PsychoSexual

Only not quite that kind of "psycho" and not quite that kind of "Sexual"

30 notes

spanishskulduggery:

foreignfawn:

attemptingtolearnlanguages:

Okay I’m really confused because:

Duolingo says that the correct answer is “yo hago la misma pregunta” (I ask the same question), and in this case the adjective comes before the noun. But in most other cases, the adjective comes afer the noun like “Tengo un gato blanco”, so why does mismo / misma…

Duolingo is not wrong, it is indeed “yo hago la misma pregunta” and “tengo un gato blanco.” As for why, I… really don’t know. I grew up speaking Spanish, so I never formally learned the grammar. I just know when things sound wrong/right.

I know that French has BAGS adjectives, which stands for Beauty — Age — Goodness — Size. This means that in French, all adjectives come after the noun except for the ones that refer to the object’s beauty, age, goodness, or size. So, French is a lot like Spanish in that, for the most part, adjectives will come after the noun with a few exceptions. I don’t know the specific rule in Spanish, though, but it certainly isn’t BAGS.

Now that I’m trying to think of examples, it seems that perhaps adjectives that refer to order might always come before the noun, so “la primera canción,” “la última clase” and simpler adjectives like colors always come after, “el auto rojo,” “el libro azul,” etc.

Can any of my followers who know how Spanish grammar works explain this?

The adjective mismo/a has two different meanings depending on where you place it.

Before the noun means “same” - Tengo la misma camisa “I have the same shirt”.

After the noun means “myself / yourself / himself / herself / itself” - Tengo que hacerlo yo misma. “I have to do it myself [yo is a woman so misma; male yo is mismo]”

Ordinal numbers like primer(a), segundo/a, tercer(a), último/a, penúltimo/a tend to go in front

Possessives can be either way mi(s) vs. mío/a | míos / mías etc.

And bueno/a, malo/a, and grande might go in front of masculine articles as buen, mal, gran.

Some adjectives are very special cases like bello/a meaning “beautiful” typically goes behind a noun… but then you have las bellas artes meaning “fine arts”

I did a big post on how adjective placement works and the major ones with changing meanings

162,653 notes

mulatoomcmxci:

steppauseturnpausepivotstepstep:

babybutta:

yarrahs-life:

high-power-prolific:

thehereticpharaoh:

People really don’t believe Ancient Egyptians were ethnically African?

They referred to themselves, not as ”Egyptians” (a Greek term) , but as ”Kemmui’’, meaning, ”the blacks”.
The country itself they called, Kemet, or black nation.
'Kem' is the term for black in the ancient Egyptian language. It is represented in hieroglyphs by a stick charred at both ends.”
"km.t, the name of Ancient Egypt in Egyptian; Egypt (Coptic: Kemi)
r n km.t, the native term for the Egyptian language
(Ref: The Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vols 1&2, E.A. Budge, Dover.) 
Note: words inside brackets are the determinatives or word classifiers along with their English meanings.
Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black 
Kememu = Black people (Ancient Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou).
Kem [khet][wood] = extremely black, jet-black
Kemet = any black thing. Note: “t” is silent - pronounced Kemé
Kemet [nu][community, settlement, nation] = Black nation = Ancient Egypt.  
Kemet [Romé][people] = Black people. Ancient Egyptians. 
Kemit [Shoit][books] = Black books, Ancient Egyptian literature.  
Kem wer [miri][large body of water] = The Great Black sea (The Red sea). This sea is neither black nor red, this is in reference to which nation, Black or Red, at a particular time, controlled this body of water. 
Kemi fer = Black double house; seat of government. Note: by reference to Wolof again, we know that to make a plural of per or house, the “p” becomes an “f” or fer. Thus fero=great houses (double), it is not pero as Budge writes.
In Ancient Egyptian, the ordinary adjective always follows the noun it modifies, whereas a sanctified adjective usually comes before its noun.  The sanctified adjectives are:
Kem —  Black
Suten -  Royal
Nter —-  Holy, Sacred
Examples:
Kem ti = Black image, sacred image : ti oubash = white image  
Kem ho = Black face/title of a god   : ho oubash = white face  
Kem ta = Black land, holy land        : Ta deshret = Red land (also; Ta Sett) 
This rule does not apply when Black is used as a noun-adjective of nationality:  
Hompt Kemet = copper of Black; Egyptian copper :  Hompt Sett = copper of the Red nations; Asiatic copper  
Ro in Kemet (page 416a) = speech of Black; mute ro n Kemet = word of the mouth of Black; the Egyptian language
Kemet Deshret = Black and Red; good and evil; fertile and barren, etc.; Duality  
Deshretu (page 554a,b) = red ones, red devils.  Used also to refer to the Namu and Tamhu; not a complimentary label. 
African Origins: 
The following Ancient Egyptian words acknowledge the origins of Pharaonic Egyptian civilization; 
Khentu Hon Nefer (page 554a) = founders of the Excellent Order. Budge: “peoples and tribes of Nubia and the Egyptian Sudan.” For “Hon” see page 586b. 
Hon Nefer (page 1024b) = Excellent Order
Kenus (page1024b) = mighty; brave (from Kenu, page 772a)
Ta Khent (page 1051b/page 554b) = land of the beginning.  
Eau (page 952b/page 17b) = the old country  
Ancient Egyptian’s Worldview:  
The Egyptian’s view of the world was the exact opposite of the current Western one. To the Egyptian, the top of the world was in the south (upper) towards the African interior, the bottom (lower) towards the north, hence upper and lower Egypt; upper and lower Syria.”
"Oh yes, the black soil business.
Most scholars outside the modern western cover-up establishment have rejected the false interpretation some have given to Kemet, ostensibly alluding the term Kemet to the alleged ”black soil”  of Egypt. There’s nothing in the term, outside the imagination of western myth-makers,  to suggest the Egyptians referred to the color of the soil or sand, rather than the people, in naming their country. Our position is consistent with the testimony of the ancient Greek writers, eyewitnesses who unanimously described the Egyptians as a black people, closely related to the ”Ethiopians”.”

And white Hollywood casts white actors and gives them tans.

*internal sobbing*

i will never not reblog this. i know too many people who for real dont think Egypt is a part of Africa.

KNOW YOUR HISTORY

mulatoomcmxci:

steppauseturnpausepivotstepstep:

babybutta:

yarrahs-life:

high-power-prolific:

thehereticpharaoh:

People really don’t believe Ancient Egyptians were ethnically African?

They referred to themselves, not as ”Egyptians” (a Greek term) , but as ”Kemmui’’, meaning, ”the blacks”.

The country itself they called, Kemet, or black nation.

'Kem' is the term for black in the ancient Egyptian language. It is represented in hieroglyphs by a stick charred at both ends.”

"km.t, the name of Ancient Egypt in Egyptian; Egypt (Coptic: Kemi)

r n km.t, the native term for the Egyptian language

(Ref: The Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vols 1&2, E.A. Budge, Dover.) 

Note: words inside brackets are the determinatives or word classifiers along with their English meanings.

Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black 

Kememu = Black people (Ancient Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou).

Kem [khet][wood] = extremely black, jet-black

Kemet = any black thing. Note: “t” is silent - pronounced Kemé

Kemet [nu][community, settlement, nation] = Black nation = Ancient Egypt.  

Kemet [Romé][people] = Black people. Ancient Egyptians. 

Kemit [Shoit][books] = Black books, Ancient Egyptian literature.  

Kem wer [miri][large body of water] = The Great Black sea (The Red sea). This sea is neither black nor red, this is in reference to which nation, Black or Red, at a particular time, controlled this body of water. 

Kemi fer = Black double house; seat of government. Note: by reference to Wolof again, we know that to make a plural of per or house, the “p” becomes an “f” or fer. Thus fero=great houses (double), it is not pero as Budge writes.

In Ancient Egyptian, the ordinary adjective always follows the noun it modifies, whereas a sanctified adjective usually comes before its noun.  The sanctified adjectives are:

Kem —  Black

Suten -  Royal

Nter —-  Holy, Sacred

Examples:

Kem ti = Black image, sacred image : ti oubash = white image  

Kem ho = Black face/title of a god   : ho oubash = white face  

Kem ta = Black land, holy land        : Ta deshret = Red land (also; Ta Sett) 

This rule does not apply when Black is used as a noun-adjective of nationality:  

Hompt Kemet = copper of Black; Egyptian copper :  Hompt Sett = copper of the Red nations; Asiatic copper  

Ro in Kemet (page 416a) = speech of Black; mute ro n Kemet = word of the mouth of Black; the Egyptian language

Kemet Deshret = Black and Red; good and evil; fertile and barren, etc.; Duality  

Deshretu (page 554a,b) = red ones, red devils.  Used also to refer to the Namu and Tamhu; not a complimentary label. 

African Origins: 

The following Ancient Egyptian words acknowledge the origins of Pharaonic Egyptian civilization; 

Khentu Hon Nefer (page 554a) = founders of the Excellent Order. Budge: “peoples and tribes of Nubia and the Egyptian Sudan.” For “Hon” see page 586b. 

Hon Nefer (page 1024b) = Excellent Order

Kenus (page1024b) = mighty; brave (from Kenu, page 772a)

Ta Khent (page 1051b/page 554b) = land of the beginning.  

Eau (page 952b/page 17b) = the old country  

Ancient Egyptian’s Worldview:  

The Egyptian’s view of the world was the exact opposite of the current Western one. To the Egyptian, the top of the world was in the south (upper) towards the African interior, the bottom (lower) towards the north, hence upper and lower Egypt; upper and lower Syria.”

"Oh yes, the black soil business.

Most scholars outside the modern western cover-up establishment have rejected the false interpretation some have given to Kemet, ostensibly alluding the term Kemet to the alleged ”black soil”  of Egypt. There’s nothing in the term, outside the imagination of western myth-makers,  to suggest the Egyptians referred to the color of the soil or sand, rather than the people, in naming their country. Our position is consistent with the testimony of the ancient Greek writers, eyewitnesses who unanimously described the Egyptians as a black people, closely related to the ”Ethiopians”.”

And white Hollywood casts white actors and gives them tans.

*internal sobbing*

i will never not reblog this. i know too many people who for real dont think Egypt is a part of Africa.

KNOW YOUR HISTORY

(via foreignfawn)

2,629 notes

Understanding the Ethnic Geography of China

drunkasianhistory:

First, understand the provinces of China:

image

When people think of China, they all assume that everyone in China is Chinese, speaks Chinese, looks and live like this:

image

Now let’s look at the Ethnic Make-Up of China!

image

Look how many Han Chinese there are? But first things first! All the Han Chinese do not speak the same language! Chinese is probably as useful as saying the “Europeans”.

Let’s pretend that Europe is combined into a single country! But with London as the Capital City, and everyone is officially, “European” and they all speak “European”, with European English as the official language of Europe! The French, German, Spanish and Russians? They are their own entire language, culture and ethnicity.

Same goes with China. China is much larger than Europe, speaking different languages, eating different foods, practicing different religions, wearing different clothing. Beijing is the capital, with Mandarin Chinese as the official language of the entire country. However, Chinese languages are considered “Dialects”, but not their own distinct language, culture or ethnicity.

Now let’s look at the Han Chinese languages:

image

Mandarin Chinese not only has it’s “Northern, Eastern, Southwestern” dialects, but they even break up into more different dialects and accents from different region, city and province. There’s a difference between London accent, Welsh accent, Scottish and Irish accents. To simplify it, the government simply grouped everyone together.

Southern Chinese languages cannot mutually understand with any other Chinese. That’s like an Englishman trying to communicate with a German, a Dutch, or a Danish. They all belong from the same language group, but they cannot understand one another mutually.

But what about the other Non-Han Chinese?

image

See where Han is at? (Look where Beijing would be!) That is the original homeland of all Han Chinese people.

There are officially 56 Ethnic Groups in China, but there are hundreds and even more that are unofficial and undocumented. It’s the Chinese government way of saying, “Meh. Saffron, Violet and Pink are the same thing. Let’s just call it “Red”.

But how did Han Chinese became the major language and ethnic group of China?

image

Through conquest! Very much like how the Romans of today Italy killed, pillaged, raped and took over the Gauls of France, the Germania of Central Europe and the Britannia’s of the British Isles, and turned them “Roman citizens” through colonization and expansion!image

But what makes China a unique case, is that the surviving natives of the Northern Han conquest, is that they still retain much of their native cultures. They survived, because most of the ethnic groups lived up in the mountains, where the ancient Han Chinese were too lazy to bring their armies up mountains:

image

Those who were colonized and assimilated into Chinese culture?

image

The Vietnamese were colonized by the Chinese more than three times.

image

Korea was colonized/tributing state for the longest time ever.

image

And Southern China! They would be influenced and assimilated strongest to Northern Chinese culture and language!

But why is everyone considered Chinese?

Same bullshit as your government saying that you’re an American, Canadian, British, Australian, etc. etc. citizen. It’s like a rich White straight male, taking control of the government and dictating how you live, under his life style. The Han Chinese says that everyone in China is all Chinese.

And mostly the blatent ignorance and education on the diversity of China. 

Chinese Dialects?

It’s another bullshit ideology.

Is French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese a dialect of Europe? No. They are their own distinct languages. They may come from the same Roman history, the same Romance language family, but they are their own language. Teochow, Hakka, Minnan, Cantonese, Mandarin, etc. etc. are their own distinct language and ethnicity.

Unified China?

To unify Germany, Hitler said that the German Race was the greatest race! Germans from all over Europe, the German Swiss, the Austrian Germans, etc. etc. united as a single “Race” and rose to power.

To unify China, Northern Chinese Emperors said that they were the greatest race! And attempted to conquer everyone else, killing anyone who wasn’t “Chinese”. This was done for more than 3,000 years, resulting in many extinct native cultures and ethnicities in China, and resulting many cultures (like Korea, Vietnam and even Taiwan) to assimilate into Northern Han Chinese culture.

Conclusion:

Not everyone in China are Mandarin Han Chinese, the major ethnic and language speaking group of China. Three different dialects of Mandarin and 6 different languages of Southern Chinese (Hakka, Min, Wu, etc.).

There is an official recognized 56 ethnic groups, but hundreds that are unrecognized. Such as Tibetans, Miao, Manchu and even Koreans and Mongolians!

China is very diverse in language, culture, religion and ethnicity. Not everyone is ethnically Chinese, nor speak Mandarin Chinese.

(via clevergirlhelps)

46,655 notes

manafromheaven:

keepingupwiththekhaleesi:

whoduhthunkit:

depressingfinland:

chibisuz:

depressingfinland:

234937289:

Bus seats in Finland - for the unsocial people, like me.

Rule number one in Finnish public transport culture: Don’t sit next to anyone. Unless the seats are like this.In every other cases fill the spots from window seats. Then standing up seats. If the bus gets crowded sit next to someone but sit as far as possible from the other person and turn your head to look to the completely different direction. Don’t say a word. And if you’re the one sitting next to window pray all the gods that the other person leaves before you, because otherwise you’d have to speak to him/her. Usually it’s something like “Umm..ileavenow”. Remember, no sorries or smiles. Just say it as low and fast as possible without making any eye contact. 

legit advise for people visiting finland. that “ileavenow” is “mä jään täs” in finnish. it’s okay if you don’t pronounce it perfectly right because the only reason someone would talk to strangers in public transport is to ask them to move, so they will get the hint. 
BUT! usually just things like putting your phone away and rustling your bag and looking like you are about to leave will do the trick. no need for words.
….and this is how you wait for a bus in finland:


Reblogging because of that picture. So true. And familiar.

This is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen…what the actual fuck. It almost seems like a joke but I feel like it’s actually serious????

?????¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

Wh
……rly??

manafromheaven:

keepingupwiththekhaleesi:

whoduhthunkit:

depressingfinland:

chibisuz:

depressingfinland:

234937289:

Bus seats in Finland - for the unsocial people, like me.

Rule number one in Finnish public transport culture: Don’t sit next to anyone. Unless the seats are like this.

In every other cases fill the spots from window seats. Then standing up seats. If the bus gets crowded sit next to someone but sit as far as possible from the other person and turn your head to look to the completely different direction. Don’t say a word. 

And if you’re the one sitting next to window pray all the gods that the other person leaves before you, because otherwise you’d have to speak to him/her. Usually it’s something like “Umm..ileavenow”. Remember, no sorries or smiles. Just say it as low and fast as possible without making any eye contact. 

legit advise for people visiting finland. that “ileavenow” is “mä jään täs” in finnish. it’s okay if you don’t pronounce it perfectly right because the only reason someone would talk to strangers in public transport is to ask them to move, so they will get the hint. 

BUT! usually just things like putting your phone away and rustling your bag and looking like you are about to leave will do the trick. no need for words.

….and this is how you wait for a bus in finland:

image

Reblogging because of that picture. So true. And familiar.

This is the most bizarre thing I’ve ever seen…what the actual fuck. It almost seems like a joke but I feel like it’s actually serious????

?????¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿

Wh

……rly??

(via foreignfawn)

Filed under sounds like my kind of place

517,873 notes

alternativeblackgirl:

jatel0:

For The Masses:
http://gen.lib.rus.ec
http://textbooknova.com
http://en.bookfi.org/
http://www.gutenberg.org
http://ebookee.org
http://www.manybooks.net
http://www.giuciao.com
http://www.feedurbrain.com
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=380
http://www.alleng.ru/ 
http://www.eknigu.com/ 
http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/
http://2020ok.com/
http://www.freebookspot.es/Default.aspx
http://www.freeetextbooks.com/
http://onebigtorrent.org/
http://www.downeu.me/ebook/
http://forums.mvgroup.org
http://theaudiobookbay.com/
More Here

Reblog to save a life.

alternativeblackgirl:

jatel0:

For The Masses:

http://gen.lib.rus.ec

http://textbooknova.com

http://en.bookfi.org/

http://www.gutenberg.org

http://ebookee.org

http://www.manybooks.net

http://www.giuciao.com

http://www.feedurbrain.com

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=380

http://www.alleng.ru/ 

http://www.eknigu.com/ 

http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/

http://2020ok.com/

http://www.freebookspot.es/Default.aspx

http://www.freeetextbooks.com/

http://onebigtorrent.org/

http://www.downeu.me/ebook/

http://forums.mvgroup.org

http://theaudiobookbay.com/

More Here

Reblog to save a life.

(Source: thenamesjocelyn, via languagelinguistics)

171 notes

august-songs:

itskaztiel:

Guys, I’m creating a resources list for asexual and aromantic folk on a google doc

I’m looking for more resources and suggestions so please do so! If you by chance have a list of resources I can add, please feel free to share!

Here’s the link to the doc! Anyone can view and comment, no sign-in needed

EVERYONE GO LOOK AT THIS EVEN ALLOSEXUAL/ROMANTIC PPL THIS IS REALLY R E A L L Y COOL

(via southpawscopic)

1,709 notes

give-a-fuck-about-nature:


give-a-fuck-about-nature:

50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS From US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement
1.Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2] 2.Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemiological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]3.Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]4.Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.[7][8][9]5.Many continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in lab animals. 6.Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals they were designed on and humans. 7.Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security. 8.Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke. 9.Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. [10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims. 10.Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients. The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface. Surgery is now performed only on the surface.11.Combined heart lung transplants were also “perfected” on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died perioperatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.[14]12.Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]13.Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function. 14.Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia. 15.Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics. 16.More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others. 17.Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. In humans, however it caused deaths. 18.Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident. It caused severe neurological problems in humans. 
19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health. 20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. Humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting. 21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] It worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]22.Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused 23 deaths despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer. 26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22][23][24][25][26] 27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests:[29][30] “…excellent safety profile. No …cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species.” 29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.[35]32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. [40][41]35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomembranous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.[42][43][44]36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.[45][46]37. Pharmacia & Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this. 38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or needed a liver transplant. 39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson’s disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders. 40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.”[47]41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.[49][50][51][52]43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55]  In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58]  Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased  the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59] 45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming’s initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.”46. Fluoride was withheld as a cavity preventative initially because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and died as a result. 48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) but kill humans. Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results. Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment. ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSEHUMAN-BASED SCIENCE PREVENTS DISEASE AND CREATES VALID THERAPIES
Americans for Medical AdvancementREFERENCES:[1]Sax, N. Cancer-causing Chemicals Van Nostrand 1981 [2]Lancet, June 25, 1977 p1348-9 [3]The Guardian, July 20, 1991 [4]Occupational Lung Disorders, Butterworth 1982 [5]Toxicology & Industrial Health, 1990, vol.6, p293-307 [6] J Nat Cancer Inst 1969, vol.42, 1045-52 [7] Br J Cancer, 1947, vol.1, p 192-251 [8]Advances in Modern Toxicology, vol.2, Wiley, 1977 [9]H Nat Cancer Inst, 1962, vol.5, p 459 [10]Fitzgerald, D. The development of new cardiovascular drugs in Recent Developments in Cardiovascular Drugs eds. Coltart and Jewitt, Churchill Livingstone 1981 [11]Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 1980 Part 2, S9-S24 [12]Pharmacy International Feb. 1986; p33-37 [13]Lancet, i, p 130-2, 1983 [14]Lancet, 1, no. 8480 p 517-9, March 8, 1996 [15]Annals of Internal Medicine 1984, vol.101, 667-682 [16]GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 [17]NEJM 333;1099-1105, 1995 [18]J NIH Res, 1993, 5, 33-35 [19]Nature, 1993, July 22, p 275 [20]Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-90 and Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 and Drug Monitoring, 1977 and Pharmacologist, 1964, vol. 6, p 12-26 and Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reac and Advances in Pharm, 1963, vol. 2, 1-112 and Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-390 [21]Pharmacologist, 1971, vol.18, p 272 [22]Br J of Pharm 1969Vol. 36; p35-45 [23]Inman, W. H. Monitoring for Drug Safety, MTP Press, 1980 [24]Am Rev Resp Diseases, 1972, vol.105, p883-890 [25]Lancet, 1979, Oct.27, p 896 [26]Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1965, vol. 7; p1-8 [27]Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, Quay Pub. 1990 [28]Br Med J, 1974, May 18, p 365-366 [29]Drug Withdrawl from Sale PJB Publications, 1988 [30]Pharmacology, 1983, vol.27(suppl 1), 87-94 and FDA Drug Review: [31]Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 (US GAO April 1990 [32]Gut, 1987, vol.28, 515-518 [33]Lancet, Jan 10, 1987, 113-114 [34]Toxicolo Letters, 1991, vol.55, p 287-93 [35]Drug Withdrawl from Sale, PJB1988 [36]Reg Tox & Pharm,1990,vol.11,288-307 and Postgraduate Med J, 1973, vol.49, April Suppl., 125-129 and 130 [37]Drugs, 1982, vol.24, p 360-400 [38]Animal Toxicity Studies Quay, 1990 [39]Lancet, 1984, July 28, p 219-220 [40]Matindale: The Extra Pharmacopoeia, 29th edition, Pharmaceutical Press, 1989) [41]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 [42]Reg Tox & Pharm, 1990, vol.11, p 288-307 [43]Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 [44]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 [45]Tox & Appl Pharm, 1972, vol. 21, p 516-531 [46]The Benzodiazepines MTP Press1978 [47]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin,1989, vol.27, p 28 as quoted in Activate For Animals Oct. 1997 The American Antivivisection Society [48]Parke-Davis letter dated Oct. 31, 1996 [49]Sneader, W. Drug Discovery: The Evolution of Modern Medicine Wiley,  1985 [50]Lewis, T. Clinical Science Shaw & Sons Ltd. 1934 [51]Federation Proceedings 1967, vol.26, 1125-30 [52]Toxicology In Vitro 1992, vol.6, 47-52 [53]JAMA, 1990, April 4, p1766 [54]Lancet,1989, July 22, p 227 [55]Lancet, 1989, Oct 28, p1000-1004[56]Hepatology,1991, vol.13, 1259-1260 [57]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, 1990, vol.28, p 74-75 [58]Anesthesiology: Proceedings of the VI World Congress of [59]Anesthesiology, Mexico City 1977 [60]NEJM, 1987, Sep. 10, p 653-658 [61]The Causes of Cancer, 1981, Oxford Press [62]J NIH Res, 1991, vol.3, p46 [63]Nature, 1991, Feb 28, p732

I like how none of these studies are from the 21st century. Animal testing is necessary for some research. Easier to have a control using animals than case studies, harder to find the exact problem with human case studies.Also can’t do certain things to humans for testing. Can’t jump straight to human testing without some sort of background and it can’t be just theoretical. People could get hurt with medicine that wasn’t tested properly. Shit happens, there’s a need to perfect it but humans aren’t perfect. There’s always going to be trial and error.

I understand where you want to get, the thing is Animal Testing most of the time unsuccessful. There is no need to test on animals when we are in 2014: So, since you’re hesitating about this, here are some more facts:
Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”
Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.
The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.”
Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue. The two are completely different.
The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.
Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.
Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.
Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.
Genetically Modified (GM) animal, the CF- mouse, never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.
In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.
Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalized by medical treatment.
In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.
In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.
A German doctors’ congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.
61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.
70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.
78% of fetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.
Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.
One of the most common life saving operations (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.
Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.
The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.
30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.
The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was “I am sure it could be.”
What You Can Do
Buy only cruelty-free cosmetics and household products. Many are found in dollar stores!
Organize a protest at a school or university….we can help!
Serious animal rights groups protest important issues with strong actions and sustained campaigns. 
Become vegan. If people stop using and eating animal, others stop killing animals for profit. Period.
Be aware of non-animal alternatives because most researchers will lie saying there aren’t any for what they do.
REFERENCES
Page, Dr T, “Vivisection Unveiled”, John Carpenter, 1997, p6
‘Animal Toxicity Studies:Their relevance to man Lumley & Walker (ed) pp57-67, Quay, 1989
Clemedson C, McFarlane-Abdulla E, Andersson M, et al. MEIC Evaluation of Acute Systemic Toxicity. ATLA 1996;24:273-311, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/in_vitro_tests.html
Nature Biotechnology 1998; 16:1294
Heart disease: Gross, D, Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research, Martinus Nijhoff Pub 1985. Smoking: New York Times, December 6 1993
GP survey (2004) commissioned by patient safety group Europeans for Medical Progress *www.safermedicines.net*
F J Di Carlo, Drug Metabolism reviews15, p409-13
R Peto, World Medicine Vol 79, 1979
D.Spani, M. Arras, B. Konig and T. Rulicke, ‘Higher heart rate of laboratory mice housed individually vs in pairs’, Laboratory Animal Welfare, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 2003, Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org Volume 298, Number 5602, Issue of 20 Dec 2002, p. 2321
EJ Calabrese, ‘Toxic Susceptability: Male/female differences, quoted in Page “Viv Unv.”, p41
AP Fletcher in Proc R Soc med, 1978;71, 693
Clin Pharmacol Ther 1962; pp665-672
Current Opinions in Lipidology, BMJ 2005;330:212
Fletcher, AP et al, 1976 Stroke, vol 7, pp135-142
Collins,PS. Wilson,JM. 1992. Nature. vol 358. p708 9) Barinaga,M. 1992. Science. vol 257. p1047. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088
Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
Nature Medicine 2000; 6:502-503
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, Lords Hansard report 2/12/98
Professor Hoff, Congress of clinical medicine, Wiesbaden, 1976
Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk JA McLachlan, RM Pratt, C L Markert (Eds) 1987 p313
Biogenic Amines (Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 97–145 (2005)
Lewis, R. J., Sr. (1989). Sax’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 7th edn. John Wiley, New York. Turbow, M. M., Clark, W. H. and Dipaolo, J. A. (1971). Embryonic abnormalities in hamsters following intrauterine injection of 6-aminonicotinamide, Teratology 4 (4), 427–431 Beall, J. R. and Klein,M. F. (1977). Enhancement of aspirin-induced teratogenicity by food restriction in rats,Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 39, 489–495. Klein, K. L., Scott, W. J. and Wilson, J. G. (1981). Aspirin-induced teratogenesis: a unique pattern of cell death and subsequent polydactyly in the rat, J. Exper. Zool. 216, 107–112. Slone, D., Siskind, V., Heinonen, O. P., Monson, R. R., Kaufman, D. W. and Shapiro, S. (1976). Aspirin and congenital malformations, Lancet 1, 1373–1375. Werler, M. M., Mitchell, A. A. and Shapiro, S. (1989). The relation of aspirin use during the first trimester of pregnancy to congenital cardiac defects, New Engl. J. Med. 321, 1639–1642. Wilson, J. G. (1977). Current status of teratology. General principles and mechanisms derived from animal studies, in: Handbook of Teratology, pp. 1–47. Plenum Press, New York.
Birmingham Daily Post, 4/10/1892
K. Walker, The Story of Medicine, Hutchinson, 1954. R. McGrew, Encyclopedia of Medical History, MacMillan Press, 1985. A. Gastiglioni, A History of Medicine, (1947 edition translated by E.B. Krumbhaer) Ryerson Press, 1941
Paul, JR, 1971 ‘A History of Poliomyelitis’. Yale University Press, p385
Spinal cord: Journal of the American Paralegic Society11;23-25, 1988Stroke: Nature Medicine 2002; 8 (1):5 Future of neuroprotective drugs in doubt, also Stroke 1990 21: 1-3. HIV: Poignard P, Sabbe R, Picchio GR, et al. (April 1999). “Neutralizing antibodies have limited effects on the control of established HIV-1 infection in vivo”. Immunity 10 (4): 431–8. doi:10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80043-6. ISSN 1074-7613. PMID 10229186.
Berman PW, Gregory TJ, Riddle L, et al. (June 1990). “Protection of chimpanzees from infection by HIV-1 after vaccination with recombinant glycoprotein gp120 but not gp160″. Nature 345 (6276): 622–5. doi:10.1038/345622a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 2190095.
Connor RI, Korber BT, Graham BS, et al. (February 1998). “Immunological and virological analyses of persons infected by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 while participating in trials of recombinant gp120 subunit vaccines”. Journal of virology 72 (2): 1552–76. ISSN 0022-538X. PMID 9445059. PMC 124637.
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9445059.
Morgan C, Marthas M, Miller C, et al. (August 2008). “The use of nonhuman primate models in HIV vaccine development”. PLoS Med. 5(8): e173. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173. ISSN 1549-1277.PMID 18700814. PMC 2504486.http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173.
Written reply to enquiry by member of the public quoted in “Viv. Unv.”, p101
Please note I took the time to expose almost 80 facts with their proper sources. People always say, “but heey, we need to test otherwise we can’t fight some diseases”..and a long etc. Please take the time to read and analyze the information. You’ll find that animal testing as I said before is torture in the name on science. 

give-a-fuck-about-nature:

give-a-fuck-about-nature:

50 DEADLY CONSEQUENCES OF LAB ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS 
From US Doctors Group Americans for Medical Advancement


1.Smoking was thought non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2] 

2.Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemiological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]

3.Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]

4.Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was produced in lab animals.[7][8][9]

5.Many continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in lab animals. 

6.Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals they were designed on and humans. 

7.Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security. 

8.Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke. 

9.Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development. [10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims. 

10.Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients. The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface. Surgery is now performed only on the surface.

11.Combined heart lung transplants were also “perfected” on animals, but the first 3 patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died perioperatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the experimental dogs did not get. Of those 10, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the 
operation.[14]

12.Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]

13.Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function. 

14.Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia. 

15.Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics. 

16.More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications like lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others. 

17.Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. In humans, however it caused deaths. 

18.Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident. It caused severe neurological problems in humans. 

19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. Animal testing had given it a clean, side effect-free bill of health. 

20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without trepidation. Humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting. 

21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] It worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]

22.Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. It was pulled off the shelves all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.

23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused 23 deaths despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. It caused blindness and deaths in humans. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]

24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.

25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer. 

26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was worked out in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22]
[23][24][25][26] 

27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]

28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests:[29][30] “…excellent safety profile. No …cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species.” 

29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]

30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals. It was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]

31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure that had not been predicted by animal studies. Even when they knew they were looking for a particular type of liver failure, they could not induce it in animals.[35]

32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]

33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]

34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After scientists knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, without reproducing this effect. [40][41]

35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomembranous colitis. It was tested in rats and dogs every day for one year. They tolerate doses 10 times greater than humans.[42][43][44]

36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or after.[45][46]

37. Pharmacia & Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this. 

38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or needed a liver transplant. 

39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson’s disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals, where it is used to treat senile dementia and endocrine disorders. 

40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and taken off the market although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.”[47]

41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The company admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]

42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Human evidence overrode. As a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more could it have survived had digitalis been released sooner.[49][50][51][52]

43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost shelved before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55]  In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]

44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58]  Unfortunately, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased  the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59] 

45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in his rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Luckily, Fleming’s initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters, it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: “How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.”

46. Fluoride was withheld as a cavity preventative initially because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]

47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released. Tens of thousands suffered and died as a result. 

48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.

49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.

50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that though harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) but kill humans. 

Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results. Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment. 

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

HUMAN-BASED SCIENCE PREVENTS DISEASE AND CREATES VALID THERAPIES

Americans for Medical Advancement

REFERENCES:

[1]Sax, N. Cancer-causing Chemicals Van Nostrand 1981 
[2]Lancet, June 25, 1977 p1348-9 
[3]The Guardian, July 20, 1991 
[4]Occupational Lung Disorders, Butterworth 1982 
[5]Toxicology & Industrial Health, 1990, vol.6, p293-307 
[6] J Nat Cancer Inst 1969, vol.42, 1045-52 
[7] Br J Cancer, 1947, vol.1, p 192-251 
[8]Advances in Modern Toxicology, vol.2, Wiley, 1977 
[9]H Nat Cancer Inst, 1962, vol.5, p 459 
[10]Fitzgerald, D. The development of new cardiovascular drugs in Recent Developments in Cardiovascular Drugs eds. Coltart and Jewitt, Churchill Livingstone 1981 
[11]Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 1980 Part 2, S9-S24 
[12]Pharmacy International Feb. 1986; p33-37 
[13]Lancet, i, p 130-2, 1983 
[14]Lancet, 1, no. 8480 p 517-9, March 8, 1996 
[15]Annals of Internal Medicine 1984, vol.101, 667-682 
[16]GAO/PEMD-90-15 FDA Drug Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 
[17]NEJM 333;1099-1105, 1995 
[18]J NIH Res, 1993, 5, 33-35 
[19]Nature, 1993, July 22, p 275 
[20]Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-90 and Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 and Drug Monitoring, 1977 and Pharmacologist, 1964, vol. 6, p 12-26 and Pharmacology: Drug Actions and Reac and Advances in Pharm, 1963, 
vol. 2, 1-112 and Nature, 1982, April 1, p 387-390 
[21]Pharmacologist, 1971, vol.18, p 272 
[22]Br J of Pharm 1969Vol. 36; p35-45 
[23]Inman, W. H. Monitoring for Drug Safety, MTP Press, 1980 
[24]Am Rev Resp Diseases, 1972, vol.105, p883-890 
[25]Lancet, 1979, Oct.27, p 896 
[26]Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 1965, vol. 7; p1-8 
[27]Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man, Quay Pub. 1990 
[28]Br Med J, 1974, May 18, p 365-366 
[29]Drug Withdrawl from Sale PJB Publications, 1988 
[30]Pharmacology, 1983, vol.27(suppl 1), 87-94 and FDA Drug Review: 
[31]Postapproval Risks 1976-1985 (US GAO April 1990 
[32]Gut, 1987, vol.28, 515-518 
[33]Lancet, Jan 10, 1987, 113-114 
[34]Toxicolo Letters, 1991, vol.55, p 287-93 
[35]Drug Withdrawl from Sale, PJB1988 
[36]Reg Tox & Pharm,1990,vol.11,288-307 and Postgraduate Med J, 1973, vol.49, April Suppl., 125-129 and 130 
[37]Drugs, 1982, vol.24, p 360-400 
[38]Animal Toxicity Studies Quay, 1990 
[39]Lancet, 1984, July 28, p 219-220 
[40]Matindale: The Extra Pharmacopoeia, 29th edition, Pharmaceutical Press, 1989) 
[41]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 
[42]Reg Tox & Pharm, 1990, vol.11, p 288-307 
[43]Br Med J, 1983, Jan 15, p 199-202 
[44]Br Nat Form, no.26, 1993 
[45]Tox & Appl Pharm, 1972, vol. 21, p 516-531 
[46]The Benzodiazepines MTP Press1978 
[47]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin,1989, vol.27, p 28 as quoted in Activate For Animals Oct. 1997 The American 
Antivivisection Society 
[48]Parke-Davis letter dated Oct. 31, 1996 
[49]Sneader, W. Drug Discovery: The Evolution of Modern Medicine Wiley,  1985 
[50]Lewis, T. Clinical Science Shaw & Sons Ltd. 1934 
[51]Federation Proceedings 1967, vol.26, 1125-30 
[52]Toxicology In Vitro 1992, vol.6, 47-52 
[53]JAMA, 1990, April 4, p1766 
[54]Lancet,1989, July 22, p 227 
[55]Lancet, 1989, Oct 28, p1000-1004[56]Hepatology,1991, vol.13, 1259-1260 
[57]Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, 1990, vol.28, p 74-75 
[58]Anesthesiology: Proceedings of the VI World Congress of 
[59]Anesthesiology, Mexico City 1977 
[60]NEJM, 1987, Sep. 10, p 653-658 
[61]The Causes of Cancer, 1981, Oxford Press 
[62]J NIH Res, 1991, vol.3, p46 
[63]Nature, 1991, Feb 28, p732

I like how none of these studies are from the 21st century.

Animal testing is necessary for some research. Easier to have a control using animals than case studies, harder to find the exact problem with human case studies.

Also can’t do certain things to humans for testing.

Can’t jump straight to human testing without some sort of background and it can’t be just theoretical.

People could get hurt with medicine that wasn’t tested properly. Shit happens, there’s a need to perfect it but humans aren’t perfect. There’s always going to be trial and error.

I understand where you want to get, the thing is Animal Testing most of the time unsuccessful. There is no need to test on animals when we are in 2014: So, since you’re hesitating about this, here are some more facts:

  1. Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
  2. According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”
  3. Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
  4. 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.
  5. The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
  6. A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
  7. Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.”
  8. Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue. The two are completely different.
  9. The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
  10. Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
  11. 75% of side effects identified in animals never occur.
  12. Over half of side effects cannot be detected in lab animals.
  13. Vioxx was shown to protect the heart of mice, dogs, monkeys and other lab animals. It was linked to heart attacks and strokes in up to 139,000 humans.
  14. Genetically modified animals are not like humans. The mdx mouse is supposed to have muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.
  15. Genetically Modified (GM) animal, the CF- mouse, never gets fluid infections in the lungs – the cause of death for 95% of human cystic fibrosis patients.
  16. In America, 106,000 deaths a year are attributed to reactions to medical drugs.
  17. Each year 2.1 million Americans are hospitalized by medical treatment.
  18. In the UK an estimated 70,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs. All these drugs have passed animal tests.
  19. In the UKs House Of Lords questions have been asked regarding why unexpected reactions to drugs (which passed animal tests) kill more people than cancer.
  20. A German doctors’ congress concluded that 6% of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illness are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.
  21. According to a thorough study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.
  22. 61% of birth defects were found to have the same cause.
  23. 70% of drugs which cause human birth defects are safe in pregnant monkeys.
  24. 78% of fetus-damaging chemicals can be detected by one non-animal test.
  25. Thousands of safe products cause birth defects in lab animals – including water, several vitamins, vegetable oils, oxygen and drinking waters. Of more than 1000 substances dangerous in lab animals, over 97% are safe in humans.
  26. One of the most common life saving operations (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.
  27. Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies.
  28. The polio vaccine was delayed 40 years by monkey tests.
  29. 30 HIV vaccines, 33 spinal cord damage drugs, and over 700 treatments for stroke have been developed in animals. None work in humans.
  30. The Director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was “I am sure it could be.”

What You Can Do

  • Buy only cruelty-free cosmetics and household products. Many are found in dollar stores!
  • Organize a protest at a school or university….we can help!
  • Serious animal rights groups protest important issues with strong actions and sustained campaigns. 
  • Become vegan. If people stop using and eating animal, others stop killing animals for profit. Period.
  • Be aware of non-animal alternatives because most researchers will lie saying there aren’t any for what they do.

REFERENCES

  • Page, Dr T, “Vivisection Unveiled”, John Carpenter, 1997, p6
  • ‘Animal Toxicity Studies:Their relevance to man Lumley & Walker (ed) pp57-67, Quay, 1989
  • Clemedson C, McFarlane-Abdulla E, Andersson M, et al. MEIC Evaluation of Acute Systemic Toxicity. ATLA 1996;24:273-311, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/in_vitro_tests.html
  • Nature Biotechnology 1998; 16:1294
  • Heart disease: Gross, D, Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research, Martinus Nijhoff Pub 1985. Smoking: New York Times, December 6 1993
  • GP survey (2004) commissioned by patient safety group Europeans for Medical Progress *www.safermedicines.net*
  • F J Di Carlo, Drug Metabolism reviews15, p409-13
  • R Peto, World Medicine Vol 79, 1979
  • D.Spani, M. Arras, B. Konig and T. Rulicke, ‘Higher heart rate of laboratory mice housed individually vs in pairs’, Laboratory Animal Welfare, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 2003, Science Magazine http://www.sciencemag.org Volume 298, Number 5602, Issue of 20 Dec 2002, p. 2321
  • EJ Calabrese, ‘Toxic Susceptability: Male/female differences, quoted in Page “Viv Unv.”, p41
  • AP Fletcher in Proc R Soc med, 1978;71, 693
  • Clin Pharmacol Ther 1962; pp665-672
  • Current Opinions in Lipidology, BMJ 2005;330:212
  • Fletcher, AP et al, 1976 Stroke, vol 7, pp135-142
  • Collins,PS. Wilson,JM. 1992. Nature. vol 358. p708 9) Barinaga,M. 1992. Science. vol 257. p1047. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088. Snouwaert,J N. Brigham,KK et al. 1992. Science. vol 257. pp1083-1088
  • Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
  • Journal of the American Medical Association 14/4/98
  • Nature Medicine 2000; 6:502-503
  • Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, Lords Hansard report 2/12/98
  • Professor Hoff, Congress of clinical medicine, Wiesbaden, 1976
  • Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
  • Munchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, no 34 1969 quoted in Hans Reusch “Slaughter of the Innocent”, p365
  • Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk JA McLachlan, RM Pratt, C L Markert (Eds) 1987 p313
  • Biogenic Amines (Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 97–145 (2005)
  • Lewis, R. J., Sr. (1989). Sax’s Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials. 7th edn. John Wiley, New York. Turbow, M. M., Clark, W. H. and Dipaolo, J. A. (1971). Embryonic abnormalities in hamsters following intrauterine injection of 6-aminonicotinamide, Teratology 4 (4), 427–431 Beall, J. R. and Klein,M. F. (1977). Enhancement of aspirin-induced teratogenicity by food restriction in rats,Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 39, 489–495. Klein, K. L., Scott, W. J. and Wilson, J. G. (1981). Aspirin-induced teratogenesis: a unique pattern of cell death and subsequent polydactyly in the rat, J. Exper. Zool. 216, 107–112. Slone, D., Siskind, V., Heinonen, O. P., Monson, R. R., Kaufman, D. W. and Shapiro, S. (1976). Aspirin and congenital malformations, Lancet 1, 1373–1375. Werler, M. M., Mitchell, A. A. and Shapiro, S. (1989). The relation of aspirin use during the first trimester of pregnancy to congenital cardiac defects, New Engl. J. Med. 321, 1639–1642. Wilson, J. G. (1977). Current status of teratology. General principles and mechanisms derived from animal studies, in: Handbook of Teratology, pp. 1–47. Plenum Press, New York.
  • Birmingham Daily Post, 4/10/1892
  • K. Walker, The Story of Medicine, Hutchinson, 1954. R. McGrew, Encyclopedia of Medical History, MacMillan Press, 1985. A. Gastiglioni, A History of Medicine, (1947 edition translated by E.B. Krumbhaer) Ryerson Press, 1941
  • Paul, JR, 1971 ‘A History of Poliomyelitis’. Yale University Press, p385
  • Spinal cord: Journal of the American Paralegic Society11;23-25, 1988Stroke: Nature Medicine 2002; 8 (1):5 Future of neuroprotective drugs in doubt, also Stroke 1990 21: 1-3. HIV: Poignard P, Sabbe R, Picchio GR, et al. (April 1999). “Neutralizing antibodies have limited effects on the control of established HIV-1 infection in vivo”. Immunity 10 (4): 431–8. doi:10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80043-6. ISSN 1074-7613. PMID 10229186.
  • Berman PW, Gregory TJ, Riddle L, et al. (June 1990). “Protection of chimpanzees from infection by HIV-1 after vaccination with recombinant glycoprotein gp120 but not gp160″. Nature 345 (6276): 622–5. doi:10.1038/345622a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 2190095.
  • Connor RI, Korber BT, Graham BS, et al. (February 1998). “Immunological and virological analyses of persons infected by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 while participating in trials of recombinant gp120 subunit vaccines”. Journal of virology 72 (2): 1552–76. ISSN 0022-538X. PMID 9445059. PMC 124637.
  • http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=9445059.
  • Morgan C, Marthas M, Miller C, et al. (August 2008). “The use of nonhuman primate models in HIV vaccine development”. PLoS Med. 5(8): e173. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173. ISSN 1549-1277.PMID 18700814. PMC 2504486.http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050173.
  • Written reply to enquiry by member of the public quoted in “Viv. Unv.”, p101

Please note I took the time to expose almost 80 facts with their proper sources. People always say, “but heey, we need to test otherwise we can’t fight some diseases”..and a long etc. Please take the time to read and analyze the information. You’ll find that animal testing as I said before is torture in the name on science. 

(via from-meat-to-bean)

72,906 notes

carpeumbra:

medievalpoc:

kill-theblog:

medievalpoc:

Over 700 Jefferson County High School students are staging walkouts and protests over proposed changes to the Advanced Placement History curriculum. According to Colorado Public Radio:

Last week, a school board member proposed that advanced placement history classes be required to promote free enterprise and patriotism and be required to avoid classroom materials that encourage social strife or civil disobedience. Two high schools in Jefferson County closed Friday after dozens of teachers called in sick in protest.

According the online petition to be delivered to the School District:

Jeffco Public School Board has just proposed a change of curriculum stating that, “Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage.”

This means that important parts of our history such as the Civil Rights Movement, Native American genocide, and slavery will not be taught in public schools. If these important lessons are not taught, children will not learn from them, and what will stop them from happening again? This is a severe form of censorship intended to keep the youth ignorant and easy to manipulate. I’m hoping to get enough signatures to prove that this is a public issue, so, please, if this is important to you, please sign. Do not let our youth grow up in ignorance; we all deserve the truth!

You can sign the petition here.

You can read more articles at The Denver Post, CBS Denver (with video), and Colorado Public Radio.

Thanks to theseacaptainsdaughter for dropping a link in my inbox.

Yesterday I spent 3+ hours protesting with more than 400 students that go to my school alone. That doesn’t include the other high schools that participated in the Jeffco district. It got more publicity than we were expecting and we’re grateful for that, but to keep this going would be great. If you agree and are against the censorship of AP US History classes please click on the link and sign the petition.

I fervently hope your efforts to protect your history education are successful. I’ve noticed a lot of the articles are trying to pretend that “kids just want to skip class”, and I think it’s disrespectful and dismissive. The petition is almost at its goal, so I hope people continue to sign it.

I hate this country.

(via from-meat-to-bean)

231,559 notes

ghostkitten69:

screwedupclickvevo:

arachnofiend:

chibisilverwings:

ambrromance:

joultonofblood:

Sums up their personalities pretty well.

Eddy: I can achieve anything
Edd: there’s a logical way to achieve what I want
Ed: there’s nothing standing in my way

Eddy hopping over the fence indicates his willingness to “cheat” the system, or to take a shortcut. Much like his schemes, it might end up being more work, but in his mind, cheating is the best way to get ahead.

Edd goes the neat and logical way, he’s straight forward. BUT, note that he closes the gate behind him rather than leaving it open. He’s incredibly meticulous and even if it’s more convenient to leave it open for anyone coming in behind him, he has to leave things neat, tidy and as he found them.

Ed is also is straight forward, he in fact is using the MOST direct route. But this route is one no one else would consider because it seems completely nonsensical. Which sums him up pretty well. The fact that it works for him is also fun to note. In general his earnestness and determination carries him through situations that most people would be stopped by.

I honestly never thought I’d see a critical analysis of Ed, Edd, and Eddy

*Jock cupping mouth in crowded high school cafeteria voice*

NEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSS

I think you mean

DORKS

(Source: greenwithenby)

27 notes

Anonymous asked: but pretty much non asexual people need to form a close bond before they can have romantic attraction? i'm so confused about demiromantic sorry. this day and age we've squashed the concept of "love at first sight".

asexualadvice:

Yeah, no, we haven’t. We live in a society that puts more emphasis on sexual attraction at first sight, but romantic attraction definitely is still a driving factor. Crushes? Romantic attraction, often without a close bond, sometimes without any kind of a bond whatsoever. 

Also, all you need to do is go watch a few romcoms to see that society is head over heels in love with the idea of love at first sight. Hell, it’s in all the media everywhere. Peeta Mellark - loved Katniss for years before he’d ever talked to her. Angel (on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) - says something about loving her because he could see her heart, then spends a season being weird before owning up to his crush on her. Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann - I can’t remember the wording, but they crushed on each other since they were 10 and societal standards kept them from having even a friendship. Anakin Skywalker. Most Shakespearean couples. Don’t give me that kind of crap - romantic attraction at first sight is definitely a thing.

And as a demiromantic, I really don’t appreciate you trying to downplay and erase my identity. I am a very extreme case of demiromanticism, so using myself as an example should be dramatic enough for you. All of the people I’ve met and befriended over the years have been nothing but platonic, except for one person. My best friend of now 13 years is the person I am closest to in the world. I trust her with everything, she knows everything about me, our bond is unshakeable. She is the only person I have ever been romantically attracted to - I need that strong of a bond to even start to feel romantic attraction. I am demiromantic. Getting to know someone a bit and then developing a crush? Doesn’t cut it. That’s just alloromanticism. You’ve got to have that close bond element. 

-Kiowa

I feel like using all fictional cases of romantic attraction at first sight doesn’t really help prove it actually happens, but yeah exactly.

And from the other side of the coin, I’m the exact opposite of a demiromantic - every single one of my crushes happened at (or practically just after) first sight. No bonding at all for it happen, let alone a close bond. In fact, if it wasn’t for this one current case, I would think the possibility of  bonding with a crush was completely impossible for me since I always felt so detached from them despite the infatuation. 

It’s kind of funny, there are probably a ton of would-be considered demiromantics out there but wouldn’t think of themselves as such just because they think “love” at first sight & similar concepts are bullshit, that it only exists in fiction. Even if demiromantics are much more common than those who identify as that, it doesn’t mean that identity or concept itself is unnecessary. 

"Love" at first sight does sound pretty absurd - especially with how romance is so…romanticized - & it may not even happen often enough to be the "norm", but it definitely does happen to people. 

ALSO, I highly doubt all non-ace people require bonding before romantic attraction can happen. There’s a hell of a lot of different kinds of chemistry out there. 

Filed under romance attraction