Are you against testing on rats? I know that this question might seem obvious because you're against using animals in that manner, but scientists have made a lot of progress with cures for a lot of human diseases by using rats.
yeah i am against vivisection (live animal testing). although i do agree that modern medicine has been somewhat furthered through the use of animal testing, these tests have been proven to be unreliable due to the physiological differences in humans and the animals used in testing (rats, guinea pigs etc).
the food and drug administration (FDA) has noted that 92% of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they are ineffective or dangerous. furthermore, of the small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabeled because of side effects that were not identified in animal tests.
animal testing is unreliable due to the artificial environment they are placed in, differences between species (e.g. penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses — all of these are different to the reaction in humans)
conducting observational or experimental studies on willing humans is the way to go.
some alternatives to animal testing (x):
Selective formulation: Choosing previously tested ingredients to create new products eliminates the need for further testing. Many manufacturers follow this principle in planning their product lines.
Human cultures: Epiderm and EpiSkin are human skin cells grown in test tubes that are layered to mimic the structure of human skin. Cosmetics and household products can be tested on these rather than the skin of live rabbits. Corrositex is another test-tube option that gives an easy-to-read color change reaction to a hazardous product. And EpiOcular, a mass of skin cells specially grown to form a thin layer like that of the human cornea, has the potential to completely replace the cruel rabbit eye irritancy test.
Skin cultures: taken by permission during surgical procedures (such as breast-reduction surgery) can be used to test whether a chemical can pass through the skin and be a potential poison risk.
Surgical specimens: are also the main source of human tissues available from the National Disease Research Interchange (NDRI) in Philadelphia. This non-profit tissue bank makes more than 100 types of human tissues available for medical research. NDRI, along with Asterand, a company with offices in the US, UK and Japan that supplies human biomaterials for research, has made it easier than ever for companies to access human cells for testing.
Physiological chip: Just as a microchip holds an intricate system of electronic connections, this 1×1-inch square of cultured cells is made up of cell compartments that are linked by a lifelike circulatory system that mimics the complex functions of the human body. The chips, developed by the Hµrel Corporation in Beverly Hills, CA, can be used to test for harmful (and beneficial) effects of experimental drugs, as well as toxicity of the liver and other organs.
Cellular tests: Experiments that measure white blood cell response to chemicals and medical substances can be used in place of rabbit injections. These tests check for unexpected fever and inflammationespecially from receiving intravenous medications. The European Union just approved the use of five of these tests.
Bacteria-based: tests performed on common microbes such as salmonella can be used to assess whether chemicals can damage DNA, and therefore present a cancer risk.
Microdosing Minuscule: amounts of a test substancemuch smaller than a typical dose used for medical purposesare given to human volunteers so that researchers can track how the substances are transported and absorbed throughout the body xxx