid 80s, when synthetic human growth hormone was finally produced, it used to be taken from human cadavers. From my perspective, my sister has Turner's syndrome (in fact, she's very interesting genetically) and has relied on HGH throughout her teenage years for proper growth. Whilst the means of its initial study was probably wrong (I'd imagine this goes all the way back to body snatching), I wouldn't not treat her / anybody else because of it.
The subject is a massive scale of grey, rather than black and white.
I don't think any scientist around nowadays uses animal experimentation where there is no valid alternative in which the same tests can be achieved. In vitro testing of tissues/organs will only take you so far, however, and realistically, I don't believe we're ever going to completely eliminate the need for animal testing in trials of new drugs that are brought to market. It can be reduced, but not eliminated.
The situation is difficult, though. Just because the means of testing in the past is not politically correct nowadays, it doesn't mean we can't benefit from it. The first smallpox 'vaccine' was tested on a boy who was then deliberately infected - something that's not going to happen nowadays, but is still of relevance. Knowledge of frostbite and skin thawing was gained through repeated live limb freeze-thaw experiments by the Japanese in WWII. Though it isn't right, if it wasn't useful, the Americans wouldn't have granted the scientists clemency.
Now many might say that testing for vaccines and pharmaceuticals is a bit different to keeping a dog's head alive (if they even did). But is it? A lot of things have been found out through these sort of experiments. Until the mid 80s, when synthetic human growth hormone was finally produced, it used to be taken from human cadavers. From my perspective, my sister has Turner's syndrome (in fact, she's very interesting genetically) and has relied on HGH throughout her teenage years for proper growth. Whilst the means of its initial study was probably wrong (I'd imagine this goes all the way back to body snatching), I wouldn't not treat her / anybody else because of it.
The subject is a massive scale of grey, rather than black and white.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 11,742
- Location
- Northern Ireland
The camps themselves were not necessary, but some of the experiments preformed in them would have had to been carried out somewhere else on something (be it a monkey, dog, human, whatever) whether you like it or not. Even the most outlandish experiments they preformed were useful scientifically, even if they just proved that the theory that led to the experiment was wrong.
not at all, i just don't like the fact that people keep saying i'm condemning it as evil, when i haven't
Now you're just pointing the finger at rob in the hopes that you won't have to admit you're just plain wrong. You may not have used the term 'evil' but you were the first to condemn the acts, labelling them things such as 'sick' and that they 'destroy your faith in humanity'.
The fact of the matter is, if it wasn't for these experiments odds are most of us wouldn't be here today. Vaccinations, organ and limb transplants and both every day and powerful medicines have and are all developed with the involvement of at least some animal testing. But then there's also the less direct impact on humans, for example animal vaccinations to allow for intensive livestock farming, something that has helped the world develop immensely, were developed through some rather gruesome forms of animal experimentation. I feel most of these experiments were never carried out with evil intent, or that they were wrong, they were performed in the hope that they might save the lives of millions and they have.
I also agree with rob that, while the concentration camps were not something that should have happened or ever be repeated, to throw away the findings of their research because they were obtained through evil intent would be insane.
Last edited:
why did they have to choose such a pretty dog 
Whilst it does seem barbaric i find it funny that we all probably wouldnt bat an eyelid if it was a fish or a snake or something pretty ugly which we can't stroke.
too much disney i say
Whilst it does seem barbaric i find it funny that we all probably wouldnt bat an eyelid if it was a fish or a snake or something pretty ugly which we can't stroke.
too much disney i say
Ladies and Gentlemen here we have our first human subject.
test at will because he says its ok to do so.
ASLONG as its none of his family/friends/pets/himself etc
^ You should read what he said more carefully. He didn't express an opinion and didn't say it was 'ok to do so'. What he said was that if it didn't happen, then we wouldn't be where we are now in terms of medical facilities. Are you arguing with that?
Don't put words in people's mouths.
Don't put words in people's mouths.
Last edited:
So if I put you under anaesthetic, then carried out similar experiments on you, would that also be okay, seeing as you wouldn't be able to feel it? I think not.
If I was about to die anyways, definitely yes, for the sake of science and to be of any use in my last days.
Also, why do you fail to see the difference between a dog and a human ?
Last edited:
Alternatively some of us value human life more than animal life and do not equate animals bred for experimentation to family pets?
I have no issues at all with animal experimentation for medical purposes. I would rather a million beagles die than my daughter or someone else from a disease that could have been prevented or cured via said experimentation.