279°
EXPIRED
Aussie Shampoo/Conditioner only £2 and some are £3 @ superdrugs!
Aussie Shampoo/Conditioner only £2 and some are £3 @ superdrugs!

Aussie Shampoo/Conditioner only £2 and some are £3 @ superdrugs!

Buy forBuy forBuy for£2
GETGet dealVisit site and get deal
was £3.37 now £2 each:
AUSSIE VOLUME CONDITIONER 250ML
AUSSIE 2IN1 SKIP A STEP 300ML
AUSSIE REAL VOLUME SHAMPOO 300ML
AUSSIE MEGA SHAMPOO 300ML
AUSSIE MEGA INSTANT CONDITIONER 250ML
AUSSIE LONG SHAMPOO 300ML
AUSSIE MIRACLE HAIR LEAVE-IN CONDITIONER 250ML
AUSSIE COLOURMATE SHAMPOO 300ML
AUSSIE COLOUR MATE CONDITIONER 250ML
AUSSIE MIRACLE COLOUR INSURANCE 250ML
AUSSIE MIRACLE MOISTURE CONDITIONER 250ML
AUSSIE MIRACLE MOISTURE SHAMPOO 300ML
AUSSIE CONDITIONER LONG 250ML
AUSSIE SMOOTH MATE SHAMPOO 300ML
AUSSIE SMOOTH MATE CONDITIONER 250ML
AUSSIE LEAVE-IN SPRAY LONG 250ML

was £4.40 now £3 each:
AUSSIE DUAL PERSONALITY STRAIGHTENING & PROTECTION TREATMENT
AUSSIE DUAL PERSONALITY SHINE & COLOURED HAIR PROTECTOR
AUSSIE DUAL PERSONALITY CURL DEFINITION & SOFT FEEL
AUSSIE DUAL PERSONALITY ANTI-FRIZZ & PROTECT CONDITIONER
AUSSIE 3 MINUTE MIRACLE FRIZZ REMEDY BOTTLE 250ML
AUSSIE 3 MINUTE MIRACLE COLOUR CONDITIONER 250ML
AUSSIE 3 MINUTE MIRACLE CONDITIONER 250ML
AUSSIE 3 MINUTE MIRACLE INTENSIVE CONDITIONER LONG 250ML

about £3.50/£4.50 each elsewhere.
any 2 for £5 @ Tesco
selected 2 for £6 @ boots.

nus students get an extra 10% off at superdrug so £1.80/£2.70 each.

this deal is great if you only want one aussie product and don't want to spend £3.50 on one!

27 Comments

good price! H&R

Love the Aussie products, good price!

Thanks for the info mamboboy, I didn't realise this...

Just told the girlfriend who is crazy about animals and she is no longer using Aussie products... now just got to write and let them know and figure out what else in my house is P&G and ditch that too.

mamboboy;7498568

Love the smell of these. Good price, hot. Only bad thing is they are … Love the smell of these. Good price, hot. Only bad thing is they are owned by Proctor & Gamble so I try to avoid it.http://www.boycottpandg.co.uk/testing.aspI hate to be one of those annoying animal/police persons, but it saddens me when I see so many big branded products like this not dermatologically tested



I'd like to see Proctor and Gambles side of this story, it seems that someone has got one side of a story and has portrayed them in the worst light from it, most probably ignoring facts along the way

Having experience in the scientific industry, and currently studying a research based degree, this struck a cord

"Nanoparticles

P&G is engineering ultra-tiny ‘nano’particles that can penetrate skin and hair in ways that naturally occurring molecules don’t. Their intention is to produce new types of cosmetics and hair products.[ii] Inside every bottle of Oil Of Olay Complete UV Protection moisturizer is a little bit of nanotech. Not surprisingly P&G are involved in animal testing of nanoparticles."

Missing however the fact that nanoparticles are one of our best tools in the fight against a huge number of diseases including the potential to a massive breakthrough in HIV treatment based on how nanoparticles can penetrate epithelial surfaces so well, and be completely humanized to remove any chance of a immune reaction

Now is it wrong for proctor and gamble to experiment with what these particles can do? They're massive in the pharmaceutical industry, and its surely everyone's right to experiment with these as they see fit

They are not using these poor rodents for the fun of it, the do it to further scientific endevour. How would perceptions change if a finding by proctor and gamble on how these molecules react in the skin, say... leads to a cure to skin cancer?

Well done, your poorly thought out morals just stopped thousands and thousands of human lives being saved every year

Skin cancers from the sun though, we all know the dangers of the sun, eh? Those people probably deserved it. What did the poor little rodents do

94th minute;7503938

They are not using these poor rodents for the fun of it



Oh thats ok then :roll: We own the planet, f*ck everything else...

Maybe we should test on criminals, or benefits scroungers.... just as long as its not you or your family then you don't care right?

morpheus;7504003

Oh thats ok then :roll: We own the planet, f*ck everything else...Maybe … Oh thats ok then :roll: We own the planet, f*ck everything else...Maybe we should test on criminals, or benefits scroungers.... just as long as its not you or your family then you don't care right?



Humans don't have the right to try and learn what can prolong our lives further, cure the evils of disease that can tear families apart?

Of course we shouldn't test on people without their consent, that's just sick, as sick as the person who takes pleasure in photographing a rabbit undergoing an experiment (that's right, that's you PETA). Humans are tested on, it does go wrong, see the cytokine storm clinical trial of a few years back. They know the risks, yet they see the advantage of forwarding clinical science too

Your position on this is very moral, you've never set a mouse trap to make your life a bit better, killed a fly?

If there are people who honestly believe that boycotting companies who use rodents is the answer to save the mice (who ironically have a far better life than most rodents kept in captivity) then please go ahead and don't take the drugs supplied by the pharmaceutical companies next time your ill... see how it works out. I have an inclining if people truely stood by their morals this debate would have solved itself years ago

94th minute;7503938

I'd like to see Proctor and Gambles side of this story, it seems that … I'd like to see Proctor and Gambles side of this story, it seems that someone has got one side of a story and has portrayed them in the worst light from it, most probably ignoring facts along the wayHaving experience in the scientific industry, and currently studying a research based degree, this struck a cord"NanoparticlesP&G is engineering ultra-tiny ‘nano’particles that can penetrate skin and hair in ways that naturally occurring molecules don’t. Their intention is to produce new types of cosmetics and hair products.[ii] Inside every bottle of Oil Of Olay Complete UV Protection moisturizer is a little bit of nanotech. Not surprisingly P&G are involved in animal testing of nanoparticles."Missing however the fact that nanoparticles are one of our best tools in the fight against a huge number of diseases including the potential to a massive breakthrough in HIV treatment based on how nanoparticles can penetrate epithelial surfaces so well, and be completely humanized to remove any chance of a immune reactionNow is it wrong for proctor and gamble to experiment with what these particles can do? They're massive in the pharmaceutical industry, and its surely everyone's right to experiment with these as they see fitThey are not using these poor rodents for the fun of it, the do it to further scientific endevour. How would perceptions change if a finding by proctor and gamble on how these molecules react in the skin, say... leads to a cure to skin cancer?Well done, your poorly thought out morals just stopped thousands and thousands of human lives being saved every yearSkin cancers from the sun though, we all know the dangers of the sun, eh? Those people probably deserved it. What did the poor little rodents do



There are too many humans already in the world, lets start experimenting on the convicted....

twe;7504119

There are too many humans already in the world, lets start experimenting … There are too many humans already in the world, lets start experimenting on the convicted....



Tell you what, we can start by looking at it on a crime by crime basis, think about what we could learn about human pain thresholds if we put people accused of murder, terrorism and peadophilia through torture, humiliation, and maybe even test their resilience to a rope and noose, or KCl solution, or... maybe, just maybeeee we could test out the militarys new weaponary on them. Waiiiiiiiiiiit a minute, aren't there countries where that already happens... :w00t:

You seem to be confusing the convicted, who are, may I remind you, regardless of what the daily mail may say, still human just like you and me... rodents on the otherhand have no emotions. Theirs a line, you could probably read more about it elsewhere

twe;7504119

There are too many humans already in the world, lets start experimenting … There are too many humans already in the world, lets start experimenting on the convicted....



Oh, and what makes you think that the world is overpopulated, was that the same science program which made you think that rodents were all fluffy lovely things who put on their own show of the nativity every year... only those who can't hold back the emotion of christmas time though... those little cuddly people things

The worlds at capacity with current technology, and useage of resources, could probably take a few more if we used the land right...

you know that land in starving africa is being sold by the corrupt govenments to forign companies who successfully farm there with the correct infrastructure?

Im a bit baffed; why does it say 'Not tested on Skippy, Lassie or Bambi' or whatever on the back of the Aussie bottles?

Is it because the finished product is not tested on animals but the ingredients are?

In all fairness, testing on animals for things like shampoo and cosmetics etc... that shows the true cruelty of human nature. Lots of animals suffer so we can be given products that tell us our hair will be softer and our faces less wrinkled?
If we were faced with those animals and someone said, 'ok, we'll give you shiny hair, but you gotta watch us maim these animals'.. how many people would say yes then? We live in a face value society and we need to be a bit less ignorant as to how the world really works.

94th minute, i'm not against testing on animals if it is directly leading to cures for diseases but lets not kid anybody here, this is purely a shampoo, conditioner etc not a vital drug to save a life so don't twist the facts.

seera-sama;7505455

In all fairness, testing on animals for things like shampoo and cosmetics … In all fairness, testing on animals for things like shampoo and cosmetics etc... that shows the true cruelty of human nature. Lots of animals suffer so we can be given products that tell us our hair will be softer and our faces less wrinkled?



Exactly, is ******* sick but some people can't see that we're not talking life saving medicine here, were talking about beauty products ffs.

A living creature was strapped down, had its eyelids clamped open and then had shampoo squirted in its eye to see how much it hurt.... (rabbits don't have tear ducts like us so their eyes can't "self rinse" like ours do meaning that they suffer the maximum amount of pain for the tests) :x

As for catching mice / flies - you may find this hard to believe but there are such a thing as humane mouse traps, and it is possible to catch a fly and put it outside... :thinking:

The best bit though is that PETA are sick for exposing the horrific act that is animal testing..... stupid me all along, its not the people torturing the animals for fun that are wrong, its the people who took some pictures to expose the acts to try and get them stopped that are the sick ones. By that measure is the BBC also to blame for showing pictures of Sadam Hussein's mass killings :oops: I actually thought you might have been half intelligent when you said you "had experience of the scientific industry" 94th minute but the above comment shows you in a very bad light

And can i just add 94thminute, your comment that caged rodents used for animal testing live in better conditions than most domesticated rodents is utter rubbish.
If someone wants a small pet, they opt for hamsters, whereas mice and rats are generally bought by people who have a keen interest in them and that therefore results in better quality of life.
Even if my experiences of mice/rat owners are not in keeping with the majority, i think such an animal would rather live a life of solitude in a cage with fresh water and food as opposed to being clamped into various devices, have a number of liquids squirted into its orifices and being deprived of food and water for weeks at a time.

Grr >.

scoob65;7505953

94th minute, i'm not against testing on animals if it is directly … 94th minute, i'm not against testing on animals if it is directly leading to cures for diseases but lets not kid anybody here, this is purely a shampoo, conditioner etc not a vital drug to save a life so don't twist the facts.



I can see that, my main problem with the article forwarded to in this post, as far as I read before becoming infuriated by it was about nanotechnology.

The point being that nanotechnology is one of the most powerful current tools in pharmacology, what right does a organization have to try and block the testing of these substances. I'm against putting shampoo in an animals eye to see how much it stings, that is just sick and there is no excuse for it what so ever, never can we need to find out something so trivial at the expense of any animal

However my problem comes when people are against the testing of new technologies on an animal, the fact is, at the end of the day if nanoparticles turn out to be highly efficient at moving treatments into the epethelial layer then the possibilities for that finding are limitless

I guess it all depends on what you think they're doing to these animals, if you believe they are putting lipstick on them, and shampoo in their eyes, you're right, that would be sick and I wouldn't imagine trying to defend it. I just think the images peta use are taken out of context in many occasions, a non needles syringe by a rodents eye, could be injecting detergent... but just as likely retrieving the washings from the eye (guinea pigs don't cry, it would be the only way) to see what effect something clinically significant had. All about interpritation in my opinion, I know what PETA want you to think is going on, I don't think that's whats happening though

I guess at the end of the day, I just believe they wouldn't be putting these animals through this for fun, so there has to be a reasonable explanation for it. That, and the home office licenses to work with animals are tough to get, if proctor and gamble blatently broke on... lets just say they wouldn't be a company anymore

seera-sama;7506387

And can i just add 94thminute, your comment that caged rodents used for … And can i just add 94thminute, your comment that caged rodents used for animal testing live in better conditions than most domesticated rodents is utter rubbish. If someone wants a small pet, they opt for hamsters, whereas mice and rats are generally bought by people who have a keen interest in them and that therefore results in better quality of life. Even if my experiences of mice/rat owners are not in keeping with the majority, i think such an animal would rather live a life of solitude in a cage with fresh water and food as opposed to being clamped into various devices, have a number of liquids squirted into its orifices and being deprived of food and water for weeks at a time.Grr >.

There was a documentary on tv about 2 years ago and i cant for the life of me remeber the presenter/invetigator but he was quite well-known and he had an undercover camera in Huntingdon's. The documentary was cut short when the scientists found out he had a camera..

I watched that program open-mouthed and I won't accept your opinions that these animals are kept humanely. There were half dead animals being put in the freezer to die, there were dogs kept in cages the size of a rabbit hutch covered in their own mess. There were hundreds of rabbits with open wounds where flesh had been cut off but they had just been left. There was so much cruelty and evil in that place that i refuse to accept your somewhat hopeful idea that PETA is an OTT organisation that is blowing things out of proportion.

morpheus;7505982

Exactly, is ******* sick but some people can't see that we're not talking … Exactly, is ******* sick but some people can't see that we're not talking life saving medicine here, were talking about beauty products ffs.A living creature was strapped down, had its eyelids clamped open and then had shampoo squirted in its eye to see how much it hurt.... (rabbits don't have tear ducts like us so their eyes can't "self rinse" like ours do meaning that they suffer the maximum amount of pain for the tests) :xAs for catching mice / flies - you may find this hard to believe but there are such a thing as humane mouse traps, and it is possible to catch a fly and put it outside... :thinking:The best bit though is that PETA are sick for exposing the horrific act that is animal testing..... stupid me all along, its not the people torturing the animals for fun that are wrong, its the people who took some pictures to expose the acts to try and get them stopped that are the sick ones. By that measure is the BBC also to blame for showing pictures of Sadam Hussein's mass killings :oops: I actually thought you might have been half intelligent when you said you "had experience of the scientific industry" 94th minute but the above comment shows you in a very bad light



Ooooo its you again!! Back from reading the sun already?

Please in future have the decency to quote the post you're talking about

I've made my point that PETA want you to think were talking about beauty products solely, I think if you consider it, that's more than likely not the case (see my post two up)

Ooo, you brought up the same point as me on tear ducts, you fell the wrong side of the fence though on interpreting that picture I feel, an animal with a syringe by its eye... an animal that doesn't secrete fluid from its eye naturally... its logically impossible they're taking eye fluid samples here... no PETAs description suits you, eh? As for the story, how do you know that, is it what you do in your spare time for funsies

The comments above are not mine, thank you very much, they are yours, please do not associate me with them in future, it shows me in a very bad light. Why are you obsessed they are hurting these animal when you seem to have no evidence what so ever to back it up? Why would you suggest the people doing it enjoy it in some way... its probably the worst part of their job.

Unlike the BBC, these are photos your looking at, not video, you look at a single snapshot in time and make up your own interpretation of it, as you correctly suggest (thanks for the iraq idea, saved me thinking of my own example) some humans are sick creatures who can only think in terms of evil, these are the people bringing you the pictures, these are the people telling you sick things are going on. These are the people making up the stories. So yes it is PETAs fault

seera-sama;7506595

There was a documentary on tv about 2 years ago and i cant for the life … There was a documentary on tv about 2 years ago and i cant for the life of me remeber the presenter/invetigator but he was quite well-known and he had an undercover camera in Huntingdon's. The documentary was cut short when the scientists found out he had a camera..I watched that program open-mouthed and I won't accept your opinions that these animals are kept humanely. There were half dead animals being put in the freezer to die, there were dogs kept in cages the size of a rabbit hutch covered in their own mess. There were hundreds of rabbits with open wounds where flesh had been cut off but they had just been left. There was so much cruelty and evil in that place that i refuse to accept your somewhat hopeful idea that PETA is an OTT organisation that is blowing things out of proportion.



That is disgusting, and I cannot apologize enough for what you had to watch. I haven't personally seen it, but I'll take you word and admit it sounds completely inhumane

If its any reassurance I have seen numerous animal houses and none have been of a standard I would describe as anything but perfect for the animals. I can only talk from my experience of what I have seen, and nothing like that ever happened

I'll try (I say try) to explain what you may have seen. The cages for dogs as a legal requirement must be at least twice the size of the dog so the can circle if needs been. They are also allowed out to play three times a day at feeding. This is where the open wounds may have (and hopefully did) come from, the dogs used are beagles and can be violent, and may attack eachother. However there is NO excuse for these to have gone untreated

Rabbits will quite often be shaved in a spot to allow access to the skin, sometimes skin grafts will occour, but no would should be left open when the animal returns to normal caging, it doesn't take a genius to work out that they, and other animals would pick the wound to peices.

All I can reassure you is that those conditions were illegal, and everywhere running today should be running to legal standards. If I can try to liken it to another situation, it would be like watching a video of the most beaten down tennament flat in glasgow, needless and other drug things all over the floor, and assuming everyone in glasgow lived like that... which they don't

You have to remember its the medias job to shock and expose, this was most probably one wing of the life sciences complex, where they recieved a tip off. I assure you it is not like that everywhere

The people who did that, or allowed to to happen are animals themselves though

As someone that doesnt work in science, i appreciate you trying to put what i saw into better context. However, in conjunction with what these 'scientists' had to say to the investigator, i have no doubt in my mind that even if some of the footage shown was out of context and the tests/state of the animals was in accordance with regulations, animal cruelty was and possibly still is carried out in these places and my annoyance and disgust lies with the fact that it is, in part, down to stupid things like cosmetics. (I sadly say that as a make-up wearer, toothpaste user and regular hair washer. I wish my belief in this matter overided the stereotypical media loving appearence obsessed girl that i am )

seera-sama;7506940

As someone that doesnt work in science, i appreciate you trying to put … As someone that doesnt work in science, i appreciate you trying to put what i saw into better context. However, in conjunction with what these 'scientists' had to say to the investigator, i have no doubt in my mind that even if some of the footage shown was out of context and the tests/state of the animals was in accordance with regulations, animal cruelty was and possibly still is carried out in these places and my annoyance and disgust lies with the fact that it is, in part, down to stupid things like cosmetics. (I sadly say that as a make-up wearer, toothpaste user and regular hair washer. I wish my belief in this matter overided the stereotypical media loving appearence obsessed girl that i am )



I guess all anyone can do in that situation is to hope that it doesn't happen elsewhere. At the end of the day, what was show in that documentary seems to defy all belief, as I said, there may (and almost certainly are in my mind) logical reasons how these wounds became inflicted. It was the after care that seems to be horrifically lacking in this instance, if the animals appeared to be in pain on video, it probably was happening; and I'm sorry for that.

However in the same way that a video of some of those nazi youth from America show, some people are maybe just set out for bad for whatever reason. It doesn't make up for the fact that these people were allowed to work with animals (there is a theory test and a practical examination you have to do) but if they decide to ignore what they've been taught, there is very little constraints put in place. Thankfully on this occasion it appears to be a whistle blower tipping of the media that helped. In the same way all americans shouldn't be judged on the actions of few, neither should animal houses, but having seen that suffering, it may not be so easy to believe

It is essentially just my opinion on the makeup thing, but if it makes you feel any better I can't see any advantage of proctor and gamble pippetting harmful substances into a guinea pigs eye, there is very little that you can learn from that anymore. It did, I'm sure most likely happen at one point, but probably in the 1950s. Guinea Pigs are the best part of £80 to buy, and my belief rests on that no company would waste that sort of money for no good reason... when you could find a 16 year old, pay them £20 and use that as a far more useful clinical trial if that's really what they wanted to know. Cure's for disease could come from the breakthroughs they make (that's how forward the science they're probably investigating is) and maybe that's maybe how it all end up

All I can hope is that people follow the guidelines put in place, and if that happens, then the animals are given the very best of care, and treated as humanely as possible through experimentation

94th minute;7506624

Ooooo its you again!! Back from reading the sun already



How old are you, 15? Seriously cheap "sun reader" insults..... run out of intelligent argument :roll:

94th minute;7506624

Ooo, you brought up the same point as me on tear ducts, you fell the … Ooo, you brought up the same point as me on tear ducts, you fell the wrong side of the fence though on interpreting that picture I feel, an animal with a syringe by its eye... an animal that doesn't secrete fluid from its eye naturally... its logically impossible they're taking eye fluid samples here... no PETAs description suits you, eh? As for the story, how do you know that, is it what you do in your spare time for funsies



Where did I say they were taking eye fluid samples?!?! Seriously you are making this up as you go along.... its obvious they are squirting fluid (i.e. chemicals that are being tested for a reaction) into the eye to see what effect it has.

Funsies :-D You really are 12 aren't you.... :-D

94th minute;7506624

The comments above are not mine, thank you very much, they are yours, … The comments above are not mine, thank you very much, they are yours, please do not associate me with them in future, it shows me in a very bad light. Why are you obsessed they are hurting these animal when you seem to have no evidence what so ever to back it up? Why would you suggest the people doing it enjoy it in some way... its probably the worst part of their job.



Which comments are mine not yours? Not sure I could show you in a bad light better than you are doing yourself...

No evidence to back it up.... there is lots on the web such as the tv programme mentioned by seera-sema... you asked for evidence, there it is.... as soon as someone presents it you start denying it..... :x So it must have been Peta that made this television programmes and the people weren't really mistreating the animals, the evil BBC made it up.... WTF....

Everyone is against those poor animal testing companies and all they want to do is be nice to the animals....

You seem to know a lot about animal testing and seem determined to defend it 94th minute...... are you / your family employed in that sector in some way?

I don't care about animal testing; these smell very nice & are a steal at £2 each.

morpheus;7511910

How old are you, 15? Seriously cheap "sun reader" insults..... run out of … How old are you, 15? Seriously cheap "sun reader" insults..... run out of intelligent argument :roll:Where did I say they were taking eye fluid samples?!?! Seriously you are making this up as you go along.... its obvious they are squirting fluid (i.e. chemicals that are being tested for a reaction) into the eye to see what effect it has.Funsies :-D You really are 12 aren't you.... :-DWhich comments are mine not yours? Not sure I could show you in a bad light better than you are doing yourself...No evidence to back it up.... there is lots on the web such as the tv programme mentioned by seera-sema... you asked for evidence, there it is.... as soon as someone presents it you start denying it..... :x So it must have been Peta that made this television programmes and the people weren't really mistreating the animals, the evil BBC made it up.... WTF....Everyone is against those poor animal testing companies and all they want to do is be nice to the animals....



I'm sorry this is verging in the ridiculous now

I have not once denied the evidence put forward by the BBC, I admitted it was a shocking let down in the care of these animals and disgusting. I also point out that from what I was told there was a let down in the CARE of these animals, not in the testing. Allowing animals to have untreated wounds is disgusting.

There was no accusation by seera-sema that these injuries were caused by the experimentation alone, and I think I addressed that, the dogs will have almost certainly bitten each other (its not the companies fault) and the open wounds on rabbits are most likely from experimentation (government approved) but again the let down was in the care.

I admit again there is NO excuse for this, and the BBC have shown the company in a terrible terrible light, they would have had all animal experimentation licences revoked (these take upwards of a year to gain) and a hefty fine too. However I deny your accusation that these injuries were caused by experiments causing "unnecessary levels of discomfort to the animal"

All I can do in your continued accusation of the placing of detergents into these animals eyes to gauge a reaction. A problem in animal testing is the lack of similarities between animals and humans, one of these regions is the eye. Any data collected on the reaction of pippetting shampoo into a rodents eye would more than likely be completely no applicable to a human case.

If the aim of the pharmaceutical industry is to find a shampoo that doesn't sting the eyes, they could pay a volenteer £20 to take part in a clinical trial.. from which they would gain some useful data, and verbalised feedback. Guinea pigs are £80, Rabbits are upwards of £140, protocol insists that these animals are euthanised after experimentation. That would be a stupidly expensive way to gain data, don't you agree?

As you said earlier, rodents don't have tear ducts; they cannot excrete fluid from their eyes spontainiously. However if this liquid was of interest to the experiment, then a syringe placed close to the eye is a good way of retrieving this fluid, despite the fact that it could look a lot like putting something into the eye in a still shot.

This is where my problem with PETA lies, the misrepresentation of facts. Ignoring complete for this that a number of the animals in captivity in animal research companies are actually just pictures of animals in other settings, claimed to be the responsibility of these companies (a huge scandal about 3 years back) but the fact that they use single snapshot pictures and then caption them with explanations completely untrue. There is NO evidence to suggest that any of these pictures resulted in pippetting anything into the eye of the animal.

My problem isn't with the whistle blower in huntington life sciences, they were being a regulatory body, and did the right thing for the welfare of the animals. One of PETA favourite stunts is to enter an animal house and release all of the animals... animals which are domesticated and have no chance of surviving on the streets, and probably go on to a horrible death caused by starvation and a mauling by a cat

I admit when evidence looks bad, but in the same way that nurseries are run, on occasion, by peadophiles... that you can see horrific living conditions in some orphanages. The system fails everywhere occasionally, please don't judge every animal testing facility on the one that was exposed. The medias job is to shock and expose, they found the one that was in a terrible, disgusting state, and I thank them for that... but it doesn't mean anywhere else is in that state. There haven't been anymore exposing documentries, despite an obvious audience for them, and that suggests to me that the problem actually isn't there

My evidence is that I have seen animal houses else where, they were not in this state, the animals were kept in the best of conditions

My problem is with PETA who lie. My belief is that the animal testing is done for good. My hope is that the restrictions put in place stop horricic suffering by the animals ever happening again.

I appologise for what you saw as immature comments, your original reply was hardly balanced

morpheus;7511938

You seem to know a lot about animal testing and seem determined to defend … You seem to know a lot about animal testing and seem determined to defend it 94th minute...... are you / your family employed in that sector in some way?



I think given your obvious views, and how they are shared by many thousands of people, some of whom may also frequent this board... that would be very foolish information to tell a stranger

Lets just say I have an interest in how the industry is portrayed, and the welfare of the animals being kept there. Whatever that interest may be.

94th minute;7514743

If the aim of the pharmaceutical industry is to find a shampoo that … If the aim of the pharmaceutical industry is to find a shampoo that doesn't sting the eyes, they could pay a volenteer £20 to take part in a clinical trial.. from which they would gain some useful data, and verbalised feedback. Guinea pigs are £80, Rabbits are upwards of £140, protocol insists that these animals are euthanised after experimentation. That would be a stupidly expensive way to gain data, don't you agree?



I think the debate has all been done so don't want to comment much further - however I do appreciate your more mature and well thought out response above :thumbsup:

One thing I did want to pick up on though is the quoted text above.

In my view the experiment is not to see if the substance "stings the eyes" but more to see if it causes blindness - something they are hardly likely to get a volunteer for at £200 nevermind £20.

Guinea pigs / rabbits may be expensive (are they really £80 / £140? You can buy a rabbit for £5 near to where I live) but even £140 is a hell of a lot less expensive than if they don't do the tests and leave even one customer blind = £hundreds of thousands in compensation.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text