[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW Then what was the point of you asking me to name one drug that was developed without animal testing; and why ask me if it would make a difference to me if you could name some drugs proven harmful to animals and then not introduced to humans?

I was just asking if it would make a difference, as a setup to explaining that we should be wary of generalizing. Basically, I was going to point out that it would not be fair to generalize from one example to the whole, even if it were in support of my own position.

But many scientists are reasonably sure we may have thrown away many useful drugs merely because they caused damage to animals, noting that just because it causes harm to animals does not mean it would do so for humans.

If it causes harm to animals, it lets us know that much greater degrees of caution would be needed in testing on humans - and only if it is a chemical that warrants such risks, because the disease being treated is so harmful.

What about the hundreds of thousands of people a year who are injured or die from badly developed drugs? Fear of lititgation did not protect them? Why do you think you are different? Just because you`ve been lucky up till now? Are you saying their sons and daughters injuries or deaths are properly made up for by a million dollar settlement? You have a false sense of security, CC.

I do not.

I did not say that fear of litigation is a perfect protection. However, it provides a significant degree of protection.

Chemicals? Perhaps not. In vitro and cell cultures can handle that.

See, it is statements like that, that turn me off of your reasoning. I do not believe you can prove this. Your support is going to be by pointing out some chemicals that were tested this way, and then generalizing to the whole.

There are sooooooooooo many chemicals that are tested on animals in a large variety of ways, to see what kinds of results we get. Testing on cell cultures just isn't the same. I do not mean chemicals, as in household chemicals. I mean biochemicals - basic research. The stuff that eventually, perhaps decades down the line, leads to human treatments.

I have a friend who experiments with circadian rhythms in rats. She is studying the neurochemistry of melatonin and related compounds. Her goal is not simply testing for efficacy. She is mapping out how the rat's circadian rhythm is determined in the brain.

This research will, eventually, translate to human subjects. The translation is highly imperfect, but it will do so.


Another example, transgenic rats with components of human immune systems have been created to test for HIV medications. Researchers also use primates deliberately infected with SIV for this purpose. This is far far more effective research than testing in cell cultures. Eventually, these drugs could be tested in humans, but not until they are proven effective.

Why don't we test potentially ineffective treatments in humans with HIV? Because the virus needs to be kept suppressed. If they receive an ineffective treatment, they will hasten their death.

9 out of 10 drugs after passing animal trials fail in the clinical testing or are taken off the market shortly after appearing. Animal testing success has been dismal at best.

This is a misleading use of statistics.

Tell me, what percentage of drugs never make it to human testing, because they were shown to be harmful or ineffective in animal tests?

CC, I am the one thinking outside the box. You are the one repeating the unsubstantiated mantra of the status quo.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I said, beware of hasty generalization:
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia