[ZeroPointMachine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Torturing dogs (ie strangling them) is not the same as anesthetizing them and testing on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf, are only idiots posting in this thread?

[ QUOTE ]
U.S. Surgical's demonstrations on hundreds of dogs each year through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s were done to boost sales, not for medical re search or testing.

[/ QUOTE ]

an analogy would be for a gun shop to demonstrate their guns on dogs (shoot dogs) for customers to demonstrate the effectiveness and stopping power of their product.

maybe you posted in the wrong thread or someting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your heart surgeon tells you "I've got some new staples to put your arteries back together. I've seen the video and the sales rep assures me they are effective and easy to use. I've never actually used them on real arteries with blood and everything, but it shouldn't be a problem. See you in surgery."

[/ QUOTE ]

Its salespeople who used the dogs for demos, not surgeons buying them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm..hands on demonstration. Where do you think new medical technology comes from. Companies invest money to develop products where there is a perceived need. If they have a superior product that improves the quality of life or lessens recovery time or keeps people from dying on the operating table, it is still useless to you and me unless they can sell doctors on it. These doctor's don't buy a golf club without hitting it first. They sure as hell don't pick up some new surgery toys and wait till the operating room to give them a whirl.