Mars Candy murders animals in cruel testings
 

http://www.marscandykills.com/


Something I would like to share.


Gotta love this video. It's something that unfortunately got scarcity value these days, because movies about truths are rarely shown on TV.
I wish ANYone could see it. Hear it, and feel it.

I like Mars Bars.

Continue the tests!

Well I eat Maltesers, so I'm sweet.

I just KNEW that those M&Ms I had the other day tasted funky...You can even get dirt flavour. Phah, stupid, stupid chocolate makers! Hiding their true intentions with fattening sweets, may their eyes be puntured by needles.

Mars once (allegedly) hired the CIA to spy on foreign chocolate companies.

Mars do animal testing, too? I never knew that. I don’t get their stuff now, but I used to by pretty faithful to them after I learnt about Nestlé’s corporate doings. Phooey. Thanks for this, Matriar.

Poor animals...

Er- somewhat one-sided, presented without context nor outcome.

People who do this to animals should be get everything they did on the animals done to them, then have all their limbs cut off so they have to go through life as a quad amputee, without getting artificial limbs. Then they should have their genitalia cut off and fed to them.


I'm speaking broadly, not just about Mars, if this is true.

That video seems rather odd. Those videos look like they've all come from different sources. They are all jumbled. Some of the experiments make no sense e.g. the cat had a diode on it's head. Aside from that individual experiment seeming odd due to the type of port (one from the back of a computer monitor) that was there, why would Mars do that kind of testing? The only kind of testing I can think of they'd need to do is ones on their sweets to make sure there's no poisonous chemicals.

I hope that isn't some junk website made to take your money when they're not really going to use it to try to prevent animal testing...

Hehe people are glukkons and animals are mudokons.
Don't you think?

Hehe, do I get this new username or not? ;)

The thing about animal testing is; it doesn't HAVE to make sense!
As said in the video: "We know that cigarettes are unhealthy. So why do we have to make monkeys smoke them anyway?"


Oddworld takes inspiration from stuff like that, yeah. That's why I love these games. Fuzzles are the mice, vykkers are the cold animal testers, glukkons are the businessmen for such stuff,... it's quite clear when you think about it. :)

Hey, I'm pretty sure they skin babies and fuck their eyesockets too, you know, just because they're evil.

Who's Abe? Are you saying Jesus is an animal?

lol

Uhh...Every cruel animal experiment I've seen HAS had some sort of point.

So I'm calling bullshit on this like all the other alarmist crap PETA spouts.

If I don't play(?) devil's advocate, who will?

Actually, we have to justify every procedure before we go ahead. That was thee first thing we were taught in our first animal behaviour practical (we let the flies go free afterwards, to the infinite chagrin of everyone in the building). They're experiments, yes, but there has to be a purpose and method beforehand, and a necessary one, if live animals are going to be involved (most experiments leave the subject none the worse afterwards). I fear for the justification of some experiments, we are not free of rogues and unpleasant characters, but experiments with smoking will continue until people stop smoking, it is as simple as that. These particular experiments sound just like the ones that established that Vitamin C can help stave off the harmful effects of smoking on the foetus of a pregnant mother who won't quit. Come to think of it, this information might just stop more mothers from quitting, but the implications of releasing scientific discoveries to the world is not the issue at hand.

As a rule of thumb for consumer products: if it has a health warning on it, it was probably tested on animals. If it doesn't have a health warning on it, it was more than likely tested on animals. If the product's packaging does not explicitly state "this product was not tested on animals" then the chances are that it was tested on animals. If the product claims "*corporation brand* does not support the testing of products on animals and funds research into alternatives" then it is a pretty safe bet that it was tested on animals, albeit begrudgingly (or so they claim).

And if it is a medicinal product, a drug or band aid or medicine or ointment or treatment, from non-prescription to surgery technique, by Odd, you'd better believe that it was tested on animals.

And how much of these modern products and lifesavers would have been allowed to be used on humans, both commercially and for trials? Not many, I'd wager. Whether you like it or not, the vast majority of us have built our lifestyles, at least in part, on the backs of billions of animal test subjects. Which, I hasten to add, is infrequently the kind of procedures that PETA would ever show.

This doesn't mean I support animal testing wholesale. I don't think that cosmetics and convenience products are worth testing on animals. Though if we called a halt to that we could expect to see a lot less of that sort of stuff on the shelves, certainly fewer new products. Primate research, too, I can't abide, it feels too much like cannibalism. But then we would say bye-bye to our most valuable infectious diseases research, including Hepatitis and HIV.

I know how everyone reacts when they here about animal testing, particularly as portrayed by PETA. It is a gut reaction of disgust and horror that most of us are familiar with. Even some actual researchers I've spoken to who perform such research have shared the same sentiment and will like hell there was another way. But they believe in the work they do and can't provide an equal simulation of a living organism, even a living system. There's just no way right now. Opponents to animal testing, both in the scientific community and outside of it, have been calling for alternatives for over a hundred years. They might have made more progress with their campaign had they offered one.


I just wonder how many people, if they knew what they would have to give up, would have the strength of mind and character to maintain their vehement opposition. We're all Khanzumerz at heart. If you want to change it, talking on a forum won't help, and campaigning noisily hasn't done much good. either. Researchers have gone to work despite being firebombed. The only way is to stop supporting products and procedures that rely on animal testing. I doubt this will be successful either, after all, you will have to request that you not be resuscitated should the time come.

This is what I think about this. Animal testing is one of the wrongest and sickest things that the human race does, however it is true that some research (such as deadly diseases as Bullet Magnet mentioned) is necessary for our survival.

But haven't most tests for everything been done already? And what about pointless tests on cosmetics and food products that shouldn't need to exist? One is clear: We take animal tests for granted, when IMO, it should only be used as a last resort, and only for life-threatening diseases, and definately not when there are alternatives, and especially not on pointless products. Part of the reason we test on animals is due to our greed and because we like to consume (new products get made even though something like them exists already), and that, IMO, is incredibly unethical and cruel.

As for this Mars thing, I don't really trust PETA 100% because they're too agressive and give other campaigners a bad name. Some stuff they do is good, sure, but maybe sometimes I think they go too far foward into thier cause to be reasonable, if you see what I mean.

If I were everyone, I'd take this with a pinch of salt. It's not 'cause I support Mars - I don't even like or buy thier products, and any huge corperation is bad in a lot of ways. However these tests aren't reasonable - If they really take place, it's sick and sadistic, but they seem too unreal and pointless to believe. Maybe I'd believe what PETA were saying if more people were saying the same thing, too.

EDIT:
Another thing against animal testing that I thought of. Most other creatures are very different from humans anyway - How do scientists know that a product/chemical/drug will behave in the same way when applied to humans as it does when applied to animals? Doesn't this make some animal tests even more pointless and unreliable?

Amen to that, Dark Hood!

I should add that alternatives are being found for some applications, such as skin cell cultures to test the effect of products on human skin. Since it is safety that is the main requirement for testing, this is enabling a great deal of animal testing to come to an end, however, more and more research that requires more complex interactions is becoming necessary. We still cannot simulate entire biological systems, let alone organisms, neither can we produce many organs adequate for testing. There was a functional rat's heart grown recently (that operated that 1% of a normal heart's capacity- actually quite an achievement) but it requires the natural collagen scaffold of a rat's heart to produce. As well as the obvious future human application for organ production, it may one day enable another alternative to testing on whole live animals. The biting irony is that producing alternatives to animal testing may require animal tests to be performed.

Actually, that is an interesting point. Animals are more similar to human and other species than most people realise. But does such similarity to humans support or further vilify such testing?

Obviously, the choice of species is an important one. Research species are necessarily well understood, as both the reason for and result of using them. You would not test penicillin-related medicines on guinea pigs, for example, that's just common sense (it is deadly poisonous to them). Instead you would use mice, as they were used when penicillin was first being refined into a usable treatment. Similarly, research into many human infectious diseases, when a whole organism is required, needs species that can actually be infected by the particular pathogen, which (and I cannot abide this) often means testing on great apes. Some diseases, such as HIV, only recently jumped species to us from these primates, where such strains are known as SIV. It works both ways, wild mountain gorillas are under threat from human measles, and all great apes are periodically ravaged by Ebola.

Normally one would select several species for preliminary examinations in case there will be any important differences. The use of transgenic animals is also becoming more common (animals with human genes), and may soon see the practical application of chimeras, whose organs are physiologically and genetically almost entirely human.

What is not frequently mentioned is that animal testing paves the way for human trials. This is where they are refined and their effects on specifically human physiology is examined. These are usually very similar, if not identical, to effects in the non-human species they were first tested on. The rules for human trials are even more strict than they are for trials on sentient animals, they are rarely given the go-ahead without data from animal tests beforehand and of course, it is very rare that you will be allowed to dissect your human test subjects.

I was gonna mention the 'growing organs in jars' thing. I can almost see some stupid Catholics complaining that it's immoral though...right, so it's worse than testing on living creatures is it?

When we refine the art of growing body parts separately from the body, it seems the best idea to grow human ones.

BM, Dark Hood, seconded.

That should be immoral? Hahaha! These Catholics don't even know about the meaning of this word since... anyway! I don't have something against putting organs in such jars and let them watch what happens. I mean, hey, they're just organs!
Unless you use organs of animals that should be protected from becoming extinct, maybe. :)

Jesus is indeed a human race, wich means, Abe is at the top.

What the hell are you trying to say AlienMagi?
If you are trying to say anything anti religeous, I advise you strongly against it, I'm defensive abotu my faith, and I am sure others are too.
Otherwise, I made no sence of your post.

I wouldn't worry about that. It was far too unintelligible to possibly cause offence.

I meant to say that Jesus IS a human, and that means abe is better then glukkons.
Glukkons=people, abe=jesus and jesus is beter than other people right?
I hope you understand what the hell am I trying to say.

AlienMagi

Okay, I'm going to steer this back on course.


What about animal testing for veterinary science?

Therefore he is Glukkon! (:

*Ahem*

Well hey, isn't that what we did to other humans 'back in the day' to find out more about medical science? If we didn't do that, we could say goodbye to life-saving influenza vaccinations and penicillin. Even simple stuff like putting a splint on a broken limb wouldn't exist if someone hadn't gone "Hey- let me do this to your wound."

Pointless animal testing is just that; pointless. And in the real world, real people with real goals simply don't have the time or money to be doing anything that has no point.

No he is better then Glukkons.
Jesus is better then normal human right?

No, he's a fuckwit like you. =P

im against the whole animal testing thing.done.