Animal Tests

[Captain Chaos]

You will see below why I need to use the numbering system for this. It is needed to avoid circular answers.

Q1)Why do you feel animals deserve equal consideration of interest?
A1) (partial, of course): As I would not like to have my natural urges frustrated, I know, too, that animals also do not want their urges frustrated.

Q2)You are aware that animals do not want their urges frustrated, by why do you care about it?


With Q&A, the logic tree will split. A single question will produce several components in the answer. In order to do this, and not take a lifetime at it, I must use a single component for each answer. If we take every single component, we will wind up with too many branches to trace them out in a reasonable period of time.

Having done this many times, with myself and with others, I can tell you that every single branch we take ultimate either goes circular, or goes back to instinct/emotion.

Above you asked Eclipse if she would sacrifice 3 monkeys to save one cute girl. I would like to ask you, would you sacrifice all the primates in the world to save one cute girl? How about 3 highly intelligent monkeys and one irreversably retarded girl -- putting aside any cuteness. How about 10 intelligent monkeys and one child rapist who has repeated the offense?

Speaking to my own ethics, I value many things. One thing that I value is intelligence. A super-intelligent monkey may well have more value than a retarded human - IF that human has no attachments to other humans. No man is an island, and thus we will never find such a situation in the real world, of course.

There is a point in which I would sacrifice the little girl, but I think it would take a lot of dead monkeys to get there.

Now...

If this were MY little girl we were talking about, my love for her outweighs my rational consideration of the objective value of things. I think we just might wind up in a word without monkeys, so let's hope I am never put into that spot.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Having done this many times, with myself and with others, I can tell you that every single branch we take ultimate either goes circular, or goes back to instinct/emotion.

CC, I have never said that our actions or beliefs or values are not ultimately tied to emotions, have I? If so, then please point it out to me. The problem arises when you keep using emotions interchangably with instinct, or instinct interchangably with nature, as if it were instinctive, or as a default that value of human life necessitates we exploit and cause suffering to other sentient animals which have a mental life with interests, prefererences and physochological identity of their own. It is not decided that we, as the success of our species is determined by medical advancement and therefore must do so, only that we have chosen to do so.

If the overriding concern here were for the optimum success of the human race, as an instinctive drive should dictate, then concerns about weaker humans, who may have genetic defects and offer nothing to society, should not be worried about and they therefore should be targeted for testing -- seeing that logically, the human model would be the best model and most efficient in bringing new breakthroughs in research to benefit the species.

If you have a respect for parsimoney, then I would expect you to concede that, but if not, then I am quite confident you will reply with "Things are complicated," which they surely are, but need not be so much if one were to abandon an anthropocentric view.

I am not saying we should force testing on humans. The point is conceptual in regards to efficiency and that our species' success to survive does not have to rest on enslaving weaker individuals.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW If the overriding concern here were for the optimum success of the human race, as an instinctive drive should dictate, then concerns about weaker humans, who may have genetic defects and offer nothing to society, should not be worried about and they therefore should be targeted for testing -- seeing that logically, the human model would be the best model and most efficient in bringing new breakthroughs in research to benefit the species.

Instincts, especially in animals with such developed forebrains as humans, can manifest in a wide variety of different and often conflicting ways.

Yes, I am saying that evolution is not a simple as you describe there. How could it be otherwise?

The point is conceptual in regards to efficiency and that our species' success to survive does not have to rest on enslaving weaker individuals.

Animal testing is driven by greed, and justified by telling ourselves that the benefits to humans outweighs the harm to animals.

And, truly, the benefits to humans has been vast. Are there any modern drugs where animals testing was not an integral part of the testing process?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Yes, I am saying that evolution is not a simple as you describe there. How could it be otherwise?

You are the one who keeps emphasizing instincts. Aren`t instincts evolved for a purpose? What is the ultimate purpose of them?

Animal testing is driven by greed, and justified by telling ourselves that the benefits to humans outweighs the harm to animals.

Is Utilitarianism a philosophy you adhere? Do you not value nonarbitrary judgement and nonbias analysis?

And, truly, the benefits to humans has been vast.

The more better model used, indeed the perfect model used, would bring about more medical benefits to humans. Do you deny that?

Are there any modern drugs where animals testing was not an integral part of the testing process?

Your question is a loaded one, for all modern drugs are required to have animal testing or it is used as a protection against law suites.

Imagine if it were 1940 and we were debating gasoline vehicles verses the possibility of alternative fuels. Would it be strange if you put forth this question: Are there any modern cars that have been built where engines running on gasoline were not installed? Of course, you and I know that that question speaks nothing on what is possible, and only on the restrictions of time, just as your question places a restriction of law on it and the answer. So, the question is a loaded one and the answer is meaningless.

Dr Albert Sabin, the inventor of the polio vaccine, swore under oath that the vaccine ‘was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of [it] in monkeys’.

Penicillin, the world’s first antibiotic, was delayed for more than 10 years by misleading results from experiments in rabbits, and would have been shelved forever had it been tested on guinea pigs, which it kills. Sir Alexander Fleming himself said: ‘How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a licence, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised.’

Source: Ecologist Magazine, the world`s most widely read environmental magazine since 1970.

I wonder how many advances in medicine have been severely delayed, discounted, or missed as a result of not using the most accurate models. Dr. Sabin and Mr. Flemming seem to have an understanding and large respect for that.

What is the most ideal model, in fact, what is the perfect model?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Are there any modern drugs where animals testing was not an integral part of the testing process?

As pointed out before, testing is mandatory by regulations so the question is useless, but, yes, there are drugs whose preliminary research (before getting to the stage where they are manditorily tested by government regulation) have been developed without the animal testing process:

MSD [pharmaceutical companies Merck, Sharpe, Dohme] admits that animal studies were not used in the primary research that led to the invention of the follow-up protease inhibitor, Crixivan. Based on the knowledge that HIV is a uniquely human disease, MSD scientists focused on studying the structure of HIV and its interaction with human cells. Designed on computers, the protease drug was initially safety-tested using non-animal methods.

According to Shapiro, writing in Positive Nation: “Animal tests were neither needed, nor used, to explore the ability of protease inhibitors to block the growth of the Aids virus…the target action was already well understood and could be evaluated before the clinical trials using computers, cell culture and biochemical assays.”

Source

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW You are the one who keeps emphasizing instincts. Aren`t instincts evolved for a purpose? What is the ultimate purpose of them?

To pass on genes in specific circumstances. However, conditioning, different circumstances, mutations, and breeding that results in unusual instinctive drives may result in behavioral manifestations of instincts that do more than help pass on genes - that may, in fact, prevent genes from being passed on.

Is Utilitarianism a philosophy you adhere? Do you not value nonarbitrary judgement and nonbias analysis?

I am a practicalist, foremost. My judgements are not at all arbitrary. All moral analysis starts with some bias, I believe.

The more better model used, indeed the perfect model used, would bring about more medical benefits to humans. Do you deny that?

But humans do not deem the outcome worth the cost, because it upsets us too much to test on humans - at least, that is currently the trend in thinking.

I wonder how many advances in medicine have been severely delayed, discounted, or missed as a result of not using the most accurate models. Dr. Sabin and Mr. Flemming seem to have an understanding and large respect for that. What is the most ideal model, in fact, what is the perfect model?

Animals at first, because it upsets us too much to go around killing humans. After we determine a degree of safety, human testing follows.

[StrongHeartsWin]

StrongHeartsWin:
What is the ultimate purpose of them[instincts]?

Quote by: Captain Chaos To pass on genes in specific circumstances.

CC, sorry for not being more specific. What is the ultimate purpose in general, parsimoniously?

I am a practicalist, foremost. My judgements are not at all arbitrary. All moral analysis starts with some bias, I believe.

Yes, but that bias is warped greatly when one is to benefit from the decision one renders, hence conflict of interest. Judges, and philosophers, particularly when questions of justice are at stake seek to be blind to the parties that would benefit or not. That is why a judge who had a substantial stake in Enron stocks would never be permitted to judge such a case, either he would remove himself from the case or there would be enough pressure from higher echelons for him to be removed. It may be too emotional for this judge, and probably would be, and hence the bias would be too warped, and even you gave us a glimpse of that with your daughter and monkeys of the world example. It is not a matter of you being slightly biased, but that you are too biased(i.e. too tied up to your anthropocentric view).

Moral philosophy and analysis, while may be tainted with some bias, should never be so with the degree you have demonstrated. Your qualifier "some" seeks to downgrade your degree of it.

StrongHeartsWin:
The more better model used, indeed the perfect model used, would bring about more medical benefits to humans. Do you deny that?

But humans do not deem the outcome worth the cost, because it upsets us too much to test on humans - at least, that is currently the trend in thinking.

Ok, you do not deny that.

It surely would upset us too much to test on humans if humans were subjected to the same kinds of tests are animals are subjected to and then reported widely on. If, the testing were not reported widely on, then probably a large part of the population would also be ambivolent. Back to your individual bias case, I am sure some upper middle class parents of a cute baby girl would not be too upset if their girl's life were saved at the expense of 3 old worn out homeless degenerates.

What is done now is more a function of entrenchment and the difficulties of changing law and educating the populace. You are a perfect example of those who have had their minds trapped by the powerful pharma industries who receive billions in grants, subsidies, and tax breaks. You have been duped by the mantra that "animal testing is necessary and that all major medical advances have been because of them" and the ol' boogey man ghost, "better a chimp than my daughter" rhettoric.

How is the public supposed to judge whether animal research is essential when all they hear are unsubstantiated claims like: "Some of the major advances in the last century would have been impossible without animal research". The Advertising Standards Authority recently ruled that this assertion, made by the Association of Medical Research Charities, was misleading and should not be repeated, yet it is the very mantra of pro-vivisectionists.

Source

And here you are repeating it basically word for word, not noting, or just not realizing that it is human clinical testing, past doctors using themselves to test on, autopsies, past patients and observations that have made most contributions to the advancement of medicine. And in fact, animal testing has harmed or risked advancement and caused many preventable deaths. You may cite animal testing as part of all modern medicine merely because it is mandatory and they must all go through the LD50 test. However, microdosing can completely eliminate the LD50 test and no emergency room doctors, and doctors with common sense on prescribing drugs, have ever referred to the LD50 case in treating patients.

StrongHeartsWin:
What is the most ideal model, in fact, what is the perfect model?

Animals at first, because it upsets us too much to go around killing humans. After we determine a degree of safety, human testing follows.

You are assuming that testing need require death. The most ideal model from one to another is one whose imunology, physiology, genetic structure, etc... resembles the other to the highest degree.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW CC, sorry for not being more specific. What is the ultimate purpose in general, parsimoniously?

Instincts evolve to pass on genes in specific circumstances. That is their purpose in general. There are many side effects to this process.

I see nothing larger.

It is not a matter of you being slightly biased, but that you are too biased(i.e. too tied up to your anthropocentric view)

Speaking for me, personally... I value sentience. I value other things as well, but higher levels of sentience most of all. Of course, it is not as simple as that, but that is my starting point.

But, speaking for anthros - the anthropomorphic view is right, from an anthropomorphic view.

You have been duped by the mantra that "animal testing is necessary and that all major medical advances have been because of them" and the ol' boogey man ghost, "better a chimp than my daughter" rhettoric.

And now, you are attempting to dupe me into believing that animal testing is not a necessary component of drug development and other forms of medical research.

You may cite animal testing as part of all modern medicine merely because it is mandatory and they must all go through the LD50 test. However, microdosing can completely eliminate the LD50 test and no emergency room doctors, and doctors with common sense on prescribing drugs, have ever referred to the LD50 case in treating patients.

I believe you are deliberately painting an incomplete picture of the uses of animal testing.

You are assuming that testing need require death. The most ideal model from one to another is one whose imunology, physiology, genetic structure, etc... resembles the other to the highest degree.

Testing needs to require death. We need to know how too much of a drug will kill a person. We need to weed out the deadly forms of a treatment approach from the safer forms. We need to test many many many chemicals for efficacy against specific diseases, which can only be accomplished if we have a large sample size of sick individuals (animals) upon which to test.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Instincts evolve to pass on genes in specific circumstances. I see nothing larger.

You are not being parsimonious. Specific circumstances multiplies the explanation to a more complicated one, when in fact the more basic one is at the root, i.e. Instincts evolve to help organisims to survive in order to pass on genes.

But, speaking for anthros - the anthropomorphic view is right, from an anthropomorphic view.

But, anthropomorphism is not a centering ism as is anthropocentrism and the judgements that come down as a result of that. Anthropomophism is merely giving characteristics and not placement of a view, as is anthropocentrism is. Anthropocentrism therefore affects judgements, and in your case your own interests, while anthropomorphism merely makes a descriptive statement on something with human characteristics.

And now, you are attempting to dupe me into believing that animal testing is not a necessary component of drug development and other forms of medical research.

You are believing the claims of orgs who have billions of dollars at stake in keeping the industry in tact. My motives do not benefit me personally, other than relief that exploitation has been stopped (if successful). Again, that pharma industry has been officially rapped on their knuckles for making their unsubstantiated claims, those which you repeat.

StrongHeartsWin:
You may cite animal testing as part of all modern medicine merely because it is mandatory and they must all go through the LD50 test. However, microdosing can completely eliminate the LD50 test and no emergency room doctors, and doctors with common sense on prescribing drugs, have ever referred to the LD50 case in treating patients.

I believe you are deliberately painting an incomplete picture of the uses of animal testing.

Be more specific.

I told you my objections about your use of the word development of drugs as it were a loaded question already dictated by the law.

Testing needs to require death.

It does not.

We need to know how too much of a drug will kill a person.

How is knowing how much will kill a rat, dog, or monkey going to determine the exact amount of how much will determine a person? LD50 dosages administered to animals are far over the amount of what doctors know to be common sense in not administering. LD50 test results are never referred to by ER doctors or doctors prescribing medicine for treatment. Clinical trials in humans start out very low and never ever near the LD50 dosages.

We need to weed out the deadly forms of a treatment approach from the safer forms.

Agreed. However, animals have not proven to be a good model for that.

We need to test many many many chemicals for efficacy against specific diseases, which can only be accomplished if we have a large sample size of sick individuals (animals) upon which to test.

Government regulations require that only two species of animals be used, a rodent species and then one species higher up mammal. In fact, it requires only two, and the pharmas only use two, because it has been well known within the scientific community for years that different species' data results conflict one another making the information cancel each other out and near impossible to extrapolate to humans. That is why so many drugs fail in humans after passing animal tests, and that can`t be fixed by increasing the species targets because of the inherent economic costs and physiological differences and difficulties of inconsistency and extrapolation.

I don`t think you`ve looked very deep into the issues and reality of the situation, CC. Have you?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW Instincts evolve to help organisims to survive in order to pass on genes.

This is a true statement.

However, not all manifestations of an instinct will help a particular organism survive in a particular circumstance.

Sometimes parsimony leads us to leave out important points.

But, anthropomorphism is not a centering ism as is anthropocentrism and the judgements that come down as a result of that. Anthropomophism is merely giving characteristics and not placement of a view, as is anthropocentrism is. Anthropocentrism therefore affects judgements, and in your case your own interests, while anthropomorphism merely makes a descriptive statement on something with human characteristics.

yup, you are correct. Allow me to refine my statement.

Speaking as an anthro, anthropocentrism is right, from an anthropocentric perspective.

My motives do not benefit me personally, other than relief that exploitation has been stopped (if successful).

Given how strongly you feel about this, I am guess this relief is an enormous benefit. Thus, you have plenty of motivation to mislead me.

How is knowing how much will kill a rat, dog, or monkey going to determine the exact amount of how much will determine a person?

It is a starting point. We determine a ratio of dosage to body weight. It gives something to work with, when we move up to human testing.

Agreed. However, animals have not proven to be a good model for that.

Animals are a starting point. If a chemical causes death in multiple species, then we have reason to suspect it will do so in humans. If a chemical causes zero problems in multiple species, then there is a good chance it will do so in humans. It helps us manipulate probabilities to our advantage.

Government regulations require that only two species of animals be used, a rodent species and then one species higher up mammal.

Are you suggesting they should test on more species?

I don`t think you`ve looked very deep into the issues and reality of the situation, CC. Have you?

More than you might suspect. My secondary major in college was Psychology - which for me, at Emory, included more bio-research-psych classes than clinically oriented psych classes. We went into lots and lots of animal research. I was not exposed to the same issues you are exposing me to, but I certainly was exposed to many of the various experiments the medical research uses animals for.



Tell me, why do you think pharmaceutical companies research and test on animals?

[dariam]

Tests on animals is a very polemic topic. Nobody likes to do it, or not even think about it, except for the people who’s job is test drugs in animals.
I think that force companies to stop tests on animals is a very hard job. It’s legal, cheaper, faster, etc., and there is no way that they would stop it with no objection.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: SHW
Instincts evolve to help organisims to survive in order to pass on genes.

Quote by: Captain Chaos This is a true statement. However, not all manifestations of an instinct will help a particular organism survive in a particular circumstance. Sometimes parsimony leads us to leave out important points.

The thing is, CC, when you say, "Instincts evolve to pass on genes in specific circumstances," you are not just being unparsimonious, you are also being redundant. The word "evolve" in the construct has already taken into account specific circumstances and that is the reason they have evolved, be it natural selection through advantages, isolation, or mutations. Those are the major specific considerations and "evolve" already has that wrapped up in the more parsimonious purpose explained for instincts.

yup, you are correct. Allow me to refine my statement. Speaking as an anthro, anthropocentrism is right, from an anthropocentric perspective.

And there is the glaring conflict of interest in your judgement. As a large stockholder of Enron, would it be fit for me to judge the Enron corporation as right in their actions that brought them under scrutiny if I were to benefit from a decision I make declaring them right (i.e. guilty of no wrong doing)? After all, from my perspective, as I would surely stand to benefit, it would be in my interest to do so.

Perhaps you could judge them fairly, but most would agree that that would have to be premised on you disentangling yourself from the welfare interests of the company (i.e. selling out your shares). In order to take a fresh look at animal testing and judge on a more leveled field, you need to, or you should, out of a respect for as close as fair judgement as possible, give up your stock in anthropocentrism.

Given how strongly you feel about this [i.e. against animal testing], I am guessing this relief is an enormous benefit. Thus, you have plenty of motivation to mislead me.

I understand what you are saying, but you have to put things in perspective and ask yourself, is my motivation anywhere near the motivation, translated into the billions of dollars and manpower, psychological investment, that the pharma compannies display? My relief that I would gain as one person is no where near the relief that the tens of thousands of people would have who are involved in animal testing if they know it were to continue, i.e. securing their home loans, car loans, paying back educational loans, supporting families, etc, have. The ledger tally of relief surely is not in my favor.

It [i.e. knowing what dosage will kill a rat, dog, or monkey] is a starting point. We determine a ratio of dosage to body weight. It gives something to work with, when we move up to human testing.

That is the thing, we are not moving from a starting point, but an endpoint of massive dosages that would never be given out of common sense.

Animals are a starting point. If a chemical causes death in multiple species, then we have reason to suspect it will do so in humans. If a chemical causes zero problems in multiple species, then there is a good chance it will do so in humans. It helps us manipulate probabilities to our advantage.

It hinders the research. Did you see what I wrote about government regs and what is the norm in the inustry? Only two species are tested on, a rodent and one higher up mammal -- and that is because testing on different species makes results inconsistent and thus inconclusive which would cause most testing to go on near ad infinitum.

Are you suggesting they should test on more species?

Not at all. I am pointing out to you the futility of increasing species tests. The industry and government knows this, hence only two species prior to human clinical testing. Their data has told them that to increase the species prior to human clinical testing would result in contradicting data which would in fact paralyze the industry developement of drugs.

Tell me, why do you think pharmaceutical companies research and test on animals?

Besides government regulations compelling them to do so, they can use it as a shield against law suits for protection. "Not our fault our drug caused your child to come out of the woumb with no limbs. Our animal tests on mice and dogs, as required by the government, of which our obligations to has been performed, shows that all their off spring were born normal. Your child`s deformities are part of the cost you pay for using the models we do and the only few that we can do to keep data from becoming too inconsistent and then bringing halt to drug developement."

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW Those are the major specific considerations and "evolve" already has that wrapped up in the more parsimonious purpose explained for instincts.

I am just trying to point out that a specific instinct might not always serve to pass one genes for a specific person in a specific circumstance.

In order to take a fresh look at animal testing and judge on a more leveled field, you need to, or you should, out of a respect for as close as fair judgement as possible, give up your stock in anthropocentrism.

How? We are anthros. If some space aliens come along to offer their opinions, I will be happy to listen.

Until then, I will think like an anthro, who puts value on both intelligence and humanity.

The ledger tally of relief surely is not in my favor.

That proves nothing. Both sides wish to convince me. If I form an opinion, it is because of how I weigh out the various factors. I cannot help that both sides have varying degrees of vested interest.

That is the thing, we are not moving from a starting point, but an endpoint of massive dosages that would never be given out of common sense.

Not all drugs require massive dosages to be deadly - just look at methadone, for example - not a huge difference between the effective doses and the deadly doses.

Besides government regulations compelling them to do so, they can use it as a shield against law suits for protection. "Not our fault our drug caused your child to come out of the woumb with no limbs. Our animal tests on mice and dogs, as required by the government, of which our obligations to has been performed, shows that all their off spring were born normal. Your child`s deformities are part of the cost you pay for using the models we do and the only few that we can do to keep data from becoming too inconsistent and then bringing halt to drug developement."

So...

You believe that drug companies would prefer not to use animal testing, but they do to avoid lawsuits?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I am just trying to point out that a specific instinct might not always serve to pass one genes for a specific person in a specific circumstance.

I understand that, CC, but specific circumstances is not needed because it is redundant and is already recognized within the word "evolve."

StrongHeartsWin:
In order to take a fresh look at animal testing and judge on a more leveled field, you need to, or you should, out of a respect for as close as fair judgement as possible, give up your stock in anthropocentrism.

I will think like an anthro, who puts value on both intelligence and humanity.

It is not one of thinking like an anthro -- of course we must since we are anthro -- it is about making as nonbiased or nonprejudiced judgement without profit to one's self concerning the parties to the conflict. If from the beginning your judgement rests with one party, the one you have to benefit from, then that is your conflict of interest. Perhaps thinking more conceptual or philosophycally, could help you make the divorce from your interests to impartiality.

Not all drugs require massive dosages to be deadly - just look at methadone, for example - not a huge difference between the effective doses and the deadly doses.

Methadone was developed in the 1930's. It is mainly used to treat drug addicts. Doctors of today understand micro dosing and that when doing so the ammounts are to be very small with detailed observations, and I am not sure any deaths in great numbers have occured from the modern standards of microdosing. I am sure the affects and results of microdosing, done as it is today, even with Methadone, would make themselves known before the lethal dose were reached.

Can you point to any drugs that were developed in the clinical trials that relied on microdosing, causing large numbers of human deaths -- so much that as a percentage they are larger, than drugs that were soley developed by animal testing and then straight to clinical testing and proscriptions without microdosing? How about human culture cell testing? Where are the deaths recorded from drugs developed by that style?

So...You believe that drug companies would prefer not to use animal testing, but they do to avoid lawsuits?

I believe that drug companies want to make the biggest profit possible, because they are beholden to their corporate nature in the market, and that will decide their actions, in addition to imposed regs by govs and their institutions which are influenced by lobbyists who work for other individual companies and industries for their clients' corporate welfare (i.e. profit).

Thing is, it is blood money for blood junkies. Now, if they could only develope a Methadone-like drug to cure them of their addiction. I wouldn`t mind it being applied in small increments as a cure -- You know, kinda like microdosing.

Perhaps a humane disestablishment of the establishment is possible.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: SHW It is not one of thinking like an anthro -- of course we must since we are anthro -- it is about making as nonbiased or nonprejudiced judgement without profit to one's self concerning the parties to the conflict. If from the beginning your judgement rests with one party, the one you have to benefit from, then that is your conflict of interest. Perhaps thinking more conceptual or philosophycally, could help you make the divorce from your interests to impartiality.

My interest rests in promoting what is good for intelligent beings, and for humans. Why should I desire to separate myself from that?

Can you point to any drugs that were developed in the clinical trials that relied on microdosing, causing large numbers of human deaths -- so much that as a percentage they are larger, than drugs that were soley developed by animal testing and then straight to clinical testing and proscriptions without microdosing? How about human culture cell testing? Where are the deaths recorded from drugs developed by that style?

Can you rephrase your question?

Perhaps a humane disestablishment of the establishment is possible.

OK, but...

Do you believe that drug companies would use animal testing even if government regs did not require it?

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos My interest rests in promoting what is good for intelligent beings, and for humans. Why should I desire to separate myself from that?

Good stands second to best. With limited recourses, most efficient should be the defining point of what is best.

One of the greatest medical discoveries came with the polio vaccine. Unfortunately, animal testing delayed a vaccine by several decades. Where it was used it resulted in injury and death to people, simply being that the animal models were no replacement for human models, and indeed what was eventually learned through pathology. See here.

Can you rephrase your question?

Sure.

Can you point to any drugs that have been developed via microdosing, in vitro, or computer modeling that have caused death or injury in comparative scope to that of drugs devoloped from animal testing?

Do you believe that drug companies would use animal testing even if government regs did not require it?

I couldn`t be for sure, because that would require an absolutist statement on their nature. Profit will decide. An industry that profits on the backs of animals at several levels is solidly in place. I do think that there would be a lot less LD50 tests.

Do you believe that drug companies would never innitially begin with humans if they were not forced to use animals? Do you anthropomophize the nature of the corporate beast as a caring entity placing altruistic motives above its "bottom line" in its accounting books?