If animal testing were banned...?

Then how would we find treatments or possibly cures for diseases such as AIDS or cancer? Would we have to test on humans?
I also have another question. If someone that you really cared about had cancer or any other deadly disease, would you turn to products that used animal testing to try and find a cure or treatment for him/her?

I am not for or against animal testing. But I do wonder if anyone can provide a detailed answer as to the alternatives of animal testing. Please, no PETA videos or answers that go along the lines of 'Because it's unethical and cruel to animals!!' I've heard enough of that.
Also note that I think that testing cosmetics on animals is completely absurd and unnecessary, but my question is obviously not about that.

I am for animal testing for medicine but cpmpletely against it for cosmetics etc. I don't think that is hipocritical. It would be completely unethical to give a medicine to a person when they have no idea what could happen. I think it is arguably more ethical to test this on an animal. All the so called alternatives are not on the same level as animal models and therefore the drugs cannot be considered safe. I put the question to those against animal testing; If your child/parent/loved one had a severe but treatable disease, where the medicine had only be tested on animals would you want them to have it? I can't imagine many people would deny their loved one a life saving drug even if it had been tested on animals.

One of the reasons animal testing is so popular is because there are not many viable alternatives. But even once animal testing is complete, there are always human trials before a drug is approved and marketed.

But cosmetic testing on animals is completely ridiculous.

Yea if it was banned they would test on ppl...i think it should b banned tbh animals r much smaller then us so like how could u get the stuff like right >.>and no id want something that was tested on ppl so i no it would work for him/her

A ban on animal testing would immediately bring up the ethics of using the economically disadvantaged as human guinea pigs. People don't often think of the many steps involved in testing a new drug. The first animal tests are at a stage at which the dosage of a new drug is a guess, and the effects are basically unknown. There's a huge difference between volunteering for a study in which something is known about the drug from animal studies and volunteering when you're starting basically from scratch.
for AIDS or cancer, or for impetigo, for that matter, aren't a high priority if you think animals have rights equivalent to humans. It's a different philosophy, and a different value system. You won't hear any "alternatives to animal testing" from people who are truly on either side of this argument. That's left to the naive adolescents. The real argument assumes correctly that any "alternatives" are already done prior to the step at which animal testing takes place.