• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > protesters going a step to far

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 123
Jhinge
BRONZE Member since Apr 2005

member
Location: my own little planet of ginger...

Total posts: 110
Posted:recent news events have really got my back up so i thought id see what other people thought

a farmer and his family who breeds animals to be used in pharmasutical testing have been harrased by protesters to the degree that his granmother grave has been desicrated and her corpse removed in the name of animal rights this has come after a string of attacks by so called animal terroists who have caused distruction of property and general harrasment of this farmer and his family.
now i dont want to offend any one but in my view we need to test drugs to see if they cure weather it be on animals or humans frankly i dont care............

i can fully apriceate that these called animal terroists have they views and belive that they should stand up for animal rights what i dont agree with and this is my main grip with these arsholes is that they felt they had the right to desicrate a dead womans grave and steal the corpse in the name of animal welfare ........throwing eggs and smashing property is 1 thing but to do somthing like this in my opinion is bang out of order how would these people feel if i decided to dig up there granmothers in the name of egg rights which leads me to another point if they are so concerned with animal welfare why are they pelting eggs at this farmer and his family.

well that my ten pence worth


angry


i dont get paid to belive i get paid to destroy things

Delete Topic

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Fair enough- let me clarify: -

in response to-

Written by: Doc Lightning

It doesn't surprise me that the ALF would rather save lab rats than children.

After all, how many kids would be alive if we could...say...grow new livers or kidneys or hearts for them?

None of which would, of couse, be possible without animal research.





I said-

Written by: onewheeldave

I'd be willing to bet that if, for some reason, animal testing was abolished completely, medical progress would continue



I appreciate that you're saying that the chances, in the current climate, of animal research ending, is pretty much nil- and I agree with- practically speaking, it's not going to happen.

However, if it did happen, medical research would continue, and medical progress would continue, thus demonstrating that medical progress is not dependant on the use of animal research.

I'll qualify that- obviously, medical progress as we know it has relied very heavily on animal research for validation- what I'm saying is that, in the hypothetical scenario that animal research became impossible- medicine would continue to progress.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Saying that medical progress is not dependent on the use of animal research is like saying that the movement of an automobile is not dependent on gasoline.

You *could* get out and push...


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Nice that you've used a car analogy, given that I did earlier smile



However, I dispute your analogy because, if your car ceases to work, you're unlikely to push it to where you were going.



Perhaps an alternative analogy might be to say that animal research is as necessary to medicalprogress, as gasoline is to getting from A to B.



The point of cars is to get from A to B- if gasoline ceased to exist, the last thing people would do would be to start to push their cars- they'd walk instead.



Of course, in a world where cars didn't work, journeys would be slower, but, as I said earlier, society wouldn't cease, it would just require modification; and, after that modification is in effect, perhaps the disadvantages of not having cars would be more than offset by the advantages of a car free civilisation.



I maintain that, similarly, a world in which animal research was impossible, would have medical progress- obviously research would be vastly different, in the same way that traveling by car is different to walking.



Aspects would have to be sacrificed, for example, human testing would have to be used far earlier in a drugs progress that it currently is. Obviously there's dangers there, but, given the alternative (no medical progress) those risks would be taken.



A whole lot of work would have to be put into ways of minimising that risk with out the use of animals- a difficult task, but, given the necessity, and the ingenuity of researches, there would be progress towards that end.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave

Of course, in a world where cars didn't work, journeys would be slower, but, as I said earlier, society wouldn't cease, it would just require modification; and, after that modification is in effect, perhaps the disadvantages of not having cars would be more than offset by the advantages of a car free civilisation.



Not in this case. Not anytime in the near future. We don't know enough physiology to be able to do organism-free experimentation.

Medical progress would grind to a pace so slow that to the average human being it would appear to be stopped. Much less than 1% of the current rate of advance, anyway.

Dave, you're out of your league here. Ever done animal research? Ever gone to medical school? Have a graduate degree in biological sciences?

Those of us on this site who have any or all of the above qualifications agree on this point. Without animal research, we'd have pretty much none of what we have today. There'd be no antibiotics, no anti-cancer drugs, precious little surgery, and things like biologic drugs (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, kineret, etc.) could never be developed.

EVEN if you dropped all morals and used humans like lab animals, humans take 20 years to reproduce, are large animals, and don't come in pure-bred lines. And they smell and are finicky about mating. ubblol

You're nitpicking and it's not productive. It's like requiring 100% proof that evolution happens or something. There are no absolutes, but without animal research, I'd be a cripple right now. And most of us would be dead.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

flid
BRONZE Member since Aug 2002

flid

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Warwickshire

Total posts: 3136
Posted:Written by: Lightning
Saying that medical progress is not dependent on the use of animal research is like saying that the movement of an automobile is not dependent on gasoline.





Excellent analogy! smile



Written by: Lightning
Dave, you're out of your league here. Ever done animal research? Ever gone to medical school? Have a graduate degree in biological sciences?





I have a degree in engineering, and know there's plenty of alternatives for gasoline, such as Biodiesel. I also know that having university qualifications doesn't make you a world expert (I'm not directing this at anyone, but I've met a LOT of engineering graduates (under and post grad) with very little clue indeed about the subject they graduated in). Trying to cite having a degree as a reason why you should win an argument is lame at best.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Doc Lightning



Dave, you're out of your league here. Ever done animal research? Ever gone to medical school? Have a graduate degree in biological sciences?

Those of us on this site who have any or all of the above qualifications agree on this point. Without animal research, we'd have pretty much none of what we have today. There'd be no antibiotics, no anti-cancer drugs, precious little surgery, and things like biologic drugs (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, kineret, etc.) could never be developed.

EVEN if you dropped all morals and used humans like lab animals, humans take 20 years to reproduce, are large animals, and don't come in pure-bred lines. And they smell and are finicky about mating. ubblol

You're nitpicking and it's not productive. It's like requiring 100% proof that evolution happens or something. There are no absolutes, but without animal research, I'd be a cripple right now. And most of us would be dead.



I don't like nitpicking either- it wastes time, and, if I thought I was guilty of it in this instance, I'd cease.

However, I don't consider this to be nitpicking.

Firstly, I've yet to condemn animal research- my initial post was simply saying that, IMO, medical progress would not cease if animal research did.

I stand by that.

My opinion on medical experts is that they are experts in their respective fields- but being an expert in branches of modern medicine does not, IMO, make one particularly more qualified to comment on many animal research issues; including the morality of animal use, and, more pertinantly, what would happen to medicine if it ceased- those are not medical questions.

Indeed, on some of those issues, medical practitioners are arguably at a disadvantage, given that they have spent many years in a system which is virtualy grounded on use of animals for research.

You can't seriously believe that, in a world where use of animals for research is rife, totally accepted and held as necessary for medical progress; that the kind of options and solutions that would be developed and researched in a world where animal research is impossible, will be granted the same kind of funding and incentive to investigate fully.





Written by: Doc Lightning


Medical progress would grind to a pace so slow that to the average human being it would appear to be stopped. Much less than 1% of the current rate of advance, anyway.



The problem here is, why should we take your claims on board when you next come out with stuff like-

Written by: Doc Lightning

There are no absolutes, but without animal research, I'd be a cripple right now. And most of us would be dead.



Most of us would be dead? Where's that come from?

What about civilisations pre-modern medicine. Death rates may have been higher, but it certainly wasn't the case that most of the population were dead. And, when rates were high, it was due to unhygenic social conditions, famine, etc- not the fact that they didn't test their herbs on animals.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />

Firstly, I've yet to condemn animal research- my initial post was simply saying that, IMO, medical progress would not cease if animal research did.



I stand by that.



My opinion on medical experts is that they are experts in their respective fields- but being an expert in branches of modern medicine does not, IMO, make one particularly more qualified to comment on many animal research issues; including the morality of animal use, and, more pertinantly, what would happen to medicine if it ceased- those are not medical questions.





I say that for all intents and purposes, no new medical therapies would be developed. Perhaps a few surgical devices, but that's all.



As for the bit about being an expert in a branch of moderrn medicine, tell me, what credentials would satisfy you? I'm not talking about the morality of the use of animals. I'm talking about the practicality of it.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />

You can't seriously believe that, in a world where use of animals for research is rife, totally accepted and held as necessary for medical progress; that the kind of options and solutions that would be developed and researched in a world where animal research is impossible, will be granted the same kind of funding and incentive to investigate fully.





I can seriously believe it for the same reason that I can seriously believe that we are not fully investigating hyperspace travel. It is not possible to simulate a complete mammal and at no point in the forseeable future would this be possible. Because we know that this is an impossibility, we do not even try because we know it's futile.



</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />

What about civilisations pre-modern medicine. Death rates may have been higher, but it certainly wasn't the case that most of the population were dead. And, when rates were high, it was due to unhygenic social conditions, famine, etc- not the fact that they didn't test their herbs on animals.





In pre-modern medicine time, fully one third of women died in childbirth or as a direct complication thereof (chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, etc.) Average life expectancy was less than 40 and causes of death were things like abscessed teeth (which would seed brain abscesses), appendicitis, and other now easily treated infections. Nobody died of cancer or heart disease because they didn't live that long.



In Afghanistan in 2000, the infant mortality rate was 15%. That's 2000. It may have been as high as 30%--yes ONE THIRD of babies-- before modern medicine. In fact, in biblical times, infant mortality was so high that in Jewish tradition, a baby is not considered a "whole person" until the 8th day of life because so many babies died in the first few days. It's also considered bad luck in Jewish tradition to congratulate an expectant mother on her pregnancy, presumably for the same "don't count your chickens before they hatch" reason.



So I suppose that since most people on this board are under 25, I can't fairly say that MOST of the people on this board would be dead today if not for modern medicine, of which greater than 95% is dependent on animal research, but I can say that about a third of them would be.



Keep arguing, Dave. I think I've made my point.



But yes, I concede, medical research would not TOTALLY stop. If it makes you better, I'll concede that, not that it makes any practical difference to the question. And I still stand by my statement that all who believe that animal research should stop should wear identification tags informing all medical personnel that under no circumstances do they want any form of medical care.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: lightning


</font><blockquote><font class="small">Written by:</font><hr />

Firstly, I've yet to condemn animal research- my initial post was simply saying that, IMO, medical progress would not cease if animal research did.







Problems with the "quote" function messing up on posts with embedded quotes can be rectified by cutting out the </font>... stuff as you preview your reply, leaving just the quote and /quote in square brackets.



ie-



(quote: original post)



(quote: embedded quote)



original quote text- hgjgfkdhfgjtydr



(/quote)



comment on embedded quote-hrdsjtdsjtsjwqtre



(/quote)



With the quotes wrapped in square brackets instead of the round ones I've used here.



HOPs quote function should do it automatically, but it's obviously broke sometimes.





Written by: lightning


I say that for all intents and purposes, no new medical therapies would be developed. Perhaps a few surgical devices, but that's all.











In my opinion that's not corrent.You seem to be working on the assumption that, if there's no direct alternative to testing drugs on complete mammals with quick lifecycles (animals) then research will cease.



I put it to you that if animal testing becomes impossible, ie, it is no longer an option- however much medical people hanker after it and bemoan the fact that it was by far the best way to test drugs, it's all in vain because it is simply not an option.



Given that (the impossibility of animal testing), I believe that progress in medicine development (ie not just surgical tools) will continue.



Currently, testing on humans is restricted soley to drugs that have recieved extensive animal testing- in the scenario I'm speaking of, human testing will happen earlier, ie, in the absense of alternatives, drugs will be tested on humans.







Written by: lightning


As for the bit about being an expert in a branch of moderrn medicine, tell me, what credentials would satisfy you? I'm not talking about the morality of the use of animals. I'm talking about the practicality of it.







The same as any other discussion- speak sense, back it up with facts, and don't claim that your opinion on moral and health issues is superior to mine purely on the grounds that you're a qualified medical practitioner.



Written by: lightning


In pre-modern medicine time, fully one third of women died in childbirth or as a direct complication thereof (chorioamnionitis, hemorrhage, etc.) Average life expectancy was less than 40 and causes of death were things like abscessed teeth (which would seed brain abscesses), appendicitis, and other now easily treated infections. Nobody died of cancer or heart disease because they didn't live that long.









In those times, slavery, oppression and bad social conditions were rife- I don't believe that the human animal is of such bad design that, in non-oppressive, decent environmental conditions, a 1/3 will break and die.



But, putting that aside, let's not confuse the scenario I'm talking about post-animal testing, as being the same as living in the past. We have a modern civilisation- at the very, very worst, even if medical progress did slow or stop, we'll still possess the medical technology and drugs that we have already.





Written by: lightning




Keep arguing, Dave. I think I've made my point.











If your arguments are good then they should stand for themselves, you don't need to beef them up with these little digs.









Written by: lightning




And I still stand by my statement that all who believe that animal research should stop should wear identification tags informing all medical personnel that under no circumstances do they want any form of medical care.







I know (from previous threads) you've got issues with those who believe that animal testing is immoral, and who believe that there are viable alternatives to it.



Which is why I've continually pointed out on this thread that I've not been talking about the rights and wrongs, or pros and cons, of animal testing- that issue has its own threads elsewhere. It also tends to result in hostility, bad reason and personal attacks.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
Posted:Written by: onewheeldave

What about civilisations pre-modern medicine. Death rates may have been higher, but it certainly wasn't the case that most of the population were dead. And, when rates were high, it was due to unhygenic social conditions, famine, etc- not the fact that they didn't test their herbs on animals.



hmmmm... of course most of the population weren't dead, otherwise they wouldn't have been part of the population. But given today's layout of the population, more than half the people wouldn't have survived then, not only due to medicine, but also due to little tools like fertilising fields to actually be able to feed a large population, so you're right about the famines. About hygiene, well, people didn't realise hygiene and health came together a lot of the time, so yes again.

I really wasn't trying to spark such an argument between you two though frown (it's the wrong thread anyways!! tongue)


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:offtopic



looking back at this brief excursion, immediately after dave's polarised assertion, that "medical research would contiunue if animal testing were banned", mike concedes that this is true.



mike went on to say more specifically that it would *barely* continue (i.e. medical progress would continue but at a rate massively reduced to that of recent times) unless we allowed far more extensive human testing, which subseuently it seems, dave thinks is sure to play a bigger part in medical research if vivesection were banned:



"in the scenario [dave is] speaking of, human testing will happen earlier, ie, in the absense of alternatives, drugs will be tested on humans."



dave says this as if it is a certainty yet where is the evidence for that?

if animal testing were banned, what is there to suggest that human testing laws would then be relaxed?

in your own words dave: "speak sense, back it up with facts, and don't claim that your opinion on moral and health issues is superior to [anyone else's]".



in a social climate where animal testing is branded as immoral and is banned worldwide, it seems to me that loosening the restrictions on human testing would be so unlikely that it is not even a practical possibility, much less a certainty.



based on similar (and possibly even stronger) moral arguments to those that saw vivesection outlawed human testing would logically become more heavily restricted, not less.





dave, your main point was accepted from the outset yet you continue to pick on the specifics of mike's viewpoints, seemingly looking for a rise in a thread with a completely different subject to that which you are pushing...



the most abrasive part of this 'discussion' for me dave is that you have admitted that it is an almost purely hypothetical situation ("practically speaking, it's not going to happen") yet you continue to persue that line of argument as if it is of paramount importance to this issue, even though your assertion was initially agreed with, confirmed and better qualified by both mike and myself.



i apologise if i am being presumptuous but as far as i can tell, you *are* nitpicking dave.



offtopic





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Written by: onewhelkdave

I'd be willing to bet that if, for some reason, animal testing was abolished completely, medical progress would continue.



The issue is that Dave is saying this IN THE CONTEXT of a discussion about animal rights protests. And because of THE CONTEXT of the discussion, Dave has asserted a technicality which is technically true but inappropriately supported due to the context of the discussion.

*Obviously we all believe that SOME sort of medical research would go on if animal testing was banned. It would just be much less effective.*

We all agree with that right?


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

brodieman


brodieman

old hand
Location: london

Total posts: 1024
Posted:one wheel dave- im afraid your clutching at straws not using animal testing i agree would not halt research in total but it would be like trying to dig the channel tunnel with a shovel, possable would take a hell of a long time and very dangerous too.
I agree medical testing would be done on humans sooner but at a much greater risk. Also the amount of funding that would be necessary for that would be astromonical, not all drugs last through the testing phase, considering a human test subject costs an average 150 pounds for a simple low risk drugs test.

Considering one of the biggest tests done on animals is the aquiring of new cures for deseases ie we are currently devloping an imunisation for human bird flu, so when it evolves (and it will) we will have some sort of imunisation against it.
It is next to impossable to to devlop imunisations with out testing,

Wait i just thought of somthing.....
If animal testing became banned, no more research would happen it would halt... because many of the researchers would be dead when the next pandemic hits
Their have been a few in the last few years
Super T.B. (very resistant) out breaks in south america
Bird flu
Aids (not treatable but better controled than ever before)


Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
Posted:HYPOTHETICALLY (in Birgit's world):

If human testing was allowed, it would be forced on people. Either like it was previously suggested in another thread, on prisoners, which has already happened in the context of some of the worst dictatorships. Take Mengele as an example - unfortunately none of his research turned out to be any use, and look at how much pain was involved. Or maybe like the stuff soldiers got in the first Gulf war, where they didn't even know what they were getting and came home with horrible diseases the army didn't want to know about.

The most likely thing however is that people will be offered money. This is already happening in (semi-safe since previously tested on animals...) clinical trials, but also less legally in poor countries like Romania. Young healthy poor people get stopped at stations or job agencies and asked if they want to sell a kidney so that some rich fxxk who doesn't give a damn about others can get a transplant. Technically, you can survive with one kidney, so lots of people agree, not thinking that if the other one gets damaged they're screwed.

This would happen for medicine trials. Poor people would be talked into it or approach the pharma companies themselves to make some money, and their bodies and their desperate situation would be used without mercy.

The only alternative to any of these is to pass a law that states random people will be picked for experiments, like let's say jury duty. This is very unlikely, given that the random selection would include the people that pass the laws, who I don't think would be very happy about it.

So even if I thought that scientifically it would be a valid alternative, I can't agree to human testing being morally acceptable any more than animal testing.


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: coleman


"in the scenario [dave is] speaking of, human testing will happen earlier, ie, in the absense of alternatives, drugs will be tested on humans."

dave says this as if it is a certainty yet where is the evidence for that?
if animal testing were banned, what is there to suggest that human testing laws would then be relaxed?
in your own words dave: "speak sense, back it up with facts, and don't claim that your opinion on moral and health issues is superior to [anyone else's]".



You make a valid point, it's a little sad that you feel the need to phrase it in such an agressive manner, but I'll answer it.

I said it without evidence, i may well be wrong, but, if I had to bet on it, I'd bet that human testing would increase.

This is because,if Mikes right that there are no viable alternatives to testing drugs on mammals, then humanity would have two options-

1. test on humans
2. give up on medical progress

My knowledge of human nature leads me to believe that 1 will be the case- not only because most will believe it to be the lesser of two evils, but, more cynically, there's a lot of money to be made from medical progress and humanity has always been prepared to sacrifice morality for large profits.


Written by: coleman




in a social climate where animal testing is branded as immoral and is banned worldwide, it seems to me that loosening the restrictions on human testing would be so unlikely that it is not even a practical possibility, much less a certainty.





You're making an assumption there- I never said why, in the hypothetical example, animal testing is banned- I definitly did not specify that it was anyhting to do with morality.


Written by: coleman


the most abrasive part of this 'discussion' for me dave is that you have admitted that it is an almost purely hypothetical situation ("practically speaking, it's not going to happen") yet you continue to persue that line of argument as if it is of paramount importance to this issue, even though your assertion was initially agreed with, confirmed and better qualified by both mike and myself.

i apologise if i am being presumptuous but as far as i can tell, you *are* nitpicking dave.

cole. x


Mikes a medic: I'm a philospher- discussion of hypothetical situations that, practically speaking, will never happen is part and parcel of philosophical method- why? Because it's useful.

In physics, much cutting edge progress has been based on 'thought experiments' ie, concieving of hypothetical, idealised scenarios, most of which could not actually occur in reality.

Much of Einsteins dialogue with eminent scientists took the form of discussing such 'thought experiements'.

If you really don't like discussion of hypothetical scenarios, then maybe you shouldn't discuss them smile

They are part of what it is to debate issues- this is a discussion board, you may not like what I'm saying, but please appreciate that I'm saying it in a polite, non-aggressive way.

There is a point to my hypothetical example- Mike said words to the effect that medical progress was entirely relient on animal testing.

I dispute that, totally. If I can show that, should animal testing become impossible, medical progress would continue (and continue properly, not at 1% of it's current levels- that would be nit-picking), then it effectively shows Mikes assertion to be flawed.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:It's all kind of a moot point. Since the LD50s of every major compound has been established there really ISN'T any animal testing going on these days. Just check an MSDS and you'll find it. Heck, you can even look MSDS for any compound on the internet.

Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

brodieman


brodieman

old hand
Location: london

Total posts: 1024
Posted:awww one wheel dave i feel ignored frown i was intrest on your prespective on what i said

Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
Posted:Written by: brodieman

awww one wheel dave i feel ignored frown i was intrest on your prespective on what i said



me too :|


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:I was trying to keep things to the one issue (medical progress post animal testing...) and the points you raised were about different aspects.

But, as you both feel ignored, here goes-

Written by: brodieman

one wheel dave- im afraid your clutching at straws



Maybe you don't appreciate this, but I certainly feel less inclined to bother replying when a post starts this way. We're adults in a rational discussion- in this thread, I've received several of these little put downs- they're not necessary and they add nothing to the thread.

I'm much more likely to spend my time putting together well thought out and reasoned arguments if they're not wrongly presented as me 'clutching at straws'.

If you want to prove me wrong, then do so, with reasoned, rational argument- not digs.

It's up to you of course, you can either take that on board, or you can think of me as over sensitive and pay no heed to it. But, from my perspective, my posts take time and thought, when I bother to put in that time and thought it's a way of showing respect to the person I'm replying to; if I get disrespect in return, I lose interest.
Written by: brodieman


Wait i just thought of somthing.....
If animal testing became banned, no more research would happen it would halt... because many of the researchers would be dead when the next pandemic hits
Their have been a few in the last few years
Super T.B. (very resistant) out breaks in south america
Bird flu
Aids (not treatable but better controled than ever before)



There's never been a pandemic that could come close to wiping out almost every expert in medical testing, i see no reason to suspect that one will arise.

In the west; well, in the UK anyway, there never seems to be anything that does more than kill the very old and the very young.

Written by: Birgit


If human testing was allowed, it would be forced on people. Either like it was previously suggested in another thread, on prisoners, which has already happened in the context of some of the worst dictatorships. Take Mengele as an example - unfortunately none of his research turned out to be any use, and look at how much pain was involved. Or maybe like the stuff soldiers got in the first Gulf war, where they didn't even know what they were getting and came home with horrible diseases the army didn't want to know about.

The most likely thing however is that people will be offered money. This is already happening in (semi-safe since previously tested on animals...) clinical trials, but also less legally in poor countries like Romania. Young healthy poor people get stopped at stations or job agencies and asked if they want to sell a kidney so that some rich fxxk who doesn't give a damn about others can get a transplant. Technically, you can survive with one kidney, so lots of people agree, not thinking that if the other one gets damaged they're screwed.

This would happen for medicine trials. Poor people would be talked into it or approach the pharma companies themselves to make some money, and their bodies and their desperate situation would be used without mercy.

The only alternative to any of these is to pass a law that states random people will be picked for experiments, like let's say jury duty. This is very unlikely, given that the random selection would include the people that pass the laws, who I don't think would be very happy about it.

So even if I thought that scientifically it would be a valid alternative, I can't agree to human testing being morally acceptable any more than animal testing.




I've gone to trouble in this thread to not get into my views on the rights and wrongs, or pros and cons of animal testing- I knew that if I did so, things would get very heated, and the issue I was addressing would get buried in the usual emotive hysteria that crops up in every attempt to discuss animal testing.

It strikes me that at least one of the horror scenarios you say will happen is already happening anyway- the sale of kidneys and other organs in third world populations.

Would human drug testing follow the same route? Maybe- I don't know.

That's all I can say really- I don't know.

And, considering that all I was claiming, was that, were animal testing to cease- medical progress would continue; there's no reason for me to have an opinion on the issue you mention.

Obviously, in the post animal testing scenario, humanity has two choices-

1. test drugs on willing human volunteers who know the risks, get substantial rewards for volunteering, and are in no way coerced (much as current drug testing on humans is done).

Thus taking a moral approach (given that the only alternative in this scenario, is to cease medical progress).

or

2. exploit desperate poor third world citizens, and force prisoners in poor countires to undergo testing.

It's humanities choice- given that humanity is currently happy to brush the 50,000 Africans who die daily from lack of food, under the carpet, and that the US goverment is happy to ship its terror suspects out to countries where torture is legal; then you may well be right.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:Written by: onewellydave


If you really don't like discussion of hypothetical scenarios, then maybe you shouldn't discuss them smile



They are part of what it is to debate issues- this is a discussion board, you may not like what I'm saying, but please appreciate that I'm saying it in a polite, non-aggressive way.







smile



please believe i do appreciate your non-agressive stance - its just completely infuriating sometimes!



i do attempt to remain as non-aggressive as possible but perhaps am not as accomplished at it yet.



Written by: onewellydave


There is a point to my hypothetical example- Mike said words to the effect that medical progress was entirely relient on animal testing.



I dispute that, totally. If I can show that, should animal testing become impossible, medical progress would continue (and continue properly, not at 1% of it's current levels- that would be nit-picking), then it effectively shows Mikes assertion to be flawed.





i assert that you cannot show that it would continue.



all that you have done so far (and all that it is possible for you to do without evidence) is to show that it could continue, if other things changed too.



taking the isolated incidence that animal testing were banned, the most likely case is that medical research would slow to a pace that is almost non-existant in comparison to today's rate of progress.



it is only when you extrapolate further changes from that decision that you can begin to state that the laws on human testing might be relaxed and so on.



without a context (e.g. vivisection banned on moral grounds), it is not coherent to state these 'changes as a result of the decision to ban animal testing' as anything other than 'another possibility'.



your reasoning when it has come to the crunch is not to prove that it would be the case but rather to say that 'you would bet that it would' - i.e. you personally think that those changes (animal testing banned lead to human testing extended) describe the most likely case.



as you yourself said, without evidence to back it up, your 'bet' that human research would be the dominant factor in continuing medical research if vivisection were banned, is no more valid than mike's opinion that medical research would all but cease as human testing is not a valid option medically/clinically, economically, morally, or numerically (as i said before i believe).





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

brodieman


brodieman

old hand
Location: london

Total posts: 1024
Posted:one wheel dave- I was not making a personal dig at you, but wow you are a fantastic debateor considor politics? id vote for you lol

AS for their has been no pandemics that could wipe out large portions of the population um you will find their have been for example
The bubonic plague, killed a third of europe
Measles before the imunisation killed milloins
Rubella tended to leve people dehabilitated
T.B. we were on the verge of a epidemic before be started carpet imunisation

Remember what happened to native americans when the spanish arrived, milloins died of desease, which is now theorised to be the common cold
respect the bug!!! lol


Delete

Birgit
BRONZE Member since Jan 2005

Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 4145
Posted:Written by: onewellydave

And, considering that all I was claiming, was that, were animal testing to cease- medical progress would continue; there's no reason for me to have an opinion on the issue you mention.




I don't completely agree there... it's kind of the consequence of having medical progress if animal testing was to stop now, because alternative methods are not far enough advanced at the moment. But it's not really worth arguing about given that it's all just a mindgame at the mo.


Written by: onewellydave

1. test drugs on willing human volunteers who know the risks, get substantial rewards for volunteering, and are in no way coerced (much as current drug testing on humans is done).



That's where I think you're wrong... substantial rewards are coercing. If they weren't, they wouldn't be offered or needed to get enough volunteers.


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: coleman






without a context (e.g. vivisection banned on moral grounds), it is not coherent to state these 'changes as a result of the decision to ban animal testing' as anything other than 'another possibility'.



your reasoning when it has come to the crunch is not to prove that it would be the case but rather to say that 'you would bet that it would' - i.e. you personally think that those changes (animal testing banned lead to human testing extended) describe the most likely case.



as you yourself said, without evidence to back it up, your 'bet' that human research would be the dominant factor in continuing medical research if vivisection were banned, is no more valid than mike's opinion that medical research would all but cease as human testing is not a valid option medically/clinically, economically, morally, or numerically (as i said before i believe).





cole. x







As it's a 'thought experiment' no context is required, and, I suspect, any context given would serve to distract from the central point.



The scenario is that animal testing has ceased to be an option, thus there are two, and only two, possibilities for humanity to choose between-



1. Give up medical progress of any reasonable level (I add this bit to account for Mikes suggestion that it may continue at 1% of its current rate)



2. Do what is necessary to ensure that medical progress continues (at a rate of, let's say, at least 20% of it's current rate)



that percantage is arbitrary, and I have reservations about introducing it, as I see potential for a lot of disagreement about what actually constitues 'medical progress'.



But, given the two options above, and the obligation to make ones best bet- I'd go for 2.



My grounds for doing so is that everything I've seen about humanity indicates that it would do whatever is necessary to ensure that medical progress continues.



Those things would include use of human testing.



In the light of the huge profits involved (then, as now, the pharmacutical industry would exist primarily to make huge amounts of profit), any moral objections would be dealt with in the same way as moral objections to all the current morally questionable, but financially advantageous practices of governments and corporations.



So that's my grounds for the bet.



If you, or Mike, would instead bet on 1 (no, or 1% medical progress), what would be your grounds for doing so?



Bearing in mind that, if you're going to go for the 'human testing is too immoral' approach, you'll need to address the current practices that are equally immoral (eg 50,000 third-world human beings dead each day from starvation, wars fought to maintain oil supplies, lack of effort to rescue New-Orleaners post-flood, etc, etc, etc, etc.......).



At the end of the day, the majority of the morally questionable actions of humanity are not done with an attitude of 'let's be really, really bad to some people'; instead it's 'well, we've got to weigh up the balance here, if we do this for those people, then we'll lose out on this, and that.... at the end of the day, it's just not financially practical to help them out etc).



So, when it comes to medical progress post-animal testing, based on the evidence of humanities past decisions in similar circumstances, i really can't see the, for example, American government announcing to the population that 'Given the current impossibility of animal testing, we've decided to give up on medical research to zero (or 1%) levels, as we, the American people, find the use of drug testing on human beings to be morally abhorrant'.



This is the same government that left New Orleaners flooded and dying for a week, ships its terror suspects out for interrogation to lands where torture is legal, dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima because, on the moral balance, it would save more lives than it took, etc, etc.



The whole basis of its approach to morality is not in deciding what is right or wrong, but rather, which of two approaches is most right.



Do you really believe that they will not do the same when chossing between medical progress ceasing (or 1% etc) and drug testing on humans.



(please note that I'm not attacking the American way of life here (pretty much all governments are the same), nor am I saying that this 'balancing of morality' is necessarily bad- I'm simply using these facts as evidence for betting that medical progress would continue, by whatever means necessary).



So, what will you bet on, and what's your grounds?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: Birgit






Written by: onewellydave


1. test drugs on willing human volunteers who know the risks, get substantial rewards for volunteering, and are in no way coerced (much as current drug testing on humans is done).





That's where I think you're wrong... substantial rewards are coercing. If they weren't, they wouldn't be offered or needed to get enough volunteers.





Well, that very much depends on what constitutes coercing.



I'd say that putting a gun to someones head and saying 'do this or die' is coercion in a sense that 'do this risky job and I'll give you 50,000' isn't.



But, for arguments sake, let's say I agree with you that offering large sums of money is in fact a form of coercion.



Take that to the issue in question (medical progree vs. human testing) and consider the current state of affairs, where, it seems to me, on your definition of coercion, it's currently standard practice to coerce- indeed, western civilisation is based on it.



From the obvious high wages for risky jobs (eg deep sea diving) to current human testing (where you can earn as much for a one night study in a drugs testing unit as most people earn in a weeks full time job) to the absolutley standard (for many) of giving up 40-50 hours/week of your time to do something you'd rather not be doing, in return for a weekly wage.



The point being that, in this thread, i'm not arguing for the morality of human testing or practices that occur pre or post animal testing- I'm simply saying what, in my opinion, will occur.



If what happens post-animal-testing does involve the kind of coercion you speak of, then, given that such coercion is accepted now, it will surely, also be accepted then?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:since this didn't seem to be the right thread to suggest a thought experiment in, i proposed what i thought would happen in the real world.



i stated a few posts back that:



"animal testing will not be banned without massive worldwide debate on the subject - they won't just stop it and say 'right, lets see what happens now'.



it is my view that animal testing would not be prohibited without a suitable way forward for medical research being identified first.

to approach it in any other way is highly negligent."





however, if the given scenario is "animal testing has ceased to be an option", i would bet that:



many of the major pharma developers would file for bankruptcy within a year,



without these companies, the resources available for drug development would have diminished to the point that even if human testing was considered a viable option and was permitted (which i do not think it would be under just about any circumstances), it would be too late to affect the state of the industry.



the primary responsibility for drug development and medical research as a whole would then lie with universities and hospitals (possibly using experimental drug testing procedures) and thus would slow to a pace that is incomparable to todays rate of progress.



i.e. it would signal the end for many of the major medical research players and lead to a disaster in terms of the future of medical research and progress.



that's my bet.





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: brodieman


AS for their has been no pandemics that could wipe out large portions of the population um you will find their have been for example
The bubonic plague, killed a third of europe
Measles before the imunisation killed milloins
Rubella tended to leve people dehabilitated
T.B. we were on the verge of a epidemic before be started carpet imunisation

Remember what happened to native americans when the spanish arrived, milloins died of desease, which is now theorised to be the common cold
respect the bug!!! lol



Those things were in the past, when

1. Oppression and horrific social conditions were rife (in particular, hygeine was not understood or practiced, in dense crowded town situations these people were literally living in each others [censored]- this is very bad when disease is present).

2. Medicine was not as progressed as it is now.

3. We have a 'notification' system, whereby people who appear to have certain diseases are effectively isolated to attempt to stop it spreading.

To me, this explains why, in the civilised West, these pandemics simply do not happen to anywhere near that extent, and generally claim only the very young and very old.

Obviously, medicine, and therefore animal testing has played its part in the above, but, bear in mind that I'm not arguing in this thread whether animal testing is good or bad, simply discussing what will happen post-animal testing.

Obviously, post-animal testing, humanity retains all previus knowledge gained from testing.

So, I'm inclined to say that there seems to be little risk of pandemic disaster (to the extent you mentioned of killing the majority of medical researchers) due to the safeguards, understanding of hygeine, notification etc, currently in place.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: coleman


since this didn't seem to be the right thread to suggest a thought experiment in, i proposed what i thought would happen in the real world.

i stated a few posts back that:

"animal testing will not be banned without massive worldwide debate on the subject - they won't just stop it and say 'right, lets see what happens now'.

it is my view that animal testing would not be prohibited without a suitable way forward for medical research being identified first.
to approach it in any other way is highly negligent."




Yes, but, as I said previously, none of my comments have been directed towards that particular scenario.

Written by: coleman

however, if the given scenario is "animal testing has ceased to be an option", i would bet that.....



Good, now we're presumably talking about the same scenario (that of animal testing ceasing with no context or explanation or assumptions about why it has ceased- a pure thought experiement in which the only given is that animal testing has ceased completly).



Written by: coleman

however, if the given scenario is "animal testing has ceased to be an option", i would bet that:

many of the major pharma developers would file for bankruptcy within a year,

without these companies, the resources available for drug development would have diminished to the point that even if human testing was considered a viable option and was permitted (which i do not think it would be under just about any circumstances), it would be too late to affect the state of the industry.

the primary responsibility for drug development and medical research as a whole would then lie with universities and hospitals (possibly using experimental drug testing procedures) and thus would slow to a pace that is incomparable to todays rate of progress.

i.e. it would signal the end for many of the major medical research players and lead to a disaster in terms of the future of medical research and progress.

that's my bet.


cole. x




You make a good and relevant point with your bankruptcy idea. The qustion is, why would they file for bankruptcy?

Given that currently, the pharmacutical companies made stupendous amounts of profit from testing and producing drugs, and, assuming that post-animal-testing, testing drugs on huamns would be totally legal (my grounds for that assumption are explained in my post above), then I don't understand why they would file for bankruptcy.

Surely not on moral grounds- historically large corporations have never (or extremely rarely) refrained from pursuit of profit for moral reasons (not voluntarily anyway).

For financial reasons? As I argue above, given that human testing is then legal, I see no reason why profits should drop in the slightest. Even if some corporations did decide to get out, that just means a bigger share of the market for the ones who remain.

Lastly, given that animals are at best, of similar physiology to humans (albeit, the closest current option), I would ahve thought that drugs testing on humans would be more efficient when it comes to producing drugs that are effective and safe for humans (obviously, the safety benefit comes in after the testing, not during it).

For that reason, could it not be said that medical progress would actually get a boost?

(You may, for some reason be thinking that human testing will not be made legal- in which case you may well be right that the pharmacutical companies may cease trading; however, I would, in that case, refer you to my arguments in the posts above, because the arguments in this post are operating on the assumption that it will be legal.

If you disagree with that assumption, then i think that is the issue you need to be addressing).


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002

coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay

Total posts: 7330
Posted:dave - i do not accept your grounds for the assumption that post-animal-testing, testing drugs on humans would be totally legal.



as i have repeatedly stated its a non-workable idea - not only for moral reasons but for clinical, practical and economic reasons.



look up what is required for a drug to be developed, approved and to eventually make it to market and try to work out how that could be changed to replace testing on animals with testing on humans.

look at the number of animals required to develop a drug, at what stage that occurs and how many of the animals die at this stage.

also note how many drugs are abandoned at this stage of development due to unacceptable side-effects (e.g. kidney or liver failure).

then look at the number of case studies that are required with regards to human subjects.

the numbers simply don't add up.



even if for some reason it were accepted as the best way forward for drug development, the changes in legislation needed to make it happen are huge and would very likely take quite some time to happen - not least due to the opposition that we could expect from human rights pressure groups and the like.



this at the least is enough of a problem to see the end of many pharma companies.





as for the pharma industry collapse that i proposed, your assumptions about how these companies make their money are severely flawed:



Written by: dave
Given that currently, the pharmacutical companies made stupendous amounts of profit from testing and producing drugs





the pharmas do not make money from testing drugs - that is where they spend most of their money and they lose millions to drugs that they develop that do not make it through the product pipeline.



the pharmas make the majority of their money from the limited period patents they hold on drugs that they have developed.



you suggested that even *with* human testing replacing animal testing, the rate of development might drop to a fifth of the current rate - currently the average time from drug discovery to market is about 10-15 years i believe.



with these development times stretched even further, i can see no way that these companies could survive for much more than a decade - many would cut their losses within a year.



the only way they could be saved is by extending patents on all drugs they have developed, creating larger monopolies and spelling the end for many of the generics manufacturers which in turn could easily lead to a worldwide drug shortage.





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Written by: coleman




as i have repeatedly stated its a non-workable idea - not only for moral reasons but for clinical, practical and economic reasons.







Repeatedly stating an opinion or fact without backing it up is not going to convince me.



You have now, in this post, expanded and backed up your claim that its a non-workable idea for economic reasons, but, previously, you've merely stated it.



Now you're fleshing it out, which is good; hopefully you'll understand why I've not up to now been swayed by your repeated statements that it's economically unfeasable.



Written by: coleman




look up what is required for a drug to be developed, approved and to eventually make it to market and try to work out how that could be changed to replace testing on animals with testing on humans.

look at the number of animals required to develop a drug, at what stage that occurs and how many of the animals die at this stage.

also note how many drugs are abandoned at this stage of development due to unacceptable side-effects (e.g. kidney or liver failure).

then look at the number of case studies that are required with regards to human subjects.

the numbers simply don't add up.







I agree, mass slaughter of humans in the initial testing stages is not going to be acceptable. Some human deaths would be acceptable, but the current animal testing attitude of 'the subjects are an expendable resource with infinite supply' would not be applicable when the subjects are human.



I query your advice to 'look up what is required....' as that relates to testing currently, which does use an infinitly renewable and expendable subject resource which can be subjected to any amount of suffering and death, with no moral recriminations.



Obviously, when the subjects are humans, things will have to be done differently.



An obvious question is whether useful results can be gained under those restrictions.



I'm pretty sure you'll say 'no' to that one; for myself, I'm not going to be so presumptious as to say 'yes, definitly' because I don't know. To establish whether the answer is yes or no, will of course require further discussion to establish.



Here's why I think that it may work-



1. Currently medical research is virtually founded on the notion of animal research. Based on the notion that it has available subjects that are infinitly renewable, totally disposable, morally valueless.



Further, that animals are essential for research- all the 'alternatives' suggested by those opposed to animal experimentation are unrealistic pipe-dreams.



A consequence of this state of affairs, is that there is no incentive to invest substatial resources into developing those alternatives.



Please note here that I'm not espressing an opinion on the animals vs. alternatives issue.



What I am doing is pointing out that, in a world where animal testing is impossible; where the supply of an infinite and disposable body of test subjects is suddenly removed- there is a much greater incentive to plough vast resources into alternatives.



Those enmeshed in the current status quo will doubtlessly cry out in exasperation that the alternatives are worthless, and cannot ever sustain future medical research- the fact remains that we simply do not know what will be turned up when the resources available to investigate them are increased a hundred-fold.



For an analogy: currently, there are strict restrictions about what can constitute a 'house' in England- builders must adhere to specific types of materials and quality, the house must be wired up correctly, connected to the water mains etc.



If this isn't done, the house is considered substandard and must be demolished.



Neverthless, despite the fact that all houses must be made of brick like material, a certain number of rooms, connected to utilities etc; in the event of some disaster which destroys the social infrastructure, when push comes to shove, a yurt cobbled together from animal skins and wood, will serve just as well, as a home.



And, despite the fact that it is, in the eyes of the current status quo, clearly inferior- the fact remains that a well constructed yurt can, practically speaking, be superior to a house.



----------------



Post animal testing, a lot has to change, part of that involves substantial attitude changes.



You described above what sounded like a whole sale animal slaughter in the intial tests of a drug- that attitude, that you can inflict a lethal poison on your subjects, will have to go when those subjects are human.



What will replace it?



You're stuck with either alternatives, or testing purely on humans.



Personally, I suspect that some of the alternatives will develop substantially with all the extra input and resources that can be ploughed into them.



But, that aside, if you're going to test just using humans, then an option is to use ultra-cautious increments of the substance under review.



ie, you administer a dose so small that harm is impossible and, over a long period of time, increase the dose while the individual is closely monitored.



Of course, this fails to cover for long-term effects of the drugs; I'm sure there's ways to approach a solution for that.



Lastly, let's remember that what we were talking about originally was medical progress- that is far from synomimous with drug development.



Currently many alternative approaches to health receive, in comparison to drug research, virtually no official resources.



Any deficits in drug research post-animal testing, could well be made up by resources being ploughed into alternatives (eg herbal, meditation based stress reduction techniques).



Also, given that much disease in the west is caused by our lifestyles, maybe post-animal testing will finally start to focus on prevention, and put real resources into imbuing into future generations the true importance of, and the techniques necessary to, living a healthy life, in which the necessity for drugs is cut drastically.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Written by: NYC

It's all kind of a moot point. Since the LD50s of every major compound has been established there really ISN'T any animal testing going on these days. Just check an MSDS and you'll find it. Heck, you can even look MSDS for any compound on the internet.



*Shrug*

Even when I post stuff that I totally disagree with and is blatantly wrong I can't even raise an eyebrow.

Oh well. ubblol


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

Page: 123