Longest Thread Ever (Original title was "Like?")

[hayden]

"i don't necessarily think they're bad people (i think those that test on animals and humans are evil). "

Then can you please tell me what to test life-saving drugs on?...grass?

 

[sally]

PLEEEEASE....before you further debate with me on the subject, please visit these links and READ, and perhaps do your own research. I want to answer your question, but i really do not want a debate...it's gone on long enough; and strayed far from the topic of caudates.

WHY ANIMAL TESTING DOESN'T WORK / THE SCAM
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ghostwriting/
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/abs05.html
http://www.rds-online.org/money.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0%2C11381%2C646078%2C00.html
http://www.navs.org/news/drgreek_full_article.cfm?SectionID=News&NewsID=30
http://www.aaaai.org/aadmc/inthenews/wypr/1997archive/articlewriting.html
http://www.informedpharmacotherapy.com/Issue13/Editorial/editorial13.htm
http://hypocrisytoday.com/drugs.html
http://curezone.com/forums/f.asp?f=160

ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL TESTING
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22animal+testing%22+alternatives
http://www.navs.org/testing/alternatives_testing.cfm?SectionID=Testing

 

[dot]

If you're going to bring up these topics, then have the foresight to understand that people are going to want to debate you on them.

And just because the subject has strayed from caudates doesn't make it any less valid. Don't try to absolve yourself from the debate you started by claiming "It's not on the subject of caudates."

When your dog gets sick, and it had to have been sick at least once in the past 10 years you claim to have owned it, did you give it medicine? Hate to break it to you, but any medications administered by veterinarians were tested on animals. The same goes for the "homeopathic" remedies. Unless you've got some sort of divine knowledge of dosage and what will or will not poison your pet, the medication you administer have been tested on animals. Anyone who allows their pet to suffer, be it from cancer or arthritis or pancreatitis, because they do not believe in administering medications because they are "tested on animals," remember the vow you made when you first took on that pet - to care, love and make their years with you as comfortable as possible.

Something that may hit close to home: Did you ever try to switch your dog to a different food? That's animal testing. Granted, it's a very minor form of it, but you're testing whether or not your animal's body will agree with it. Would you continue to give your animal the same food even if that food gives the animal diarrhea and vomitting? Just a thought.

I know this is going to fall upon deaf ears, just like many of the very valid posts here have, but to sum everything up to now:
- You've condemned (yes, I used the word "condemned,") all zoos over the actions of a few. All zoos must be the work of Satan because a couple have been closed due to poor conditions.
(By the way, to whomever spoke out against keeping arctic animals in sub-tropical environments, some, if not many zoos not only chill the water kept in polar exhibits, but the terrestrial portions as well, and blast cold air into the exhibit, which is why it's often cooler when you approach a polar bear exhibit as opposed to say, zebras.)
- You don't drive yourself or buy food from grocery stores, but choose to purchase food from local farmers.
- You said you've had your dog since you were a child, "almost 10 years now" which would mean you're in your late teens or early twenties.
- You've yet to explain your beliefs, rather choosing to give us lists of links to websites written by others.

I hope I got all that.

Sadly, no matter what I say, it'll either be ignored or misunderstood. I've tried to state my point of view and it fell upon deaf ears. So with that, I'm washing my hands of this debate. It's not going anywhere, especially not if "Sally" won't even acknowledge our points, without giving off the aura that we're evil for not sharing her views.

Like Mike said, it's like arguing with a brick wall. But hell, even the Berlin Wall eventually fell ...

 

[kaysie]

Well said, Dot.

 

[edward]

Hmm,
Animal testing...
The problem with this is that we cannot phase this out of existance at this time as we cannot model the effects of many things via a non-animal system with any success.
With respect to drugs (any kind), the ingested item is often not the item of concern but the product after your body modifys it in the liver to make it easier to excrete is usually the bigger concern. The manner it which is modified and the extent by which it is modified to aid in excretion often defy accurate prediction anf when you then include that the modification often changes the action and affected locations (from organs as a whole to tissues to DNA in certain cells). We simply do not have a sufficient understanding of the biology of many of these drugs to predict the effects despite having excellant computers. You have to have a complete understanding of a system before you can accurately model it. (A good example of attempts to model a system without complete understanding is the weather).
At this time we cannot really even just use one species as there have been several drugs that showed not effect on rodents but severly affected primates in very negative manner.
This does not mean that there has been or currently is uneccessary testing. I am sure it occurs but as the costs of animal testing increases it will slowly be phased out as being to expensive to sustain indefinetly.
Unlike in the past, there is a screening practice that takes place before going to animal trials. The drug is run through a solution of enzymes taken from liver (collected from the meat industry) and reacted for a set period of time. The resulting soltion is then tested on bacterial colonies to look for mutagesisis and colony death. If it falls outside of some paramaters set by the FDA then unless it is of major health importance it is usually rejected.
Some comments.

Ed

 

[kim]

One thing i really have to say if that anyone has had a loved one or close friend or even themselfs come down with cancer(i would not wish it on anyone not even my worse enemy), would you not want something to help cure it or even just give you pain relief.

I have had a very close family member die from cancer, this person sadly died 2years after finding out they had it. They were offered treatment which could possibly cure it and guess what it was tested on ainmals. Unforunatly it only slowed down the progress of the cancer and near the end all they could be given was pain relief and as i said sadly died after 2years.

But my point is that there are life saving and life pro-longing drugs out there that have can will and maybe save someones life at some point. Yes they have been tested on a ainmal at some point, but wouldnt anyone is this situation want something? It's just like when people have there pets put down because they are ill these drugs are also tested on ainmals, you wouldnt let your pet suffer?

I personally hate ainmals testing but if it was not for this, this great person i knew would have died within weeks and may never been able to say there good byes to family and friends and do that 'one last thing'.

Sorry to have to be grim.. but you have to except that people have different views. I dont like unnecessary ainmal testing but i believe that many people, ainmals love ones and loved pets would have been in alot of unnecessary pain.

But when you post something like this you have to be ready to except people views no matter how strong they are!

 

[sally]

"If you're going to bring up these topics, then have the foresight to understand that people are going to want to debate you on them."

Obviously i did have the foresight, that is why i asked that people READ the information at the links i provided and perhaps do their OWN research BEFORE debating any further. Did you read all of the information?

"And just because the subject has strayed from caudates doesn't make it any less valid. Don't try to absolve yourself from the debate you started by claiming "It's not on the subject of caudates.""

I said that because i no longer think this debate is appropriate on this forum. It could go on forever...

"I know this is going to fall upon deaf ears, just like many of the very valid posts here have"

I feel the same way, dot.

"All zoos must be the work of Satan because a couple have been closed due to poor conditions."

I did not say that - and all things, even evil, are the works of God to bring out the goodness in life. So i know there is a devine plan, but i will not accept what i feel Christ wouldn't accept. Though i do sometimes.

"(By the way, to whomever spoke out against keeping arctic animals in sub-tropical environments, some, if not many zoos not only chill the water kept in polar exhibits, but the terrestrial portions as well, and blast cold air into the exhibit, which is why it's often cooler when you approach a polar bear exhibit as opposed to say, zebras.)"

With the amount of money they spend on creating the "Arctic" in a subtropical climate, they could be using in much more productive ways by leaving Arctic aniamls in zoos/refuges in a more hospitable environment where it's naturally cold (eg Canada, Alaska, Northern US, Europe). This only makes sense. It doesn't make sense to throw a monkey in the Arctic, why throw a polar bear into a subtropical climate?

"You've yet to explain your beliefs, rather choosing to give us lists of links to websites written by others."

Yes, i have been stating my beliefs, perhaps you haven't been thoroughly reading the posts. I've provided the links so that you will do your own research and not have to fight with me about the truth you're presented with. If you don't believe it, fine, that is your choice.

"Sadly, no matter what I say, it'll either be ignored or misunderstood. I've tried to state my point of view and it fell upon deaf ears. So with that, I'm washing my hands of this debate. It's not going anywhere, especially not if "Sally" won't even acknowledge our points, without giving off the aura that we're evil for not sharing her views."

Well, thanks for at least making the effort to get in that last word Dot (intentionally sarcastic). I have been acknowledging your points..i thought that was obvious. Sorry if i seem a little vague, you don't want to see the ways that we agree, only the ways that we don't.

Ed, again, thank you for your comments. I don't agree with you on everything (there is much that goes on in both animal and human testing that is just plain rediculous and cruel), but at least you're patient and get your point accross without being rude.

 

[kim]

Sally dont you have any views on my post you seem to be very vocal towards everyone else!?

From having a chat with some un-named others in the chat room we believe that you only see what you want to see from others post.

By not answering my questions or some of Dot's and ED's we believe that you do agree with them and dont want this to be known.

I think that you are just out to wind people up about there beloved pets.

You havnt mention anything about our points regarding animal testing when when you made a big stink about it.

Just because we don't agree with your points does not mean that we don't know the other side as well. You shouldn't just assume that we didn't do any "research" of our own.

I know that there are life saving treatments out there that have been tested on ainmals and if it wasnt for that we may have had huge epidemics.

We have also been lead to believe that the AIDs vaccines are tested on Chimps.. Just think about the amount of lives that is helping to improve?

Just think about that when starting something like this off again.

 

[edward]

snip "Ed, again, thank you for your comments. I don't agree with you on everything (there is much that goes on in both animal and human testing that is just plain rediculous and cruel), but at least you're patient"

I don't think I argued against that in my statement...
But the situation is not as black and white as most of the groups would make it out to be.
I normally try to judge each study on the possible gains over the long haul before I judge it as ridiculous or not. For example in either Natural History or Discovery (not the most recent), one of the articles discussed attacks by conservative politicians on research into health practices and epidemology of the trucking industry (as well as other research projects) by basically stating that who cares about the sex practices of some of the long haul truckers. In the initial study the data presented a similar pattern to the spread of stds as well as HIV as occured in Africa. This can have enormous implications on resurgence of the disease in new demographics if the research is curtailed too early. Some people consider this to be ridiculous research....

Thanks for the compliment. Its a little harder to ruffle my feathers....

On the artic mammal front, the region of the artic in which these animals live usually gets into the 80 Fs or higher in the summer...
WIth respect to the polar bears, if they are wc then they are usually habituated animals that are presenting a danger to humans and are brought into Zoos as opposed to shooting them.
With animals that do not adapt well to warmer regions such as musk ox, reindeer and some of the other species you will not see them in responsiable Zoos in regions where they will have health issues.

Ed

 

[pin-pin]

Ed, you need to be a moderator on this forum. In all seriousness. I learned a lot from your replies.

Your feathers, they are so unruffled....

(Message edited by apples on August 17, 2004)

 

[edward]

I don't know, the power could go to my head creating a monster.

Thanks for the compliment though.

Ed

 

[sally]

"Sally dont you have any views on my post you seem to be very vocal towards everyone else!?"

Not really, Kim...i'm not looking for a fight. It's obvious that we will not agree, so i try to avoid what i know you do not care to hear. I've been doing that out of consideration of you and others on this forum, believe it or not.

"From having a chat with some un-named others in the chat room we believe that you only see what you want to see from others post."

I'm almost flattered.

But are you the type to talk badly about someone behind their backs?

"By not answering my questions or some of Dot's and ED's we believe that you do agree with them and dont want this to be known."

It's a matter of trying to avoid a useless debate.

"You havnt mention anything about our points regarding animal testing when when you made a big stink about it."

I didn't make a "big stink" about it, i replied to a question. I don't need to give you my opinion concerning your points because i know that you would not agree with me. I've provided some links that i thought would be of some insight. Take it or leave it.
If i KNOW that you're not going to agree with me and you're only going to argue that i'm wrong and accuse me of being judgmental for having different opinions, why should i bother?

"Just because we don't agree with your points does not mean that we don't know the other side as well. You shouldn't just assume that we didn't do any "research" of our own."

Ditto

"We have also been lead to believe that the AIDs vaccines are tested on Chimps.. Just think about the amount of lives that is helping to improve?"

I personally am very against vaccines. Yes, i said <u>PERSONALLY</u>.

"Just think about that when starting something like this off again."

My comment about animal testing was directed to Karin and Karin ALONE...it was in reply to her/his comment also about animal testing. So why are you attacking me personally as an individual and by name when everything that i've said concerning my opinions was very general and definately NOT directed to anyone in particular?

"But the situation is not as black and white as most of the groups would make it out to be."

I just want to note though, Ed...i am not of any group...i'm an individual that takes all evidence presented before me into account.

"Ed, you need to be a moderator on this forum. In all seriousness. I learned a lot from your replies.

Your feathers, they are so unruffled...."

I agree, Ed..you're cool.... Strangly some here don't care to notice that you and i debate in respect for eachother's opinions.

 

[edward]

snip "I just want to note though, Ed...i am not of any group...i'm an individual that takes all evidence presented before me into account. "

I wasn't aware that I had implied that you were part of any specific group (or groups as this was not my intent). I was referring to the citations that you provided.
Many of the tests that are preferred by the antianimal testing groups are insufficient to determine what the total pharmokinetics are of any specific drug (this has been the stand by these groups since before the early 1980s). They are suitable as a basic mutagen/toxicity test (as a prelude and and an aid to determine if it warrents going into animal trials) but these basic assays again do not cover all of the bases when it comes to how it affects any part of an entire organism much less the total organism. We simply are not able to model this sufficiently for anyone's safety as of yet.
People need to keep in mind that animal testing is expensive particuarly when compared to testing against established cell lines. If it wasn't necessary companies would drop it like a hot potato to boost profits.


As a side comment to both sides, people get emotional when items (such as beliefs) near and dear to them get questioned. It does no good to become emotional about it as this will without a doubt prevent your words from being heard. I think my favorite phrase describing this is "pounding sand down a rat hole".

I still would like to see a seperate thread started about setting up outside habitats for caudates as the question was listed in the original post and surely needs further discussion.

Thank you for the compliment.
Ed

 

[al]

Sally,
Being a well studied with the christian faith and the bible ("the word"), you're extreme veiwpoint and argument with animal cruelty is not supported by any theology found in the bible. The Hebrew practice of sacrifice alone give historic accounts of blood and gore. Animals where raised, killed, beaten, exploited, utilized in many ways. Some (1 or 2) proverbs of kind treatment to animals was mentioned concerning wisdom and being of a more noble character. Animals were not put on any human level or given much attention to scripture or prophesy in the bible. I believe there are many grey areas that leave the believer to come to their own convictions.
I frankly do not care how many rats are chopped up in a lab to find a cure for a disease or whatever. And frankly if shaving the back of a rabbit to apply lotions/soap products to see if they will cause irritation is okay with me! As long as my 5 year old daughter can have a shampoo that will not burn her eyes out or create disfiguring skin reactions...I vote for my 5 year old daughter...the h*ll with the rat! BTW we have 2 pet rats, yes in a cage, and my kids love them, feed and care for them. We got them from a farm/business called "Snake Snacks"! They were supposed to be snake food, but now are pets.
I work for Duke Medical Center as a Nurse and feel real good about animal testing. And when anyone that is a part of the protesters comes down with some form of rare blood discrasia (leukemia), you better thank all the thousands of rats, rabbits, and mice that were "sacrificed" in the name of medicine/science. When you see small children with fatal diseases flown in from all over the country for treatment, you don't say ..."man, I bet that new chemotherapy drug was tested on animals! Don't give it to that child! Read these web sites!" as you look into the parent's eyes....Some peoples beliefs and convictions on the subject of animal testing are from warm cozy houses, in front of their computers, with no illness plaguing themselves or their loved ones. I say to some of them, Go volunteer on a regular basis on a pediatric cancer floor. Reality check! I am sick and sad of hearing animal rights when people are hurting and suffering all around you. Kill the animal, eat, and keep warm....for the love of Mike.

Frankly I don't care about this thread anymore, I am eating a steak right now and thinking about harvesting a squirrel later (aka "tree rat")

Al

 

[sally]

For anyone who believes that the information given by my link resources is just animal
activist propaganda, read this document: http://www.sumeria.net/health/prism.html

The extremist animal rights people depicted in the media are a very small percentage of the
animal rights movement. Most are individuals such as myself that have compassion for human
and animal life and care about the well-being of the world as a whole. Most animal rights
activists do not go around naked throwing paint on people's fur coats and telling
meat-eaters they're evil murderers, just as most against abortion don't go around bombing
clinics - that's all MEDIA PROPAGANDA - don't be fooled by campaigns that only GAIN from making compassionate people look psychotic.

But a few things everyone must not forget:
1. Certain powers-that-be are manipulating animal activists by trying to give animals the
same rights as humans and therefore turning humans into nothing but cattle/inventory (don't
accept the chip!).
2. The media always tells you how they WANT you to feel; they set the stage for
mind-control, don't take the bait.
3. The world is filled with much more evil than most want to recognize; but don't be
deceived, evil is sneaky. Evil presents itself as good in order to survive; if evil can't
fool you, it can't win - remember that.

"People need to keep in mind that animal testing is expensive particuarly when compared to testing against established cell lines. If it wasn't necessary companies would drop it like a hot potato to boost profits."

This is not true, Ed, because it is the taxpayers money as well as many organizations that fund a lot of animal testing. There are many organizations out there that claim to raise money to find a "cure" - a cure for anything. All that money funds the "research": animal testing. Are you getting your money's worth? Animal testing is also used by companies as a sort of insurance. Rodents are easily bred and kept in captivity; a few mice to them are cheaper than an entire customer base or a law suit. Also note that over-the-counter cosmetics and chemicals are NOT required by law to be tested on animals (but they are anyway).

Because animals metabolize drugs differently than humans and have very different reactions to tests, animal testing is completely useless.

Even if animal testing did work (which it doesn't), i would rather die than support THIS <font face="symbol">¯</font> :

ANIMAL HOLOCAUST
Experimentation With Animals
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/jpg/vivi10.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/html/fvivi.html&h=188&w=290&sz=13&tbnid=LHx7GBvjMJgJ:&tbnh=71&tbnw=109&start=18&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvivisection%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8
http://www.londonpunks.co.uk/vivisection.htm
http://www.bava.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/photos1.html
http://www.arkangelweb.org/barry/vivisection.shtml
http://www.all-creatures.org/ha/Shoseki_e.html
http://www.xenodiaries.org/summary.htm
http://association.lamart.free.fr/vivisection-01.htm
http://www.primatefreedom.com/Mission.html
http://www.disinformazione.it/vivisezione.htm
http://animauzine.net/IMG/jpg/siencedemence.jpg
http://www.kolumbus.fi/juhana.lauronen/Vivisection6iso.jpg
http://membres.lycos.fr/solice/exper_singevivi.jpg
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/sub/zolavic.jpg
http://terresacree.org/images/singecanule2.jpg
http://terresacree.org/images/maig80.jpg
http://images.google.com/images?q=vivisection&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=0&sa=N

HUMAN HOLOCAUST
Experimentation With Humans
http://www.shoah.dk/doctors/index.htm
http://www.deathcamps.info/Experiments/experiments2.htm
http://images.google.com/images?q=holocaust%20experiments&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

Human and animal experimentation....both done in the name of medical advancement. All it has created is more serial killers. http://website.lineone.net/~tymaloney/info.htm


As surviving victim of The Angel Of Death, Josef Mengele, Alex Dekel later stated:

"Mengele ran a butcher shop - major surgeries were performed without anesthesia. Once, I witnessed a stomach operation - Mengele was removing pieces from the stomach, but without any anesthetic. Another time, it was a heart that was removed, again, without anesthesia. It was horrifying. Mengele was a doctor who became mad because of the power he was given. Nobody ever questioned him - why did this one die? Why did that one perish? The patients did not count. He professed to do what he did in the name of science, but it was a madness on his part ..."

http://www.masskilling.com/

Some of the tests preformed on animals:

Eye Irritancy Tests: Experimenters drop substances like shampoo, mouthwash, and floor cleaner into the eyes of fully consciouse rabbits and record the damage, which can include ulceration, bleeding, and blindness. Animals who don't die are often "recycled" for use in other tests.

Lethal Dose Tests: Toothpaste, lipstick, liquid soap, ink, oven cleaner, and other chemicals are pumped into animals' stomachs to determine how much will kill or incapacitate them. Death comes from painful poisoning or stomach rupture.
Inhalation Tests: Animals are forced to inhale massive amounts of aerosol products, such as air freshener, deodorant, and hair spray, until they die from asphyxiation or poisoning.

Skin Irritancy Tests: Nail polish remover, furniture wax, hair removers, drain cleaners, and other substances are smeared onto rabbits' shaved, raw skin. Blistering and bleeding commonly result. Some chemicals eat completely through the animals' tender skin.


HHmmmmmm...how about i just use natural products...if a product is so dangerous that it has to be tested on "disposable" animals to gage the damage it does, then i don't want anything to do with it (for my own safety)!

Make sure you check out all the links, wouldn't want anyone to miss the pictures of our
"miracles of medicine".

================================================

"The Hebrew practice of sacrifice alone give historic accounts of blood and gore."

They were killed, not tortured; big difference.

"Animals where raised, killed, beaten, exploited, utilized in many ways."

Does that make it right? The bible gives more accounts of this happening to humans than animals. Many wrongs were used in the bible to give us examples of what was wrong and what displeases God.

More on bible scripture later....maybe....

 

[joseph]

Natural is poisonous mushrooms, natural is sumac and hemlock.

 

[joseph]

BTw, what exactly is useless debate? You haven't answered much on the topic-salamanders in captivity.

I'm quite unsure if you are for or against keeping salamanders in captivity or if you are just against improper captive care(which caudata.org is trying to solve).

 

[kim]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

 

[edward]

snip ""People need to keep in mind that animal testing is expensive particuarly when compared to testing against established cell lines. If it wasn't necessary companies would drop it like a hot potato to boost profits."

This is not true, Ed, because it is the taxpayers money as well as many organizations that fund a lot of animal testing. There are many organizations out there that claim to raise money to find a "cure" - a cure for anything. All that money funds the "research": animal testing. Are you getting your money's worth? Animal testing is also used by companies as a sort of insurance. Rodents are easily bred and kept in captivity; a few mice to them are cheaper than an entire customer base or a law suit. Also note that over-the-counter cosmetics and chemicals are NOT required by law to be tested on animals (but they are anyway)."

Actually with reference to the tax payer money, as I understand it is rarely available to the for-profit pharmaceutical companies. Most of this sort of funding is used in academia (which is small scale compared to the pharmaceutical companies). I will grant that there are collaborations where a comapny supplies extra funding to a researcher in addition to the grants supplied by the tax payer but these are often for initial results that are then placed on a large scale by the company (this may be slightly out of date as it has been more than 13 years since I worked in that industry).

With respect to my money's worth, I would need to review each specific grant before I gave an absolute yes or no but I can give a qualified yes. The reason is the same as I stated above, until we can come up with a system that allows modeling of the effects of a particuarly agent in a biological organism with an excellant degree of certainty then we are stuck with animal testing.

The rodents used in this sort of testing are really not that cheap anymore as they have to all be certified as genetically identical, the same age, sex and many are microchipped for individual identification (at a cost of more than $10 a mouse), and are housed in expensive climate controlled setups regulated and inspected by the USDA. These are not inexpensive setups. Some of the mice used in these tests can cost several hundred dollars (or way more for rodents reared in sterile conditions) apiece if certain genetic strains are required for the testing. In addition with respect to academia, there are committes at each institution that are made up of staff and nonstaff memebers with at least one veterinarian that are supposed to ensure that the testing is reviewed and approved compliant with IUCAC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) regulations.

snip "Because animals metabolize drugs differently than humans and have very different reactions to tests, animal testing is completely useless. "

This is at best a partially true statement. Most of the biological pathways are identical in allmost all mammalian systems. This homology in biochemsitry even extends to a lesser extent to avian, reptilian and amphibians systems. If this was not the case then antibiotic use in these systems would be useless as the models for the pharmokinetics would not hold up under field use.
There are rare instances where a drug is metabolized differently in rodents (look up the Case of the Frozen Addicts for an example of this) but the majority of drugs are metabolized the same way. Rodent and human metabolism is consistant enough that rodents can be used as useful models (both in development of the disease and its treatment) for a number of genetic disorders in humans such as diabetes.

Animal testing is expensive, it is cumbersome, it is time consuming, it requires large outlays of resources, it requires large amounts of manpower. All of these are reasons why a for profit company would love to get out of it if it had a viable alternative. As there is no viable alternative, we are stuck with animal testing.
(Yes I used the word stuck and I feel it is apt).
Is there unecessary testing, sure, no one really needs cosmetics. The more people purchase cosmetics that have not been tested on animals the less demand there is for these items. Or you can purchase grandfathered items that have been on the market so long that they never had to undergo animal testing (ivory soap for example). That is a personal choice for each person to make.
I'm getting pretty tired now and may start to babble so I am ending this round.

Ed

 

[dot]

Here's a statistic taken from my old Psych 101 textbook:

In studies of the human genome, out of three billion bases (Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, Cytosine,) 99.9% of genetic material is common to humans. 1/10th of a percent is responsible for genetic differences.

Its relevance to animal testing:
Humans and mice contain 99% of the same genes.