Vet's Office

is distinct from biological sex and reproductive organs, and it's a concept that's mostly useless in terms of non-human animal life.

Also, I highly doubt that Tylenol is currently, or has been in recent years, tested on animals.

I have a cat that can not get along with the three other cats that my fiancee has living in our house. My cat just sulks around hissing and wailing and cussing up fur in furious fights of backward retreating.

SO after a year of this nonesense, we took her to a vet. The vet proscribed some antianxiety medication for the creature. I am pretty upset that we can not just put her down, but that is out of the question for my animal loving wife-to-be.

antianxiety medication for an animal who's brain is smaller than my fist. Incredible.

I think that the medicine is probably worse to give to the poor animal than just putting it down. I volunteer at the Humane Society and most animals that are prescribed that type of medicine that come back for check ups or whatever look pretty messed up...kinda like they're high and everything moves in slow motion.

Actually, Tylenol,Penicillin, and many household products (Procter & Gamble is the only one I can think of at this moment but I'm pretty sure there is a list of these Brands on the internet) still use animal testing.

I'm totally torn on the issue of animal testing for drugs. (Not on the issue of testing animals for drugs, though. I think that is a total invasion of privacy). The way I see it is I can live with thousands of cute fuzzy bunnies being sacrificed if it will save a few thousand humans, even the ones who aren't so cute and fuzzy. But a lot of the drug testing that is done is not to save human lives, but to find new ways to market existing drugs, like slicing up monkey heads and sprinkling ground up tylenol on it to see if it'll regrow hair (I just made that up and if any of you vivisectors out there get rich off tylenol for bald monkeys, I'm suing your asses!) I think it was just last month that Coca Cola decided to make a no animal testing policy. They had been supporting research part of which involved applying aspartame directly to monkey brains. Now I can support the Coca Cola Corporation with absolutely no guilt whatsoever!

Prove that the product Tylenol is currently tested on animals. Offer some documentation. Cite a source.

I mean, sure, some scientist somewhere is feeding acetaminophen to rats to see if it's a better analgesic than coedine. But, to get to the implication of your statement regarding product testing, is Tylenol, the company, feeding acetaminophen to cats to see how fast they die? If you come up with some evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears, by I don't see why a manufacturer would be testing a 60-year-old commonly prescribed drug on animals. What would be the point?

The animal testing comes in BEFORE it comes to market, not after. The only testing Tylenol undergoes at this point is marketing research, as in, what new product can they hang the name Tylenol on that will make it sell better. My personl fave: Tylenol X: For that pain that's too extreme.

Post market testing is done strictly on HUMANS, as in the public at large. It's considered Phase 4 in the whole trial schpiel.

I think pretty much everyone is aware that many household products are tested on animals. It's not necessary to invoke Proctor & Gamble. It's entirely beside the point.

Is in a Tylenol focus group. They want to find out how to tap into the pet market or something. Tylenol: Cat they want to call it. He's kind of into it.

You're right, I don't see a point in using this drug on animals, but the fact of the matter is, Acetaminophen , (doing research, not quite sure the actual brand Tylenol uses animal testing) may cause liver damage if you use it as it is prescribed. Which leads to the question: if this is the damage it causes in a human, then exactly what is the damage caused to animal? And like Mack said, at least this isn't humans they're testing on, but what is so wrong about this is that the way the drugs are being tested on animals, it is not safe and very unhumane. Here's some links now:
This is the address to the tylenol FAQ website where they state that NO tylenol, does not cause liver damage (http://www.tylenol.com/page.jhtml?id=tylenol/ask/subpfaq.inc) Just click on the extra strength tylenol link.

Here's one for a medical website that states tylenol may cause liver damage (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=46607)

And here's the ALF's website for FAQ's just if you're interested in more news about animals and lab testing (http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal%20Testing/Vivisection...)

i've been looking for.

and all this time i've been designing an elaborate scheme involving a pillow case, a brick, and a swift-moving river.

All I care about is establishing your particular claims about Tylenol and animal testing. I didn't need a regurgitation of all that animal rights drivel.

Tylenol is manufactured by McNeil Pharmaceutical, who is a tentacle of Johnson and Johnson whose animal testing policy is here:

http://www.jnj.com/community/policies/animal_testing/animal_testing.htm;...

I clearly said, "doing research, not quite sure the actual brand Tylenol uses animal testing", but Acetaminophen, which is the ingredient in Tylenol, is tested on animals, but the brand(s) or corporation(s) that is/are testing their ingredient on animals was/were not released.

you clearly backed out of addressing your initial rash claim. That is abundantly CLEAR.

I didn't back out, I just restated. I realize that I was just generalizing about Tylenol, when really I should have been saying acetaminophen but you can't say that I'm wrong and that many corporations aren't still using animal testing for their drugs.

I can't say that your painfully obvious statement is wrong.

I disagree. If the neighborhood dog is blazin' and the cat is a meth head, I have a right to know, damnit!

Moreover, since animals shit and screw in public, I think they forfeit their right to privacy.

This blog gave me the opportunity to post a picture of my cat.

Your cat looks like my cat.

Hey Alex and ass control:
I've said it before, on this board even, but getting access to scholarly journals is frustratingly difficult if you're not enrolled in or employed by a university. That being said, you can search google scholar with keywords "mcneil pharmaceuticals" and "rats" or "monkeys" and Tylenol or acetometophine to get a better idea of what kind of studies on what kind of animals the makers of Tylenol are financing. For the most part you only get access to abstracts, but sometimes you can get the whole article...

Thanks Mack. Saved me a lot of frustration.

if the corporate overlords at McNeil fund testing on animal. As has been made pretty obvious, the question was whether Tylenol was tested on animals. And I don't care what anyone's access to the scientific literature might be. If you're going to casually throw out the allegations because you count yourself as a friend of the animals, you should be pretty quick in saying where you obtained your information. And saying "go look at google scholar" does not count.

Mack might have saved you from frustration, but he didn't really save you from any embarassment. Your sort of fuzzy love-the-animals schtick that only has the most tenuous grasp on the issues doesn't really cut it. If it's something you care about, you should probably do some substantial research into the issues, beyond pointing to activist FAQs.

Geez, a guy tries to be helpful... I thought that perhaps you (ass control) were genuinely interested in whether or not Tylenol is tested on animals. I didn't realize you were merely interested in asserting the opinion that anytime one reiterates a fact that certain people take for granted, one must have committed to memory the exact authorative source of said information. And that's a totally valid opinion. But they really do test that shit on animals, it's true! Go look at Google scholar!

any general reference will do. you know, that's at least more authoritative than, "lots of household products are tested on animals, DUH!"

anyway, i think there's been a unfortunate lack of distinction between the practice of product testing and general medical testing in this thread.

If you don't give a shit about it then why argue about it? Only to prove me wrong? How does going to look at Google Scholar not count? Do you really think that McNeil is really going to let just anyone dig around a little around their website and find that in fact, Tylenol really is tested on animals? Do you really think that I'm going to be able to send the head of the corporation an email asking, "Do you test your product Tylenol on animals?" And that right away I'll get a reply "Well, sure we do, we'll admit it" or even a simple "No"? If the only thing that I am provided is getting reports through Google Scholar, then that is what I'm going to use. My "fuzzy love-the-animals schtick", yeah right, all I have is a "schtick" going for me. If that is all I had I would say, "save the animals" and be a hypocrite and eat meat and say that labs test on animals and not no what I'm talking about.

To test a detergent for possible eye irration, a sort of paste is placed into the eyes of rabbits, who are then bandaged and left to react to the paste.
http://www.awionline.org/lab_animals/pratt/prat13-1.jpg

In Great Britain, only about a quarter of experiments on animals ever even went into print (Read Animal Machines).

But, of course you don't give a shit about this because I'm just an uninformed fanatic who considers the interests of animals more important than the interests of human beings, at least thats what the experimenters and their commercial firms that profit by supplying laboratory animals and equipment want you to believe.

it's just one non sequitor after another with you. how is that rabbit bullshit even relevant? maybe it's just me and my INSANE sense of intellectual propriety, but i think its weird to go around and say, "yeah, tylenol, like EVERYTHING at wal-mart (hyperbole alert!!!) is tested on animals" without having any substantial base of knowledge to support the assetion.

and you don't get to use google scholar, or any general encycopedic set of information, as a crutch. Making wide-eyed assertions and telling people to to go look it up "on the internet" if they don't believe you is going to get you laughed at time and again.

as for all that persecution complex bullshit you're carrying around about how people just don't UNDERSTAND you and your respect for animal life, you'd do well to lose it. all lot of people know a lot more than you think. and if you go around treating people like rubes who just can't fathom the deep insight that YOU possess, you're going to look stupid.

1. Aaron should teach highschool. Just string some of his phrases together in random order and imagine him lecturing in front of a highschool class. It is brilliant.

I can't say that your painfully obvious statement is wrong.

But,

how is that rabbit bullshit even relevant?

Your sort of fuzzy love-the-animals schtick that only has the most tenuous grasp on the issues doesn't really cut it.

and if you go around treating people like rubes who just can't fathom the deep insight that YOU possess, you're going to look stupid.

2. Josh fucking lied to me, surprise surprise, about not being a pharmacist. All I'm asking is for ONE over-the-counter slide. That's it. I will pay cash. I will pay god damned cash! And I'm good for it.

I'm sorry. I can't help myself. As a lapsed vegan, turned lapsed vegetarian, (re)turned vegetarian, the guilt is too great. I must revisit this topic and rub Aaron's nose is his own shit. The main issue underlying this tete a tete seems to be Aaron's understanding of the term "tested on animals." He seems to apply a narrow definition of "product testing" which he describes as "Tylenol, the company, feeding acetaminophen to cats to see how fast they die." Of course, this would be an easier claim to prove or refute if Tylenol was in fact a company and not a brand name, but let's let that one slide. Regardless of whether the makers of Tylenol engage in this particular practice, this was not the claim that Alex made. Perhaps she used some short hand abbreviations, the type most people understand when they're not being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Not that there's anything wrong with that... McNeil Pharmaceutical funds many studies that involve subjecting animals to their acetomeniphine.

Here's that one example:

Actions of paracetamol on cyclooxygenases in tissue and cell homogenates of mouse and rabbit
Med Sci Monit, 2002; 8(12): BR496-503
This work was supported by the British Heart Foundation, ASPET and McNeil Pharmaceuticals

Aaron asks about the point of testing a "60-year-old commonly prescribed drug on animals." There are many consumer products that were once thought to be safe that shifting cultural attitudes, greater scientific research and anecdotal evidence have proven to be flawed. For example, there have been numerous news stories about liver damage caused by acetometiphine, and multi-nationals like Johnson and Johnson need to protect themselves from class action lawsuits, so ongoing research is always done even on mainstream, "safe" products such as Tylenol.

anything can be tested on my cat.

she's evil.

as a vegetarian of 11 years, and as a vegan for 8 of those( since we're pulling out our dicks to compare credentials), I'm going to be the one doing the rubbing (noses, not dicks).

My understanding of the term "tested on animals" in this instance is rooted in the context that Alexandra laid out:

Tylenol is tested on animals. Just like everything else you can buy at wal-mart.

This is very clearly a context of product testing, and not a context of medical research. There aren't a whole lot of Wal-Mart consumable goods that are being injected into rats in order to find that next big allergy medicine. Lest you think this is too particular a reading, let me point out that, Josh, a pharmamicist, also interpreted the statement as referring to product testing.

Moreover, in her initial response to me, Alexandra invokes household products manufactured by Proctor and Gamble as a further example of what she's talking about.

Now, you characterize my definition of product testing as such:

Tylenol, the company, feeding acetaminophen to cats to see how fast they die

In fact, in the broader context of that post, this was me clarifying the difference between general medical research and manufacturer-directed product testing. Yes, I allowed, some scientists might be getting government research grants to fill rats full of acetaminophen, but is the brand Tylenol being tested on animals by the manufacturer -- still? Granted this is a fine point, put those are the only points I feel like making these days.

The second purpose of the statement that you quoted was to point out the odd connection Alexandra makes between the two subjects of her post. Tylenol killing cats makes her sad because Tylenol is tested on animals? I can see that being especially poignant if McNeil were pouring 10,000 mg of Tylenol down a cat's throat and then counting the seconds and convulsions before the poor bastard died. But assuming that the product is tested on an animal that can tolerate the drug better, probably in an animal whose reaction approximates humans, I don't see that poignant relevance -- even if the testing is harmful to the animal. That is to say, I can see why it might have made her think of the connection, but I still thought it was strange. So my statement above, in addition to drawing some sharper distinction, distinctions that Alexandra was avoiding altogether, was as a mild jab at the odd logic of her post.

For the second half of your post, you go on to beat a dead horse about how the Tylenol's owner is involved in animal testing of various sorts. This, despite the fact that you just acknowledged that I was specifically discussing product testing of a brand rather than medical research of a company.

You continue to belabor this point, quoting me questioning why anyone would test a "60-year-old commonly prescribed drug on animals." Again, in the context of product testing, your answer is less convincing than you think it is. Granted, pointing to the fact that Johnson and Johnson need to be concerned about liver problems and lawsuits is interesting, but it strikes me that more reliable and comprehensive data would be gathered by large group studies on human beings who are already taking this drug.

So, the question remains, do you have any evidence that J & J is testing Tylenol on animals for this reason (ie livers). Or is this another case of assuming that because most/all pharmaceutical companies test on animals, we can just say anything we want about them because it's probably true. That's what Alexandra seemed to be doing. Especially when you add in the hyperbolic line about Wal-Mart and the easy, if unecessary, demonization of P & G.

And if you're as good a vegetarian as your assholeishness would seem to indicate, I have absolutely no doubt that you are a better one than me.

has never been something I was interested in.

So, this has gotten old and boring. But, I still think that your interpretation of what Alex meant by "tested on animals" was a leap of logic you made to better support your opinion that she is wrong and/or misinformed. Regardless, here is the abstract of a study fully funded by McNeil "and" J&J to explore the question of whether or not Tylenol can be marketed, like aspirin, with the words "may reduce the risk of heart attack." This fits my definition of animal testing. And probably the definition of anyone who hasn't jumped to conclusions about whether or not they highly doubt the fact that Tylenol is tested on animals. And yes, for those who care to look their are papers published recently specifically focusing on the liver damage issue that involve animals being pumped full of McNeil Pharmaceutical provided acetaminophen.

Abstract:
The hypothesis that acetaminophen can reduce necrosis during myocardial infarction was tested in male dogs. Two groups were studied: vehicle- (n = 10) and acetaminophen-treated (n = 10) dogs. All dogs were obtained from the same vendor, and there were no significant differences in their ages (18 ± 2 mo), weights (24 ± 1 kg), or housing conditions. Selected physiological data, e.g., coronary blood flow, nonspecific collateral flow, epicardial temperature, heart rate, systemic mean arterial pressure, left ventricular developed pressure, the maximal first derivative of left ventricular developed pressure, blood gases, and pH, were collected at baseline and during regional myocardial ischemia and reperfusion. There were no significant differences in coronary blood flow, nonspecific collateral flow, epicardial temperature, heart rate, systemic mean arterial pressure, or blood gases and pH between the two groups at any of the three time intervals, even though there was a trend toward improved function in the presence of acetaminophen. Infarct size, the main objective of the investigation, was markedly and significantly reduced by acetaminophen. For example, when expressed as a percentage of ventricular wet weight, infarct size was 8 ± 1 versus 3 ± 1%(P The part where they kill the dogs:

Animals. We performed all experiments in male dogs bred for research weighing 24 ± 1 kg and averaging 18 ± 2 mo. We housed the dogs in American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care-accredited facilities where room temperature, humidity, and lighting were controlled. We fed the dogs a daily ration of Purina Dog Chow and provided access to water ad libitum. We allowed the dogs several days to acclimate to their new housing conditions and fasted them for about 24 h before the day of experimentation (water provided ad libitum). We obtained institutional review and approval before initiating the experiments.

Surgical preparation and instrumentation. On the day of experimentation we weighed the dogs and anesthetized them with pentobarbital sodium (30 mg/kg iv). We clipped hair from the inguinal region, the chest, and on the fore- and hindlimbs in the vivarium. We then transported the dogs to the experimental laboratory where they were intubated and ventilated on room air supplemented with 100% oxygen (Harvard Respirator, Harvard Apparatus; Millis, MA). We isolated and cannulated the right femoral artery and vein [polyethylene (PE)-240 catheters filled with 0.9% NaCl solution], and we used the artery to monitor systemic arterial blood pressure (a, pulsatile and mean) and the vein to administer supplemental anesthesia, heparin, acetaminophen, and vehicle. A left-sided thoracotomy was performed, and lobes of the left lung were gently retracted and the pericardium incised. A pericardial sling was made, and a 1.0-cm segment of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) was isolated just beyond the third or fourth major lateral branches. A shunt was then constructed, as we have previously reported (9, 27, 30), between the LAD and the cannulated left subclavian artery. Coronary blood flow (LAD flow) through the shunt was continuously measured ultrasonically (model T206 flowmeter, no. 4N69 extracorporeal, in-line flow probe, Transonic Systems; Ithaca, NY) thus enabling us to determine the state of LAD blood flow throughout the experiment. Coronary perfusion pressure was measured at the tip of the LAD cannula. We used a modification of the methods of Manor et al. (26) and Scheel et al. (40) to estimate nonspecific coronary collateral blood flow. To do this, the subclavian-to-LAD shunt was constructed of two segments of catheter in series (with the flow probe interposed between them). One segment, a 15-cm length of PE-240 tubing, was inserted into the isolated LAD. The other segment was implanted in the isolated subclavian artery. By briefly occluding the subclavian segment, disconnecting the LAD segment, and exposing it to ambient pressure at the level of the heart, we could collect retrograde coronary blood flow into preweighed vials. Such timed collections of retrograde blood flow, as reported by Manor et al. (26) and Scheel et al. (40), yield a reliable estimate of nonspecific, coronary collateral blood flow in the dog heart.

A saline-filled, short, large-bore catheter was then placed in the left ventricular chamber. This was used to determine left ventricular developed pressure (LVDP) and its differentiation (±dP/dtmax). Subsequently, dogs were heparinized (250 U/kg plus supplements iv), and a standard limb lead electrocardiogram was attached and used to determine heart rate. Core body temperature (rectal probe) and epicardial surface temperature (Physitemp, model BAT-12; Clifton, NJ) were monitored continuously and maintained by elevating room temperature and by using heating blankets, plastic wrap (to close the opened thoracic cavity), and heat lamps. Dogs were then allowed time for monitored variables to achieve the steady state.

Monitored variables and data acquisition. Monitored variables included the following: core and epicardial surface temperatures (°C), coronary blood flow (in ml·min–1·100 g–1), ventilatory frequency (in cycles/min), tidal volume (in ml), end-tidal CO2 (percent expired gases) (model NPB-75, Nellcor Puritan Bennett capnograph; Pleasanton, CA), oxyhemoglobin saturation (SaO2, in %, capnograph, model NPB-75), blood gases (PO2, PCO2, in mmHg), pH (in units) (model 248 blood gases/pH analyzer, Chiron Diagnostics; West Haven, CT), systemic mean arterial pressure (a, mmHg), LVDP (mmHg), and its ±dP/dtmax (in mmHg/s), heart rate (HR, cycles/min), and the ECG. The cardiovascular variables were monitored on a CB Sciences data acquisition system (model 214, iWorx; Dover, NH) in series with a computer running Labscribe software (version 6.0, CB Sciences, Dover, NH).

Experimental protocol. Two groups of dogs were studied. One group was treated with vehicle (acetaminophen solvent, 0.9% NaCl solution, n = 10) and the other treated with acetaminophen (total dose, 30 mg/kg iv, n = 10). Two bolus injections of acetaminophen were made, one just before the onset of ischemia (375 mg iv, i.e., 15 mg/kg) and the other after 90 min of reperfusion (375 mg iv, i.e., 15 mg/kg). A total dose of 750 mg acetaminophen was administered. Supplemental anesthesia was administered as needed. Once monitored variables were in the steady state, baseline data were collected (control, preischemia), and the LAD was occluded for 60 min. Subsequently, the LAD occlusion was released, and the ischemic myocardium was reperfused for 180 min. Core and epicardial temperatures, as well as coronary blood flow, respiratory variables, heart rate, ECG, a, LVDP, and ±dP/dtmax were monitored continuously during the 4-h period of ischemia and reperfusion, as well as during the period preceding attainment of the steady state. Data for all other monitored variables were collected intermittently (e.g., retrograde coronary blood flow).

Determining infarct size. Standard procedures were used to estimate the location and extent of infarcted tissue. After the experimental protocol was completed, dogs were euthanized, and hearts were rapidly excised and placed in warmed saline (37°C). All nonventricular tissue was removed, and ventricular wet weights were obtained. The aorta was cannulated (taking care to avoid penetrating the aortic valve), and hearts were transferred to a perfusion apparatus. Warmed (37°C) dyes were simultaneously perfused at physiological coronary perfusion pressure [triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) 1.0%, into the cannulated LAD; Evans blue dye, 2.0%, into the aorta]. Both dyes were made fresh daily in phosphate buffer-dextrose solution that had been neutralized to pH 7.42 ± 0.02. After perfusion of dyes, hearts were placed in warmed saline (37°C) for 20 min for fixation. Subsequently, hearts were reperfused with formalin, removed from the perfusion apparatus, and stored in formalin at room temperature for about 48 h.

After 48 h in formalin, eight ventricular slices of near-uniform thickness (8–10 mm) were cut perpendicular to the long axis from base to apex. Each slice was weighed and placed under transparency film (apical then basal surfaces in contact with the film). Three areas of tissue were carefully traced onto the transparency: 1) viable tissue outside the area at risk that was stained by Evans blue dye, 2) viable tissue inside the area at risk that was stained brick red by TTC, and 3) necrotic tissue inside the area at risk that was not stained by TTC but rather was pale or colorless (infarcted tissue). After color-coded delineation, the areas of each region were estimated using compensating polar planimetry (model 1810-L30A, Dietzgen). The two surfaces for each slice were averaged, and the mass of each area was calculated. Infarct size was expressed as the estimated ventricular mass (in g) of necrotic tissue in each slice. It was also expressed as percentage of total ventricular mass and as percentage of the LAD-perfused area at risk.

Myofibrillar ultrastructure. In two additional dogs (vehicle- and acetaminophen-treated dogs), we examined the myofibrillar ultrastructure using electronmicroscopy. At the end of the ischemia-reperfusion protocol, hearts were extracted and perfused (at physiological coronary perfusion pressure) with Karnovsky's fixative. Full-thickness (transmural) tissue samples were collected from the nonischemic and ischemic zones of the left ventricular free wall. The blocks of tissue were postfixed with 1% osmium tetroxide, followed by dehydration in graded ethanol. Samples were embedded in Epon-Araldite cocktail, sectioned with a diamond knife ultramicrotome (model LKB-2088; LKB), and viewed with an electron microscope (model JEM-100CXII, JOEL) using standard methods. Electronmicroscopic images (n = 20 each from vehicle- and acetaminophen-treated samples) were visually inspected for the appearance of swollen mitochondria (a key indicator) and other signs of tissue damage. Other than visual inspection, no other objective scoring system was used to evaluate the images.
http://ajpheart.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/287/5/H1913

Best argument ever. Perhaps I am a sadist, but this has been entertaining.

Also, this:

"gender is distinct from biological sex and reproductive organs, and it's a concept that's mostly useless in terms of non-human animal life."

won Aaron some points with me. It also made me envision transgendered rabbits. Rabbits on T! Rabbits packing and wearing binders! Rabbits stuffing their bras and getting electrolosis!

p.s. My vegetarian-anniversary is coming up. 7 years in July. I'll celebrate by feeding tylenol to stray cats.

Rather, I think she was mostly uninformed, as evidenced by her inability to address my doubts about her statement. Being right by accident is nice, but it doesn't make you informed.

And as far as me "jumping to conclusions," everyone who posted here jumped to conclusions. Your snide remark about jumping to conclusions (if stating that you highly doubt something can even fairly be called a conclusion, let alone one having been jumped to) is misplaced, as I was always open to evidence to the contrary. And now that you've offered some compelling evidence, I admit that my assumptions about Tylenol product testing were wrong.

See? Easy.

I actually imagined, at the time of my initial comment, that this thread would turn into a slugfest about gender.

PS The first sentence of the second paragraph of the previous comment should have been edited out. I moved in a different direction with the second sentence.

NOTE TO SINKER: I'd really like to be able to edit more than just the last post I made.

because it is relevant to everyone (OK, almost everyone. Todd and Zowie are exempt).

Because he's a weirdo panaoid who thinks that everyone is out delegitimate his existance.

Sort of like Chicago Greg.

And Todd is so not exempt. Ask him about post-modernity. Or macs.

Yeah, debating you is about as easy as giving birth through my left nostril. I need a fucking cigarette. I hear they test 'em on animals.

-Sigh- I'm not even going to argue about the whole uninformed thing. This was a good debate.

This should inspire you to go read a lot and totally humiliate me next time.

backing out of your principal statement. You stated that you were “all ears” about Tylenol testing on animals. If your ignorance didn’t blind you, and you were far more educated that you have already proven, you would know that acetaminophen is a common analgesic and specifically its brand name is none other than Tylenol. Need I say more to resolve your question?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol

The fact that “you don’t give a shit about if the corporate overlords at McNeil fund testing on animal” means that you might not give a shit about Tylenol at all, being that McNeil is the prime leader in marketing the drug Tylenol (acetaminophen). They are in partners with HLS, Huntingdon Life Science, they are the leaders in animal testing and research in the world. They will conduct test on my any drug, pharmaceutical, and product as long as the corporation will pay for the test being conducted. The answer is yes, the corporation that produces Tylenol are partnered with HLS to test acetaminophen which was found to kill cats.
Ass control, it seems as though you are backing out of your initial question because you cant face the fact that your beloved Tylenol does kill cats. The fact that acetaminophen is tested on cats, equally means that Tylenol is, on account that it’s the prime ingredient on the drug. Have you any facts or sites to prove that Tylenol (equally being acetaminophen), is not being tested or treated on animals? If so, present them to ALL of us for we are eager to hear your response. Your are now clearly the one in deep embarrassment. To conclude this, yes this is vivisection. They will continue to kill more animals as long as the corporations are willing to pay for them. A drug already on the market is not entirely cruelty free as long as one of its ingredients is still being tested on animals. The fact is, without that ingredient the drug would be nothing.
Ass control, by the way, your 11 years of being a vegetarian are rendered meaningless. And i ask what and why is the reason why you no longer enjoy meat? I sense that you will try to impact me with a comeback and stating that im in all embarrassment, but please save yourself from the tables being turned..
As for you stating that Alexandra is "uninformed" is in all equivalent to your statements about Tylenol. By that I mean utterly stupid and ignorant. Maybe it should have been you being the one informing themselves before making your previous statements.

Bother to understand what was going on.

If your ignorance didn’t blind you, and you were far more educated that you have already proven, you would know that acetaminophen is a common analgesic and specifically its brand name is none other than Tylenol. Need I say more to resolve your question?

No shit. If your ignorance didn’t blind you, and you were far more educated that you have already proven, you would have recognized that I was aware of that fact, and that it served as the crux of the point that I was making, as was made painfully clear if you read through the entirity of this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol

You just totally bowled me over with your amazing intellectual skills that allow you to link to Wikipedia.

The fact that “you don’t give a shit about if the corporate overlords at McNeil fund testing on animal” means that you might not give a shit about Tylenol at all, being that McNeil is the prime leader in marketing the drug Tylenol (acetaminophen).

No, it means you fail to understand what the question was.

They are in partners with HLS, Huntingdon Life Science, they are the leaders in animal testing and research in the world. They will conduct test on my any drug, pharmaceutical, and product as long as the corporation will pay for the test being conducted. The answer is yes, the corporation that produces Tylenol are partnered with HLS to test acetaminophen which was found to kill cats.

Blah, blah, blah. Irrelevant to the question.

Ass control, it seems as though you are backing out of your initial question because you cant face the fact that your beloved Tylenol does kill cats.

How true. My deep attachment to my beloved Tylenol has blinded me to the truth. If only I could find SOME WAY to sever my deep attachment to my most precious analgesic. No, no! I can't! I love it too much!!! I'll never part ways with it! Never!

The fact that acetaminophen is tested on cats, equally means that Tylenol is, on account that it’s the prime ingredient on the drug.

No, it doesn't. You need to take a course in logic.

Have you any facts or sites to prove that Tylenol (equally being acetaminophen), is not being tested or treated on animals?

Demanding I prove a negative. Are you being slimy or just ignorant?

If so, present them to ALL of us for we are eager to hear your response.

If your stupid ass made it to the bottom of the thread, you would know that this issue was resolved amicably.

Your are now clearly the one in deep embarrassment.

No. I'm the one who understands what transpired in this thread. You're the dipshit too clueless to figure it out. Whether you have the capacity to be embarrassed about that will depend on just how ignorant you are.

To conclude this, yes this is vivisection. They will continue to kill more animals as long as the corporations are willing to pay for them. A drug already on the market is not entirely cruelty free as long as one of its ingredients is still being tested on animals. The fact is, without that ingredient the drug would be nothing.

You're using a ridiculously expansive definition of vivisection that is worthless in the context of this discussion. As for your cruelty-free rant, I couldn't care less about your boilerplate animal rights outrage.

Ass control, by the way, your 11 years of being a vegetarian are rendered meaningless. And i ask what and why is the reason why you no longer enjoy meat? I sense that you will try to impact me with a comeback and stating that im in all embarrassment, but please save yourself from the tables being turned.

1) You're nobody. To think that you can assess the meaning of other people's lives makes you a piece of shit nobody.

2) I don't owe anybody, least of all a piece of shit nobody like you an explanation about anything.

3) You demonstrated a level of obnoxious ignorance that, even if I were charitable enough to give you an explanation, you would clearly not understand what was being said.

4) You are in all embarrassment.

5) I dutifully await the "tables being turned."

As for you stating that Alexandra is "uninformed" is in all equivalent to your statements about Tylenol. By that I mean utterly stupid and ignorant. Maybe it should have been you being the one informing themselves before making your previous statements.

Says the person who failed to follow the most basic plot of this thread. I'll give Alexandra this. She's light years ahead of you.

you have eliminated your discussion on Tylenol and have driven into an immature, i'll-prove-you-wrong, and defensive blog entry. You've just proven to everyone that you one of those type of infantile, close minded and simply idiotic beings that this world had the privilege to be infested with.

Next time you feel the need to chime in...Bother to understand what was going on.

Enlighten me, teach me about your logic and cognition. You have by all means proven that you are mentally stable.

No shit. If your ignorance didn’t blind you, and you were far more educated that you have already proven, you would have recognized that I was aware of that fact, and that it served as the crux of the point that I was making, as was made painfully clear if you read through the entirity of this thread.

Wow, a defensive statement that fails to address any reasonable or at least understandable assertion.

You just totally bowled me over with your amazing intellectual skills that allow you to link to Wikipedia.

You have failed to proven your amazing intellectual skills, have you got any?

Blah, blah, blah. Irrelevant to the question.

Apparently now, everything that states that in fact animals are used to test the prime ingredient on tylenol is completely "irrelevant" to the question. So now HLS is irrelevant to the fact that Tylenol tests on animals? Then what is relevant? Obviously every connection that we make to Tylenol is noticebly irrelevant according to you.

How true. My deep attachment to my beloved Tylenol has blinded me to the truth. If only I could find SOME WAY to sever my deep attachment to my most precious analgesic. No, no! I can't! I love it too much!!! I'll never part ways with it! Never!

Two words: Immature Dipshit

No, it doesn't. You need to take a course in logic.

Oh do I? And your judgement is perfectly reasonable? Proving that Tylenol and acetaminophen are equally parallel now means that i need a course in Logic? And you, what do you need? Do me a favor and answer that. I want to see the bullshit you come up with next. Oh, but wait, you dont owe anybody an explanation. Damn.

Demanding I prove a negative. Are you being slimy or just ignorant?

Maybe i am, but i dont see you portraying yourself as anything higher than me.

If your stupid ass made it to the bottom of the thread, you would know that this issue was resolved amicably.

Amicably? HA do you call this being solved in an amicable manner? By you straining every muscle in your body to prove everyone wrong with one of your imbecilic opinions?

No. I'm the one who understands what transpired in this thread. You're the dipshit too clueless to figure it out. Whether you have the capacity to be embarrassed about that will depend on just how ignorant you are.

You are the one who understands what transpired in this blog? Maybe if you weren't so ignorant to comence with, you would have never asked that question. You would have had the knowledge to address that question and reason with yourself. But since you are definitely the only one using logic in this entire verse, you make complete sense and you make everyone seems like defensive, mentally unstable whits.

You're using a ridiculously expansive definition of vivisection that is worthless in the context of this discussion. As for your cruelty-free rant, I couldn't care less about your boilerplate animal rights outrage.

"Ridiculous expansive definition of vivesection?" So what is animal testing conducted on live animals called asshole? How do you prove that animals are being tested on without arriving to the conclusion that its vivesection? "Worthless in the context of this discussion?"
Pardon me, i forgot that everything else stated about animal testing conducted on the igredients in tylenol is "irrelevant" to this. Maybe i'll just admit that Tylenol is not the culprit of 900 cats being killed and that injecting cats with acetaminophen is not vivesection.

1) You're nobody. To think that you can assess the meaning of other people's lives makes you a piece of shit nobody.

Of course im nodody to assess the meaning of anyone elses life but my own, and you are nodody to state that I am "a piece of shit nobody." Props to your amicable skills. Maybe next time you can leave your defensive shit out of an arguement and really impact someone with hard facts, impressive logic, and humble attitude, not unreasonable opinions, ignorant rants, and an excusatory and defensive attitude.

2) I don't owe anybody, least of all a piece of shit nobody like you an explanation about anything.

Yeah, i forgot you cant simply express yourself, much less answer a simple question, without ranting how the adversary is "a piece of shit." Great way to prove your maturity there.

3) You demonstrated a level of obnoxious ignorance that, even if I were charitable enough to give you an explanation, you would clearly not understand what was being said.

"Obnoxious ignorance". Damn, you really burned me with that one. But you haven't presented the undeniable intelligence you have claimed so far.

4) You are in all embarrassment.

There is nothing more embarrasing than stating opinions based on facts and the simple act of trying to answer a question. Maybe i should follow in your footsteps and be far more ignorantly assertive, defensive and simply not have facts to back my shit up. I agree, that will save me from embarrasing myself from an internet blog.

5) I dutifully await the "tables being turned."

No one cant beat you sweety, you've proven yourself. Damn, i wish i carried the same honorable opinions as you do.

Says the person who failed to follow the most basic plot of this thread. I'll give Alexandra this. She's light years ahead of you.

Ouch, another harsh comeback. She may be light years ahead of me, but you are light years behind me. Should you have used your time far more wisely to adequately inform yourself, maybe, just maybe you wouldnt have portrayed yourself as the dumbass, close-minded and uninformed scum you are.

Please, do us all a favor and overdose on Tylenol.

I love this one. Can we keep her?

You still haven't read or understood the thread. Despite all the bluster, you have nothing to say. I might accept a rewrite if you do the assigned reading.

I'd stick around to say more, but I'm going to go marry Tylenol because I love it so much.

I live for this shit.

you have eliminated your discussion on Tylenol and have driven into an immature, i'll-prove-you-wrong, and defensive blog entry. You've just proven to everyone that you one of those type of infantile, close minded and simply idiotic beings that this world had the privilege to be infested with.

Actually, as you would know if you had READ THE THREAD, the discussion about Tylenol was neatly sewn up before you arrived. Also, the (in)substance of your criticism belies your pompous tone, and people who rail against "immaturity" are usually projecting their own anxieties.

Enlighten me, teach me about your logic and cognition. You have by all means proven that you are mentally stable.

Um, yeah. Whatever that means.

Wow, a defensive statement that fails to address any reasonable or at least understandable assertion.

You have failed to proven your amazing intellectual skills, have you got any?

Apparently now, everything that states that in fact animals are used to test the prime ingredient on tylenol is completely "irrelevant" to the question. So now HLS is irrelevant to the fact that Tylenol tests on animals? Then what is relevant? Obviously every connection that we make to Tylenol is noticebly irrelevant according to you.

You haven't brought any substantive statements of fact to the (resolved) discussion. If you bothered to READ THE THREAD and figure out what the "question" was, then you might also be able to use that sharp little brain of your to figure out how your ranting was irrelevant.

Two words: Immature Dipshit

re: immature -- see above.

Oh do I?

Yes, you do.

And your judgement is perfectly reasonable?

Yes, it is.

Proving that Tylenol and acetaminophen are equally parallel now means that i need a course in Logic?

You "proved" no such thing.

And you, what do you need?

Do me a favor and answer that.

I want to see the bullshit you come up with next.

Oh, but wait, you dont owe anybody an explanation.

Now you're conflating issues.

Damn.

Indeed.

Maybe i am, but i dont see you portraying yourself as anything higher than me.

Um?

Amicably? HA do you call this being solved in an amicable manner? By you straining every muscle in your body to prove everyone wrong with one of your imbecilic opinions?

Yet again, I am compelled to point out that the extent to which you are utterly wrong would quickly become evident to you were you to merely READ THE THREAD.

You are the one who understands what transpired in this blog?

Yes. Me and the people WHO READ IT.

Maybe if you weren't so ignorant to comence with, you would have never asked that question. You would have had the knowledge to address that question and reason with yourself.

Maybe. Maybe not. Of course the reason for raising the question was discussed in the above thread. You know, the one that YOU DIDN'T READ.

But since you are definitely the only one using logic in this entire verse, you make complete sense and you make everyone seems like defensive, mentally unstable whits.

Whits?

"Ridiculous expansive definition of vivesection?" So what is animal testing conducted on live animals called asshole?

What is animal testing on dead animals called?

How do you prove that animals are being tested on without arriving to the conclusion that its vivesection?

I suppose to label any animal test as vivisection has a certain sensational cache about it, but like most propagandistic language, it tends to blur distinctions that I would like to keep clear.

"Worthless in the context of this discussion?"
Pardon me, i forgot that everything else stated about animal testing conducted on the igredients in tylenol is "irrelevant" to this. Maybe i'll just admit that Tylenol is not the culprit of 900 cats being killed and that injecting cats with acetaminophen is not vivesection.

READ THE THREAD.

Of course im nodody to assess the meaning of anyone elses life but my own, and you are nodody to state that I am "a piece of shit nobody."

Props to your amicable skills.

More conflation.

Maybe next time you can leave your defensive shit out of an arguement and really impact someone with hard facts, impressive logic, and humble attitude, not unreasonable opinions, ignorant rants, and an excusatory and defensive attitude.

Irony overload.

Yeah, i forgot you cant simply express yourself, much less answer a simple question, without ranting how the adversary is "a piece of shit."

I expressed myself simply without calling someone a piece of shit once. It was in THE THREAD YOU DIDN'T READ.

ps

You aren't an "adversary."

Great way to prove your maturity there.

re: maturity -- Third times a charm.

"Obnoxious ignorance". Damn, you really burned me with that one. But you haven't presented the undeniable intelligence you have claimed so far.

There is nothing more embarrasing than stating opinions based on facts and the simple act of trying to answer a question. Maybe i should follow in your footsteps and be far more ignorantly assertive, defensive and simply not have facts to back my shit up. I agree, that will save me from embarrasing myself from an internet blog.

You just spent a paragraph responding to a throwaway joke line.

No one cant beat you sweety, you've proven yourself. Damn, i wish i carried the same honorable opinions as you do.

Ouch, another harsh comeback. She may be light years ahead of me, but you are light years behind me. Should you have used your time far more wisely to adequately inform yourself, maybe, just maybe you wouldnt have portrayed yourself as the dumbass, close-minded and uninformed scum you are.

Yes, yes, yes. You can sling pro forma insults. You get a pat on the back. But lacking any comprehension of the discussion you're commenting on, the above screed merely reveals an angry teen, obsessed with embarrassment and maturity, screaming into the void. You should take a deep breath.

I live for this shit.

It might be the only thing.

Just to shut you the fuck up about me not reading the “Thread”:

Submitted by KungFuFlipperBaby

But a lot of the drug testing that is done is not to save human lives, but to find new ways to market existing drugs

Agree.

Submitted by ass control on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 12:27pm.

Prove that the product Tylenol is currently tested on animals. Offer some documentation. Cite a source.
I mean, sure, some scientist somewhere is feeding acetaminophen to rats to see if it's a better analgesic than coedine. But, to get to the implication of your statement regarding product testing, is Tylenol, the company, feeding acetaminophen to cats to see how fast they die? If you come up with some evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears, by I don't see why a manufacturer would be testing a 60-year-old commonly prescribed drug on animals. What would be the point?

Quite some hypocrisy there. Many people, with sources and facts, have proven that Tylenol is responsible for testing on animals. Stick your head out of your ass and realize that.

Submitted by messagereceived on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 12:28pm.

As far as prescription drugs go... The animal testing comes in BEFORE it comes to market, not after. The only testing Tylenol undergoes at this point is marketing research, as in, what new product can they hang the name Tylenol on that will make it sell better. My personl fave: Tylenol X: For that pain that's too extreme.

He/she makes more sense than you ever did. Now that they know that the ingredients in Tylenol cause liver disease in cats, its ready for the market.

Submitted by OneGirrlRiot on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 12:44pm.

You're right, I don't see a point in using this drug on animals, but the fact of the matter is, Acetaminophen , (doing research, not quite sure the actual brand Tylenol uses animal testing) may cause liver damage if you use it as it is prescribed. Which leads to the question: if this is the damage it causes in a human, then exactly what is the damage caused to animal? And like Mack said, at least this isn't humans they're testing on, but what is so wrong about this is that the way the drugs are being tested on animals, it is not safe and very unhumane. Here's some links now:
This is the address to the tylenol FAQ website where they state that NO tylenol, does not cause liver damage (1. http://www.tylenol.com/page.jhtml?id=tylenol/ask/subpfaq.inc) Just click on the extra strength tylenol link.
Here's one for a medical website that states tylenol may cause liver damage (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=46607)
And here's the ALF's website for FAQ's just if you're interested in more news about animals and lab testing (http://animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal%20Testing/Vivisection...)

More sense than you’ll ever make

Submitted by ass control on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 12:52pm.

All I care about is establishing your particular claims about Tylenol and animal testing. I didn't need a regurgitation of all that animal rights drivel.

Hypocrisy once more. They’ve established such claims. All of which you claim are irrelevant or unclear. What do you think you will get if not “animal rights drivels”. That is because they have hearts.

Submitted by KungFuFlipperBaby on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 1:03pm.

Tylenol is manufactured by McNeil Pharmaceutical, who is a tentacle of Johnson and Johnson whose animal testing policy is here:
http://www.jnj.com/community/policies/animal_testing/animal_testing.htm;...

Thank you!

Submitted by ass control on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 1:22pm.

I can't say that your painfully obvious statement is wrong.

Since you claim that everyone here is “painfully” wrong, then retire from this blog. Relive your life as a secluded cabin boy and ignore all technology, just so that you wont encounter “ignorant” people here.

Submitted by KungFuFlipperBaby on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 2:50pm.

Geez, a guy tries to be helpful... I thought that perhaps you (ass control) were genuinely interested in whether or not Tylenol is tested on animals. I didn't realize you were merely interested in asserting the opinion that anytime one reiterates a fact that certain people take for granted, one must have committed to memory the exact authorative source of said information. And that's a totally valid opinion. But they really do test that shit on animals, it's true! Go look at Google scholar!

I don’t think the need to add more to that is necessary in order to prove that you are a defensive and damaged individual.

Submitted by OneGirrlRiot on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 3:30pm.

If you don't give a shit about it then why argue about it? Only to prove me wrong? How does going to look at Google Scholar not count? Do you really think that McNeil is really going to let just anyone dig around a little around their website and find that in fact, Tylenol really is tested on animals? Do you really think that I'm going to be able to send the head of the corporation an email asking, "Do you test your product Tylenol on animals?" And that right away I'll get a reply "Well, sure we do, we'll admit it" or even a simple "No"? If the only thing that I am provided is getting reports through Google Scholar, then that is what I'm going to use. My "fuzzy love-the-animals schtick", yeah right, all I have is a "schtick" going for me. If that is all I had I would say, "save the animals" and be a hypocrite and eat meat and say that labs test on animals and not no what I'm talking about.
To test a detergent for possible eye irration, a sort of paste is placed into the eyes of rabbits, who are then bandaged and left to react to the paste.
http://www.awionline.org/lab_animals/pratt/prat13-1.jpg
In Great Britain, only about a quarter of experiments on animals ever even went into print (Read Animal Machines).
But, of course you don't give a shit about this because I'm just an uninformed fanatic who considers the interests of animals more important than the interests of human beings, at least thats what the experimenters and their commercial firms that profit by supplying laboratory animals and equipment want you to believe.

Alex, just give it up. Aaron has already proven that he is the only one that is factually correct and no one will solve much less end his claim on this Tylenol testing bullshit. And since you are “just an uniformed fanatic” I’ll just help you bake vegan cakes while we preach about animal rights outside of every Wallgreens and/or Wal-marts. =)

Submitted by ass control on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 3:43pm.

it's just one non sequitor after another with you. how is that rabbit bullshit even relevant? maybe it's just me and my INSANE sense of intellectual propriety, but i think its weird to go around and say, "yeah, tylenol, like EVERYTHING at wal-mart (hyperbole alert!!!) is tested on animals" without having any substantial base of knowledge to support the assetion.

Where is your “substantial base of knowledge”? I haven’t seen any being stated by you.

and you don't get to use google scholar, or any general encycopedic set of information, as a crutch. Making wide-eyed assertions and telling people to to go look it up "on the internet" if they don't believe you is going to get you laughed at time and again.

Who are you to state that “[they] don’t get to use google scholar”. They use what ever they please. All you use if your embarrassment antics, do us all a favor and develop another way to defeat your opponent. This isn’t going to intimidate them.

as for all that persecution complex bullshit you're carrying around about how people just don't UNDERSTAND you and your respect for animal life, you'd do well to lose it. all lot of people know a lot more than you think. and if you go around treating people like rubes who just can't fathom the deep insight that YOU possess, you're going to look stupid.

Ha.

Submitted by KungFuFlipperBaby on Thu, 06/14/2007 - 8:12pm.

I must revisit this topic and rub Aaron's nose is his own shit. The main issue underlying this tete a tete seems to be Aaron's understanding of the term "tested on animals." He seems to apply a narrow definition of "product testing" which he describes as "Tylenol, the company, feeding acetaminophen to cats to see how fast they die." Of course, this would be an easier claim to prove or refute if Tylenol was in fact a company and not a brand name, but let's let that one slide. Regardless of whether the makers of Tylenol engage in this particular practice, this was not the claim that Alex made. Perhaps she used some short hand abbreviations, the type most people understand when they're not being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Not that there's anything wrong with that... McNeil Pharmaceutical funds many studies that involve subjecting animals to their acetomeniphine.
1. Here's that one example:
Actions of paracetamol on cyclooxygenases in tissue and cell homogenates of mouse and rabbit
Med Sci Monit, 2002; 8(12): BR496-503
This work was supported by the British Heart Foundation, ASPET and McNeil Pharmaceuticals
Aaron asks about the point of testing a "60-year-old commonly prescribed drug on animals." There are many consumer products that were once thought to be safe that shifting cultural attitudes, greater scientific research and anecdotal evidence have proven to be flawed. For example, there have been numerous news stories about liver damage caused by acetometiphine, and multi-nationals like Johnson and Johnson need to protect themselves from class action lawsuits, so ongoing research is always done even on mainstream, "safe" products such as Tylenol.

Reread this.

Submitted by ass control on Fri, 06/15/2007 - 8:31am.

as a vegetarian of 11 years, and as a vegan for 8 of those( since we're pulling out our dicks to compare credentials), I'm going to be the one doing the rubbing (noses, not dicks).

More defensive “irrelevant” bullshit.

My understanding of the term "tested on animals" in this instance is rooted in the context that Alexandra laid out:
Tylenol is tested on animals. Just like everything else you can buy at wal-mart.
This is very clearly a context of product testing, and not a context of medical research. There aren't a whole lot of Wal-Mart consumable goods that are being injected into rats in order to find that next big allergy medicine. Lest you think this is too particular a reading, let me point out that, Josh, a pharmamicist, also interpreted the statement as referring to product testing.
Moreover, in her initial response to me, Alexandra invokes household products manufactured by Proctor and Gamble as a further example of what she's talking about.
Now, you characterize my definition of product testing as such:
Tylenol, the company, feeding acetaminophen to cats to see how fast they die
In fact, in the broader context of that post, this was me clarifying the difference between general medical research and manufacturer-directed product testing. Yes, I allowed, some scientists might be getting government research grants to fill rats full of acetaminophen, but is the brand Tylenol being tested on animals by the manufacturer -- still? Granted this is a fine point, put those are the only points I feel like making these days.

Your stupidity is captivating

The second purpose of the statement that you quoted was to point out the odd connection Alexandra makes between the two subjects of her post. Tylenol killing cats makes her sad because Tylenol is tested on animals? I can see that being especially poignant if McNeil were pouring 10,000 mg of Tylenol down a cat's throat and then counting the seconds and convulsions before the poor bastard died. But assuming that the product is tested on an animal that can tolerate the drug better, probably in an animal whose reaction approximates humans, I don't see that poignant relevance -- even if the testing is harmful to the animal. That is to say, I can see why it might have made her think of the connection, but I still thought it was strange. So my statement above, in addition to drawing some sharper distinction, distinctions that Alexandra was avoiding altogether, was as a mild jab at the odd logic of her post.

Actually, to restate your allegations to the “poor bastard”:
One of the purposes of animal testing is to test the toleration of the product/pharmaceutical. They will test the animals “convulsions” on account of testing the product for overdose. Maybe you should test that for us. Just open one of the multiple bottles of Tylenol that you neatly stack in your drawers and take more than a handful of them. Wait for the convulsions, drink plenty of water and call your poison control center only to report your findings.

For the second half of your post, you go on to beat a dead horse about how the Tylenol's owner is involved in animal testing of various sorts. This, despite the fact that you just acknowledged that I was specifically discussing product testing of a brand rather than medical research of a company.
You continue to belabor this point, quoting me questioning why anyone would test a "60-year-old commonly prescribed drug on animals." Again, in the context of product testing, your answer is less convincing than you think it is. Granted, pointing to the fact that Johnson and Johnson need to be concerned about liver problems and lawsuits is interesting, but it strikes me that more reliable and comprehensive data would be gathered by large group studies on human beings who are already taking this drug.
So, the question remains, do you have any evidence that J & J is testing Tylenol on animals for this reason (ie livers). Or is this another case of assuming that because most/all pharmaceutical companies test on animals, we can just say anything we want about them because it's probably true. That's what Alexandra seemed to be doing. Especially when you add in the hyperbolic line about Wal-Mart and the easy, if unecessary, demonization of P & G.

Ha Ha some more of your obscure allegations never based on fact or simple logic.

Now....

Submitted by kashinova on Sat, 06/16/2007 - 8:39pm.

Actually, as you would know if you had READ THE THREAD, the discussion about Tylenol was neatly sewn up before you arrived. Also, the (in)substance of your criticism belies your pompous tone, and people who rail against "immaturity" are usually projecting their own anxieties.

Actually, no, when I read the “thread”, before replying, I sensed that:
1. Half, if not all, the people here wouldn’t care if you got hit by a semi transporting pharmaceutical to Walgreens, Wal-mart, etc. and died.
2. Everyone gave up arguing with a defensive kid who thinks that “embarrassment” is the only reason why no more claims were presented and one who keeps ranting about the same thing over and over again.
3.You have no purpose of living. And at this point, yes I do authorize myself eligible to be stating that.

Um, yeah. Whatever that means.

Of course your wouldn’t know what that means.

You haven't brought any substantive statements of fact to the (resolved) discussion. If you bothered to READ THE THREAD and figure out what the "question" was, then you might also be able to use that sharp little brain of your to figure out how your ranting was irrelevant.

Take your own advice and ”Read the Thread”. I discovered plenty of “substantive statements” from other people but never a single fact from you.

Irony overload.

Ouch, what a comeback to counteract the oppositions you know were true.

I expressed myself simply without calling someone a piece of shit once. It was in THE THREAD YOU DIDN'T READ.

Hypocrisy: Read statements made by this piece of shit: kashinova

Yes, yes, yes. You can sling pro forma insults. You get a pat on the back. But lacking any comprehension of the discussion you're commenting on, the above screed merely reveals an angry teen, obsessed with embarrassment and maturity, screaming into the void. You should take a deep breath.

OUCH! BUUUUURN! Wow, you really put me in my place.

I think the only embarrasing thing ive done is continue to respond to your damaged persona and your counter arguements. Im bound to develop a headache now, maybe i'll just take some tylenol.

Alex, just give it up. Aaron has already proven that he is the only one that is factually correct and no one will solve much less end his claim on this Tylenol testing bullshit. And since you are “just an uniformed fanatic” I’ll just help you bake vegan cakes while we preach about animal rights outside of every Wallgreens and/or Wal-marts. =)

Did someone say vegan cake?

Yes mah lady...

Is comprehension. Not that I should be surprised that you're incapable of that. Most animal rights zealots I've known are lacking in the rigorous thought department. You're probably a bad self-esteem day away from bombing an abortion clinic.

But, whatever. Scientific studies have show that animals don't feel pain the same way people do. So it's not that big of a deal anyway.

Ouch!

Still totally do you, though.

Its whether I'd do you
and nah, I'd rather do a pharmacist

that vegan cake.....

Poor animals. Unfortunately this is the real situation. They test the medicaments on animals and then they say that you shouldn't give a certain pill to them because it is mortal. They definetly need a addiction treatment to leave these animals alone or at least not lie to us.