this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
190 points (67.9% liked)
memes
22064 readers
3242 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It could be made vegan. As someone who has to take nonvegan medication this and all the animal testing is a real issue.
Ok, straight to human testing then.
OMG 🤭 I needed your sense of humor so bad this morning. I was in a real pit and your wit has started something positive. I just want you to know how much I appreciated it. 🙏
Glad to help.
There are also many effective alternatives to animal testing in the case of vivisection for medical and pharmaceutical purposes. This is good news, since animals have been proven time and again to be poor models for the study of human injury and disease. But if this is the case, you might ask, why are animals still used in medical and pharmaceutical research at all? One reason is momentum. The tradition of vivisection is deeply ingrained in this research such that status quo bias is a powerful factor in perpetuating it. Another reason is money. Researchers receive grant money based on the number of papers they publish in scientific literature, and it is both easier and faster to use animals as test subjects than it is to undertake human-based research. Finally, while the FDA has often failed to show that the results of animal tests can be extrapolated to humans, companies still use animals in testing in order to protect themselves in the case of a lawsuit. This means that unreliable animal tests are giving rise to unreliable medical and pharmaceutical results, which result in unreliable treatments and medications that are themselves excused by the legal system because of the unreliable animal tests underpinning them. It is altogether a vicious circle that could be eliminated with a more sensible approach to medical and pharmaceutical research that does not involve animals at all.
https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/we-need-to-test-on-animals
Such as?
There are resources on that page. That is an area I know nothing about sadly.
Only resource i found on page that actually talk about alternative, work (dr. hadwen trust site dead, vivisectioninformation blog from 2012 and almost all linked site dead), and not video is https://aavs.org/
Alternative such as:
Original text make seem like animal test not necessary, but cited source say nothing of that. Only Ames even vegan (if you not consider bacteria animal too).
If post thing without understand, false information spread way faster because expect poster do due diligence.
There alternatives are still harm reduction, I agree that linkrot is a real issue and that animal testing is rather neglected by most vegans. However the fact that there are alternatives to the way we do animal testing, that quite a few are due to regulatory restrictions and not necessary in the scientific sense is not false information.
I would also like to point out that this expectation of always having a well-studied understanding with sources at the ready seems to not be applied when carnists post stuff like "animal testing is necessary", "animal ag's impact on the climate is negligible" etc.
No not false information as fake news. The word i search for was "Faktenverdrehung" in german which is not false information but something like warped information and not know good word in english. So i default to false information.
The second: just because opposition do bad thing not ok for you to do same. Especially if most important point to science, still able to get good result, is misrepresent. Maybe you care more about ethic than science, so might nitpick about thing that i specifially care lot about.
I not care if you understand fully what quote. But that know enough about source to jugde quality of information. And give context for that. For example that this website seem extremely focus on ethic, given only 3 source for science and a lot more for ethic. (And maybe if copy paste use > in front of text to show it quote and not own text, then i would go to website to search not ask you).
Also if care about link rot save important resource in wayback machine.