Animal Testing

[P_chan]

Heh I'm surprised I beat TP to this topic.:first:

What is your take on animal testing? Are you for, or against it, or a mixture of both.

Me I'm for it but only under certain conditions. I believe that testing on animals for medical advancement (ie a cure for cancer or AIDS) is all right. After all many of our modern treatments for various conditions come from animal testing. However, I think that testing things like cosmetic products on animals is wrong. There is really no benefit or advancement for the human race that comes out of testing things like cosmetic products, or new ammunition on animals.

[DougP]

I don't suppose trying out a different steak sauce with each bite of steak would be considered animal testing would it? :) j/k

[dk]

Moved to science and technology as the category is a little more fitting.

[socalheart]

I prefer scientists test product safety on animals rather than humans. Ideally, testing would be done on dummies (dolls, not your kid brother - heh), but food and drug type tests require a particular kind of reaction.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Heh I'm surprised I beat TP to this topic.:first:

Believe me, it was on my list. Thanks for starting it. I would rather some animal threads be started by others instead of only me.

What is your take on animal testing? Are you for, or against it, or a mixture of both.

Me I'm for it ...

However, I think that testing things like cosmetic products on animals is wrong. There is really no benefit or advancement for the human race that comes out of testing things like cosmetic products, or new ammunition on animals.

At least we agree about being against it for cosmetics and ammunition. That is one category we can check off and not feel a need to debate between ourselves from here on.

I am against all animal testing. So, at least we do have opposing participants in this debate, and I will address in more detail about that and your points you brought up in the OP about medical advancements quite soon.

[okibill]

How else can a chimp travel in outer space? :w00t:

[DougP]

I can honestly say all joking aside that I'm neutral on this topic. May sound like a cop out but I can't really argue for or against either side.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I can honestly say all joking aside that I'm neutral on this topic. May sound like a cop out but I can't really argue for or against either side.

That's ok, Doug. Just get some popcorn and follow along from time to time.

Perhaps watching in on this debate could cause you to fall off the fence way way or the other. And feel free to insert some questions from time to time as cross examination to help you clarify the positions for more understanding of the issues involved.

----------------
Sorry P_chan for not replying with anything of substance yet. Will do.

[DoctorP]

This topic all depends to me...and I know TP will jump all over this answer, but here goes:

If the animals in question are being breeded with the intention of animal testing, then I don't mind so much, but if we are catching animals that were "free" then I do not like it.

I hear many of you saying : "WTF is he talking about???" If the lab is breeding white rats for the sole purpose of testing, then I really am ok with this...provided the idea is to help further the human race and not just come up with a shampoo that doesn't leave your hair less frizzy!

Does that make sense?

[dk]

Makes perfect sence DoctorP. :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

I believe that testing on animals for medical advancement (ie a cure for cancer or AIDS) is all right.

I believe that the efficient use of recourses for discovering treatment and cures is the more moral choice. To squander those recourses in large amounts on innacurate models is wrong. For example, a mouse is not a human. Neither is a Chimpanzee. We all know that, but pharmas and the animal testing industry make great profits from using these models year after after year -- despite the large expenditures and minimal results in comparison to funds spent.

In addition, the history of harm done to patients because of animal testing is well documented by failed medicines based on inacurrate models.

From the quote, let's begin with examining AIDS in relation to animal testing (or what is also often referred to as vivisection):

Excerpt: (http://www.curedisease.net/reports/critical_look_e.pdf)AIDS researcher Margaret Johnston has concurred: "HIV/ AIDS [animal] models have not yielded a clear correlate of immunity nor given consistent results on the potential efficacy of various vaccine approaches." Indeed, since the first HIV vaccine clinical trial in humans in 1987, more than 100 clinical trials have been funded by the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through mid-2006. Yet every one of the more than 50 preventive vaccines and more than 30 therapeutic vaccines that were successful against HIV/AIDS in primate studies has failed in human clinical trials.

[P_chan]

Believe me, it was on my list. Thanks for starting it. I would rather some animal threads be started by others instead of only me.



At least we agree about being against it for cosmetics and ammunition. That is one category we can check off and not feel a need to debate between ourselves from here on.

I am against all animal testing. So, at least we do have opposing participants in this debate, and I will address in more detail about that and your points you brought up in the OP about medical advancements quite soon.

Let me ask you this. What if you become a diabetic? The insulin shots that were developed for humans were first tested on animals. Thus, an effect way to treat a human disease was found by testing on animals. So would you not use insulin shots since you would be promoting animal testing?

[DougP]

Let me ask you this. What if you become a diabetic? The insulin shots that were developed for humans were first tested on animals. Thus, an effect way to treat a human disease was found by testing on animals. So would you not use insulin shots since you would be promoting animal testing?


Very interesting. Once again I'm not for or against animal testing. Being on your deathbed might make you look at this or other subjects like stem cell research in a different light. But it comes down to the question are your changing your mind/ stance for your own preservation or for the benefit or human kind?

[TheNoNamedOne]

P_chan, I don't mind getting to the insulin and diabetes points you are putting to me, however, I posted directly to your examples in the OP prior. Why not lets spend a few pages focusing on AIDS and animal testing rather than jumping back and forth between different diseases randomly and with random personal questions of "what if" games?

Could you address my AIDS post and rebut that? Don't worry, I will not forget to get back to diabetes once we have tackeled AIDS. After all, I am under the impression that as a whole the world is putting more funds into AIDS research than diabetes and it is the more threatening disease at the moment and definitely the more threatening one looming in the near distant future.

Since you brought AIDS up in the OP, I suppose/expect you already have the support to back up your assertion on it.

[DoctorP]

I'm gonna have to side with TP now. Animals are not humans and thus we should not use them for testing medicines. Instead lets begin a lottery in which people over the age of 35 that are still healthy are used for research and drug development! Of course we can not use smokers, or meat eaters, so we would have to limit the lottery to vegatarians.

[dk]

I'm gonna have to side with TP now. Animals are not humans and thus we should not use them for testing medicines. Instead lets begin a lottery in which people over the age of 35 that are still healthy are used for research and drug development! Of course we can not use smokers, or meat eaters, so we would have to limit the lottery to vegatarians.
Aww. I don't get to contribute? :ohmy:

That works for me. I like it. :first:

[P_chan]

P_chan, I don't mind getting to the insulin and diabetes points you are putting to me, however, I posted directly to your examples in the OP prior. Why not lets spend a few pages focusing on AIDS and animal testing rather than jumping back and forth between different diseases randomly and with random personal questions of "what if" games?

Could you address my AIDS post and rebut that? Don't worry, I will not forget to get back to diabetes once we have tackeled AIDS. After all, I am under the impression that as a whole the world is putting more funds into AIDS research than diabetes and it is the more threatening disease at the moment and definitely the more threatening one looming in the near distant future.

Since you brought AIDS up in the OP, I suppose/expect you already have the support to back up your assertion on it.

Seems like somebody is dodging the question. I posted around the same time as you so I didn't see your reply, then I took a shower, so I didn't have time to answer. Just like I don't bug you do give me a reply on something I said, I don't expect you to bug me.

I'm not writing a research paper on AIDS. It was a question about personal preference. I agree though, if animal testing is not yeilding results for a specific disease, like AIDS, then we should move on to another form of testing.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ok, we can tick off AIDS. You have ceded that it has not given results and is no longer pertinent to the discussion -- is that right?

If not, then please go back and support AIDS research on animals. If you do not, then I presume you have indeed ceded the point that it has not yeilded the kinds of results justifying the amounts of recourses that have been spent on it.

[DoctorP]

...and the music plays....and the dance continues...

[P_chan]

I'm already done dancing there is no point. I'm not writing a freaking book or research paper on AIDS or animal testing. I was asking for people's opinions on the subject. This is why I hate debating you TP your too serious and delve too deep into things like someone's personal preferences.

[Boost]

If the animals in question are being breeded with the intention of animal testing, then I don't mind so much, but if we are catching animals that were "free" then I do not like it.


I agree with you DrP, and I am not against any type of animal testing. I think there have been some important discoveries made in medicine that benefit mankind with the use of animal testing and to take away the ability of the scientist to make further discoveries with this type of testing would be a bad thing.

[P_chan]

Especially since those animals are breed for testing. Just like meat cows are breed for slaughter. If they are breed for that one thing then I don't see the problem.

[Hollarey]

Animal testing...hmmmmm....as long as I dont see it, then I am alright with it I suppose. I know that some things are being tested that is important; for example as some else already said, for diseases. I hate to know that they are goin through pain but they are serving a wonderful purpose. Now, as to oppose for make-up, wow...if makeup has chemicals that bad in them for them to be tested to make sure they arent bad for us then I am going to only wear natural product, non animal tested makeup. I would hate to think a hamster croaked because of makeup being tested on it.

[TheNoNamedOne]

This is why I hate debating you TP your too serious and delve too deep into things like someone's personal preferences.

Too deep? Oh, I see. Debates have a limit on the "deep level" at getting to the heart of issues.

As for personal preferences, weren't you the one who posed the hypothetical personal situation of myself contracting diabetes? <Shrugs>

[P_chan]

Do you know what preferences are? You having diabetes isn't a personal preference. I'm pretty sure it's not a preference at all.

I was saying YOU get to deep into other's personal preferences/opinions. An example would be I say I don't like vegan's because a lot of them are racist, violent, uninformed children. Then you come in and ask me why I feel that way. Then I explain myself if I want to. After that you basically ask me the same thing over again, and then ask me why I didn't go further into something I used as an example earlier in the post, like AIDS. Well my OP wasn't about AIDS at all, it was just used as an example. Then you go off and start a thread about AIDS or something else and, most of the time, relate it back to animals. You just seem to over analyze things, seems kinda silly to me.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Do you know what preferences are? You having diabetes isn't a personal preference. I'm pretty sure it's not a preference at all.

Yes, I do know what a preference is. It is a choice from amongst another choice or choices.

You previously posted:
What if you become a diabetic? The insulin shots that were developed for humans were first tested on animals. Thus, an effect way to treat a human disease was found by testing on animals. So would you not use insulin shots[OR DO SO] since you would be promoting animal testing?

You have clearly asked me about a preference i.e. would I prefer to use insulin for treatment of the disease or not. That is a choice. And one must choose which choice one would prefer.

I am not against you exercising your right to not answer questions I put to you. You can ignore them despite my asking you about them. But to say I delve too deeply into people' personal preferences when you have asked me a rather deep one concerning life and death, ... well that isn't very reciprocating in discussion when asking questions and expecting an answer.

When entering a discussion, it is a mark of courtesy to answer questions in a give and take style when put toward you. Or, why even enter into the discussion if you already have the notion you will refuse to answer questions within the topic?

Don't get me wrong -- even I have missed questions or have asked that I be given time to get back to them, but I have never down right refused to answer them or withdraw from the discussion just because they seem too difficult for me to address. I think if I came to a situation like that, I would probably answer, "I don't know. Let me think about it and try to come up with a good answer that will not only satisfy yourself, but myself as well. If I take too long getting back to you, remind me again."

Simple. Nothing to be ashamed of with a reply like that. It is an honest one and certainly does not cede the point of the argument in question.

[Fonze]

TP if your were to come down with something and the cure for it was found by animal testing would u refuse to take it ?

I would hope you wouldn't because of ur strong beliefs and not argue that it was discovered before ur birth or stance on the issue. If you have answered this before i apologize for not finding it in other threads.

[TheNoNamedOne]

TP if your were to come down with something and the cure for it was found by animal testing would u refuse to take it ?

I would hope you wouldn't because of ur strong beliefs and not argue that it was discovered before ur birth or stance on the issue.

Here is the problem of the reasoning behind your hope, Fonze. Things in the past are a fait accompli. They cannot be changed, and when they are done so long ago that the actors who commited those heinous things are no longer here, those actors are no longer to benefit from any residual profit that may come from those initial actions.

I know exactly what you and P are trying to do with questioning like this. You are trying to stick the charge of hypocrite onto the person that accepts treatment of something for like diabetes because some of the initial research used animals. But here is why that reasoning is disengenuous:

Volkswagon Company, along with some other German companies used Jews as slaves in their factories for the benefit of profits then. Perhaps those companies would have failed if slave labor had not been available to them. Now, are those persons who today use those products wrong for doing so eventhough they are personally against slavery?

What about many roads in the U.S. south? Many were layed out in gravel by slave labor a couple hundreds years ago. Now many have become paved and parts of major road systems. Are those people now who are against slavery wrong for using those roads? The same can go for the economy of the south, initially built on the backs of slaves. Our whole economic system is intertwined with the benefits received from slavery, but are all the citizens wrong for living here and receiving the residual benefits from slavery eventhough they are against slavery?

Fait accompli is just that -- fait accompli.

[Fonze]

so u have no balls to answer, you just make up reasons or other examples. Im sure many people in the world dont drive vw's cause of that and say so not like u though.

[P_chan]

I wasn't trying to pin a label on anything, why did you assume that? I just wanted people's honest opinions on the matter. I still don't see anything wrong with animal testing for medical research.

[TheNoNamedOne]

so u have no balls to answer, you just make up reasons or other examples. Im sure many people in the world dont drive vw's cause of that and say so not like u though.

The answer is quite clear, Fonze -- yes, I would take treatment. I have clearly pointed out why your reasoning in the hypocrite charge you think you are going to stick on me is ludicrous.

Ask me if I could end animal testing this minute, or to stop some animals from being tested on right now, even though 10 minutes from now those animals would have a cure for something, I would say, "Yes, stop the testing now."

I am not denying that some medical knowledge and gain has resulted from animal testing. Surely it has. What I dispute is that the billions of dollars in research using animals have not gotten its money's worth i.e. that that money is used inefficiently by continuing to use animals.

Also, people are under the false impression that many of our most and important advances have been due to animal research. That is just false. Even the treatment for diabetes, which Pchan has flouted, has been set back by the use of animals in its beginning stages, and the role of animals there is not so large as some make it out to be.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I still don't see anything wrong with animal testing for medical research.

P, do you see something wrong with choosing the lesser efficient and more dangerous route in going to the hospital with a dying patient when a more efficient route exists that would mean saved time and least dangers from collision with other cars and pedestrians?

I do.

Animal tested drugs have injured and killed thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands of people. Non animal tested drugs, however, using in-vitro testing, computer modeling, and micro dosing have not killed nearly the same number of people. In fact, I can't recall the use of non-animal drugs created in their development that has caused the deaths of many.

On the other hand, I have a laundry list of animal tested drugs that have killed many. Why do you think animal tested drugs fail and kill so many? And they continue to do so right up to modern times.

[Fonze]

You make it seem as animals are equl to us. Yes they are smart and loving and there are those around, but there also should be animals with the soul purpose of that.
Also if animals were so smart why aren't they as smart as humans or evolved. Not that there aren't stupid humans.
I ask u TP would animals treat us as nice as them if they were dominant beings?
I also ask u to go in the wild and see ur animal friends not tear u up.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Also if animals were so smart why aren't they as smart as humans or evolved. Not that there aren't stupid humans.

So, are you suggesting that cognitive ability and intelligence is the deciding factor on what and what not to test on?

I ask u TP would animals treat us as nice as them if they were dominant beings?

How do I know? We could never know. I don't know how they ever could with their motor skills not being flexible enough to do all the things that that would require to make them more dominant than us. If they were, then I guess that would make us the animals and them the humans.

In that case we would quake in fear of their approach as they tore us from our cages and pumped us full of drugs that caused suffering. I think we would want mercy and want that pain to stop. I think we would hope that that being would be able to break out of their self centered world and concerns.

The thing is, when you are the superiour being like us, you have the ability to make a choice to not cause pain and suffering to another creature and still not forfeit your life in the process. Particularly now with all the scientific advances we have made in the area of alternative testing and when many scientists are questioning the eficacy of the animal model in developing treatments for humans.

I also ask u to go in the wild and see ur animal friends not tear u up.

So basically, you are saying that because wild animals are not capable of compassion for other species, we should mimic them?

[Fonze]

yes yes an yes

[Brett23iu]

no testing on animals that is bad just ask Vick

[TheNoNamedOne]

Covance labs, one of the largest animal testing labs in the world with offices in Europe and the U.S., was a target of an undercover investigation. Once they learned that they had been infiltrated they sued in both Europe and the U.S. to stop the video from being released.

They lost their European suite, and if I remember correctly they were forced to pay the legal fees of all parties involved, and the judge admonished them saying their practices were quite troubling and that the public had a vested interest in knowing what went on in the their labs.

In the U.S. rather than continue with their case they came to an agreement with the organization they were suing and that agreement did not entail pulling the video from their campaign against them.

Here are out-takes from that undercover investigation:
YouTube - Covance: PETA investigation 2005 / USA

[P_chan]

Gotta love the sympanty videos. What didn't they expect to find at an animal testing facility? They act like it's something new.

Honestly, that stuff is edited so much it's sad. I read once, can't remember where, that a lot of PETAs undercover video's are edited to make them look worse then they really are. Not saying animal testing is pretty to being with, just putting that out there. Wouldn't expect less from and organization that is so full of itself and who's founder promotes violence against humans. If I remember right tp you said in another thread that just because animals don't show compassion for others doesn't mean that we shouldn't. Unless I'm from crazy town, fire bombing labs and attempted murder are not forms of compassion.

Heh I'd go crazy from listening to the music they had playing at that one part all day too!

[TheNoNamedOne]

Gotta love the sympanty videos. What didn't they expect to find at an animal testing facility? They act like it's something new.

They expected to find just what they did! Nothing new about it -- other than it is something that most people are not privy to view. The testing companies sure do not make their lab testing of animals on video available to the public now, do they?

This video was used in European Courts and the judge ordered it admissable for evidence, just as was the same video used for the trial in the U.S was. There is a difference between being told what goes on in labs and kind of imagining what does go on, versus actually seeing it and the treatment of the animals.

A lot of people are moved by this video the first time they see it. It, along with a few others, before I had even gotten into animal rights, is one of a few that helped me to change and come against animal testing. I imagine I am not the only one out of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people who have viewed it to do so.

You know what they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Very effective video for some (if not many).

[P_chan]

Yeah but it's not like they haven't shown a video like that before. It's nothing new. Your an idiot if you didn't know thats how animal testing is conducted. Just like your a moron if you don't know how your meat gets to your plate.

Unless I'm from crazy town, fire bombing labs and attempted murder are not forms of compassion.

Still wondering how this plays into your 'rising above' and showing compassion towards animals that don't show compassion towards us. I think you should show compassion towards your fellow man before animals, which most animal 'liberators' fail to do so. That is unless your on their side.:thumbdown:

[P_chan]

I think the people who test on animals should first test on themselves!
I don't agree with animal testing because the animals don't have a choice in the matter,and to the ones who use them they are just dispensable guinea pigs!

Very good point! That is one of the down sides to animal testing.

[DoctorP]

I think the people who test on animals should first test on themselves!
I don't agree with animal testing because the animals don't have a choice in the matter,and to the ones who use them they are just dispensable guinea pigs!

Since this is your stand, is it safe to assume that you don't use soap, shampoo, medicines, etc...?

[DougP]

I use hand made and natural soaps,I use herbal remedies or holistic medicine,natural toothpaste and mostly organic products who do not test on animals.

Not to get off topic but where do you buy these products on Okinawa?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I believe that the efficient use of recourses for discovering treatment and cures is the more moral choice. To squander those recourses in large amounts on innacurate models is wrong. For example, a mouse is not a human. Neither is a Chimpanzee. We all know that, but pharmas and the animal testing industry make great profits from using these models year after after year -- despite the large expenditures and minimal results in comparison to funds spent.

In addition, the history of harm done to patients because of animal testing is well documented by failed medicines based on inacurrate models.

While obviously animals and humans differ in many respects, we are similar in many more respects. That has been the cornerstone of animal models in both pure and applied research for better than a hundred years, and started with the ancient Greeks, IIRC. The problems generally occurs when promising results from animal models are rushed into use in human applications, before the entire process has been completed (i.e. rodent testing, pigs, monkeys, limited human trials, and on to use in medicine.

Other great advances in medicine have come from the horrible war crimes of both Nazi and Imperial Japanese Army scientists, who often continued their research in America and other democratic countries after the war.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

The very similarity of animals is what makes them the research subjects of choice. They feel pain like we do. They react to many treatments and substances the way we do. But they are more likely to be ignored in their suffering by the public at large, and thus make convenient targets.

[TheNoNamedOne]

If there be any one major topic that divides ARists from AWists then animal testing, right next to vegetarianism, is probably right at the top. For those of you who may have been frustrated with Eelecurb's positioin closer to mine on some of the other threads where he posted against you, or in support of some of the things I said there, you may enjoy seeing an ARist and AWist debate over this issue.

Eelecurb is quite articulate and seems rather calm in discussing the argument and not the one putting forth the argument. I look forward to debating this with him. I hope a lot of you follow along.

He has already made some points which I will address shortly -- perhaps tomorrow or quite soon after that.

I always knew this thread of P_chan's would come back to life.

Welcome to the discussion, Eelecurb. Glad you are here.

[P_chan]

I was hoping it would come back. I like to know people's opinions on this subject matter.

[Muku]

The very similarity of animals is what makes them the research subjects of choice. They feel pain like we do. They react to many treatments and substances the way we do. But they are more likely to be ignored in their suffering by the public at large, and thus make convenient targets.
I am not going to give an opinion here on whether I agree or do not agree about testing on animals. Cases can be made in my opinion for and against depending on the product and purpose of the test.

I will say is this, animal testing is for many cases is outdated and should be replaced by labratory research. Yet for some cases, particularly related to medicine, animals are the best test subjects.

It comes down to economics, which is cheaper, testing a new eye liner or cosmetic product on an animal or taking it a labratory and going through the time and energy needed to get the same results.

The end user and the stockholder have a lot to say about that as well, imo.

[Fonze]

Whats the difference between an AR and AW?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Whats the difference between an AR and AW?

In this topic (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=16153&highlight=animal+rights+welfare#post16153), (page 5, starting with post #46) it gets discussed. I think TP has talked about it in a few other places too.

[Fonze]

In this topic (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=16153&highlight=animal+rights+welfare#post16153), (page 5, starting with post #46) it gets discussed. I think TP has talked about it in a few other places too.

OK ones a loon org and the other isn't. Thanks.

[dk]

AR isn't an org. PETA is an org.

[TheNoNamedOne]

The problems generally occurs when promising results from animal models are rushed into use in human applications, before the entire process has been completed (i.e. rodent testing, pigs, monkeys, limited human trials, and on to use in medicine.

I am going to disagree with this observation, Eelecurb. I would like to ask you to qualify "rushed into" to give us an idea of how much little time substatiates that term. For the most part it takes years for drugs to come to market -- upwards of 12 ~ 15 years if the drugs are not fast tracked, which most are not. Personally, I, and many cancer patients and AIDS patients at the terminal stage would not think that that time period is a rush.

Take away the prospect of a big payoff at the end of the 12 to 15 years of research that it takes to bring a new drug to market (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=423), and the incentive to develop new drugs is substantially diminished.

As for the progression of animal testing on different species that you listed, that just is not the case. FDA requirements for drug testing on animals and that which most pharmas adhere to require testing be done on two lower order species animals -- usually rodents, and on one higher order species animal, perhaps a dog, pig, or primate. Note -- not all from one to the next.

The reason?

Because, the government and researchers have long since discovered that testing on multiple species ends up with conflicting data that makes the data unusable. Once data from one species conflicts with data from another species it throws a monkeywrench in the whole research process. It would shut off the valve of drugs making it through to human clinical trials if a large number of multiple tests were done on multiple species. A leap of faith has to be taken after a small few number in order to progress to human clinical trials.

Even with the present situation, as mentioned before, it takes at least 12 years to get to market and 800 million dollars for one drug. Also, 6 to 8 out of 10 drugs do not make it out of animal testing as it is with the requirements I just listed. Even after that 8 out of 10 drugs that make it to market do not remain on market because of failures in their safety and efficiency and are recalled.

Looking forward to your reply.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

TP, I recall a couple cases in the media where promising drug research was rushed to some patients who had connections (or their docs did). I'll have to look to see if I can find them. I did not mean to imply that it often occurs.

Same thing for the testing SOP. I gave an example, not remembering the precise regulation. I did not mean to imply that was the one and only way testing is done, but a general statement to give an idea how it works. IIRC, current regs require toxicity testing in two or more mammalian species for acute and subacute toxicity. Chronic toxicity tests require only two, with one being a non-rodent mammalian species.

I'll try to get back to you about your conflicting data concerns.

[TheNoNamedOne]

TP, I recall a couple cases in the media where promising drug research was rushed to some patients who had connections (or their docs did). I'll have to look to see if I can find them. I did not mean to imply that it often occurs.

No biggie, E.

I am sure there have been a few cases where drugs have been rushed to market, or for some particular patient(s), and that resulted in horrible results.

My point is that the majority of drugs go through rather lengthy developement and of those minority that do make it to market, even those are often recalled. And that the majority of drugs that have had horrible affects on their users, most of them went through the normal testing protocal. That to me suggests that the premise of the drug and its model was ill conceived and ill based on an animal model.

Same thing for the testing SOP. I gave an example, not remembering the precise regulation. I did not mean to imply that was the one and only way testing is done, but a general statement to give an idea how it works. IIRC, current regs require toxicity testing in two or more mammalian species for acute and subacute toxicity. Chronic toxicity tests require only two, with one being a non-rodent mammalian species.

Yes. All that sounds about right, E.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of death in the western world. There have been 4,000 studies over the years using animals in order to create approx 700 drugs for it. All 150 of those that were eventually approved for human use have failed, never making it past the human clinical testing stage after having made it through animal testing.

For example, (http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf) artifact from unnaturally induced strokes in an-
imals has repeatedly misled researchers. Macleod et al. reported on over 4,000 studies demonstrating efficacy for more than 700 drugs in animal models of stroke. About 150 drugs subsequently tested in human clinical trials failed to show any benefit. Only recombinant human tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) administered within three hours of stroke onset has proven beneficial in reducing symptoms, but it was associated with ten times as many intracerebral hemorrhages and did not increase survival.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Have you yourself ever said, or heard someone else say?:

"I am for all necessary animal testing. Uncesseary testing should not be done."

Thing is, what scientist involved in animal testing has ever thought his tests were "unnecessary"? All scientists think to them their test involving animals which they have taken the time to conduct is necessary and they will have the reasons neatly lined up and arranged for it. They can justify it simply by declaring a reason as to why it is necessary.

Presto! It is necessary.

Can anyone give us an example of a scientist saying his animal testing is unecessary?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Animal testing is interesting.

Personal care product companies do not test for safety, as many people believe. They test tolerance to known dangerous substances they use in their products. These dangerous substances are used to lengthen the shelf-life of the products, and to make the products foam more, keep the product moist for an extended period, etc.

The companies wish to know how much it is necessary to dilute these poisons and carcinogens so there is little to no immediate irritation and danger to the consumer. Cumulative use is another matter. Poisons and cancer-causing agents do build up over time, and cause all kinds of future problems. This does not concern these companies in the slightest. There merely wish to guard against any complaints at the time you use their product. Your future health is your problem. They put the chemicals or the abbreviations on the label. It's the customer's job to learn all the deleterious effects of what's in their toiletries.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I friend who is a chemical engineer mentioned that in the US, 600 chemicals are on the banned list for use in personal care products. In Germany it's 12,000 chemicals. How many in Japan? A mere 200.

[a_bjyrd]

So I totally understand the part about using the animals for testing for aids or hiv, put I can see it for cosmetics too...I mean imagine you guys using some shaving cream and your skin starts burning off... I would much rather have a rats hair burn or skin than mine...I know it sounds evil but hey that is life

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

So I totally understand the part about using the animals for testing for aids or hiv, put I can see it for cosmetics too...I mean imagine you guys using some shaving cream and your skin starts burning off... I would much rather have a rats hair burn or skin than mine...I know it sounds evil but hey that is life
You missed this bit:
"Personal care product companies do not test for safety, as many people believe. They test tolerance to known dangerous substances they use in their products. These dangerous substances are used to lengthen the shelf-life of the products, and to make the products foam more, keep the product moist for an extended period, etc."
These companies already know, and have know for decades, what will burn your skin off, and what won't. But, the very same chemicals that will burn your skin off are useful for extending shelf-life and making the product foam and thus appear effective and appealing to the consumer.

[a_bjyrd]

I think I would like to live in Germany....Im sure there are downfalls but I would feel safer puting stuff on my skin

[TheNoNamedOne]

Well, animal testing sure has not lead us to the Cancer drug holy grail yet. So much of their physiology and imunology is different from us that modeling rats and monkeys have shown no sign in lowering the overall cancer rate. In fact, the modest increase in fighting some cancers and survival rates and prevention has been more attributed to nutrition and reducing smoking. Many known carcinogens to cause cancer are just not being taken off the market, which if they were would impact on the rate in a way in which an effective drug would do so.

Off Target in the War on Cancer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201648.html)
By Devra Davis, Washington Post
Sunday, November 4, 2007; Page B01

We've been fighting the war on cancer for almost four decades now, since President Richard M. Nixon officially launched it in 1971. It's time to admit that our efforts have often targeted the wrong enemies and used the wrong weapons.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Could exposure (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201648.html) to radiation and obesity-promoting chemicals help explain why, according to a study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the rates of the testicular cancer that Armstrong developed nearly doubled in most industrialized countries in the past three decades? Should we wait to find out?

Good question, Washington Post! Despite our ever increasing expenditures on fighting cancer, it has not been fought back, and over the last several decades fast foods have ballooned not only in the U.S., but even in Japan, where a traditional non meat centered diet, has now given way to more meat and fast foods along with rising rates of cancer.

Why hasn't animal testing stopped the rise or found a cure? Sure isn't for lack of trying seeing that over 100 billion dollars per year in the U.S. alone has been going into this money drain fight.

[okisteve]

I friend who is a chemical engineer mentioned that in the US, 600 chemicals are on the banned list for use in personal care products. In Germany it's 12,000 chemicals. How many in Japan? A mere 200.

I think that probably applies to the whole of Europe now. Some time back I was ribbing an Italian doctor about the lurid colored candies he kept on his desk. He told me that they were actually much stricter about food coloring and other additives in Italy than in the US.

Dunno about Japan though. Their hard candies sure are good, but sort of different-tasting now that I think about it.<3 I wonder if those umeboshi-flavored candies have natural flavoring or some uranium organophosphate stuff....

[Go-Shay]

I have an idea: Lets say you have been convicted and sentenced to a long time behind bars. You could participate in some drug research and receive time served.