To throw another question "out there" with reference to Thalidomide.

Not all pregnant women who were prescibed thalidomide in early pregnancy had deformed babies. Did those women who had malformed babies have anything else in common with each other?

Did they have similar lifestyles? did they all smoke/not smoke? did they all drink/not drink? Was it something in the husbands` sperm that reacted to the thalidomide? Was any of this researched for afterwards?

Malkie, what page are your posts about the asthma drugs on? Or, if you prefer, say again what you said about them.
----------------------
About thalidomide - I'm still not convinced that tests weren't done on pregnant lab animals. They knew that drugs could cross the placenta. Proper scientists would have tested for the possibility of pregnant women taking the drug. Perhaps they thought that the risk was worth taking. But, as it was so long ago, and drug companies are good at hiding their mistakes - usually - it will probably never be known.
----------------------
Angelus The Vampire, I don't know. It could be possible that only certain people were affected by thalidomide because of their lifestyles or metabolism. I believe that oxidative stress may have had an effect on thalidomide's actions. Perhaps women who had more anti-oxidants or folic acid in their diets had more protection. This is only a guess. The way the drug was metabolised could have been different in different women.
-------------------------------

quote:

Malkie, what page are your posts about the asthma drugs on? Or, if you prefer, say again what you said about them.

You are perfectly capable of digging up old posts when it suits you, so why can't you do it when it benefits me?

The simple conclusion was that a strategy for asthma medication was decided upon based on clinical observations in human patients.

Animal models were designed which replicated this observation in mice. New drugs were designed to reduce this observation, and they worked very well in the animal model. They were then ran in clinical trials and failed to reduce asthma symptoms.

However, the drugs had successfully reduced the clinical observation, and the conclusion is that the clinical observation didn't actually play a role in asthma.

So, the drug failed due to a lack of efficacy, but the animal data was not misleading.

Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

In answer to Malkie's questions, above: I have wasted time trying to find out what Malkie's last question referred to. He wouldn't tell me what page to look at so I had to waste time. And it was a waste of time because on pages 78 and 79 we have answered his questions.
-------------------------------------------
Over the years various studies in mice have said that eosinophilia is a cause of or is implicated in asthma. Other studies in mice have said that it is not. It would seem that some of these mice were telling lies. That is because non-humans are not good models for humans. Conduct enough experiments and you will get the result you want. More than one group of researchers have admitted that there are fundamental differences between mice and their induced counterparts of asthma and humans with 'naturally' occurring asthma. In fact, one such group of researchers have called for experiments to be done on primates. The fools. Don't they know that even non-human primates are not models for human primates?
--------------------------------------
The lab animal experiments were to find drugs to relieve something that didn't cause the disease they were supposed to help. It doesn't matter what drugs were made with the data from lab animals. The human data was wrong because it was based on wrong assumptions. The human data didn't come from vivisection experiments on humans. In fact the conclusion that eosinophilia accompanies asthma is often correct. The two sets of data - human and non-human - cannot be compared. There should be better ways of investigating disease, using everything known and developed now and by developing better and more techniques. As long as vivisection continues there will be little incentive to develop more techniques. The fact that observing humans led to wrong assumptions has no bearing on the unreliability of lab animal experiments.

I'm glad you agree that the animal models weren't to blame.

Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

quote:

The human data was wrong because it was based on wrong assumptions.

Exactly, I'm glad you agree animal models weren't to blame.

quote:

The human data didn't come from vivisection experiments on humans

Actually, yes they did.

====================================

Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

Malkie said: 'I'm glad you agree that the animal models weren't to blame.'

I say: No, I agree that some lab animal experiments said one thing and others said another thing - which is to be expected, what with non-humans not being models for humans. There has been such a lot of conflicting data on asthma from lab animals over the years that researchers don't know which to believe. And didn't Malkie admit that some mice said that eosinophilia caused asthma? They were wrong. And, no doubt, more was done to them than was done to humans with asthma. The experimenters would have been able to do whatever they liked to the mice to try to prove their theories. But they wouldn't have been able to treat the humans in the same way. Again, this shows that a better way has to be found. But, as long as lab animals are there to be experimented on, there is little chance of enough effort and money being put into finding better ways.

Then Malkie said: 'Exactly, I'm glad you agree animal models weren't to blame.'

I say: No, I don't agree. Lab animal 'models' have been responsible for showing that IL-5 and eosinophils have no role in bronchial hyperreactivity but other lab animal 'models' have been responsible for showing that IL-5 and eosinophils do have a role in bronchial hyperreactivity. I should rephrase that: the researchers believed that the lab animals were models and believed the results from them. The fools.

Eosinophilia doesn't cause asthma. It is only when eosinophils interact with certain nerves that there is inflammation. This is a bit like having two chemicals. Separate, they are harmless. Mixed together, they blow up. Someone might know that an explosion (asthma) can happen when chemical E (eosinophils) is poured into a bottle but doesn't know that another chemical - N (nerves) - was already in there. They might think that chemical E blows up because of its impact with the bottle. So they use lab animals to find a way to dilute chemical E and to stop it sloshing about as it's poured. It still blows up when it's poured in. That's because chemical N is in the bottle. As long as the two chemicals are mixed there will be an explosion. Finding a drug to reduce the amount of chemical E won't prevent the explosion. Not knowing about the existence of chemical N in the bottle does not mean that the observation of explosions was wrong. There were explosions. Finding that chemical E being poured into the bottle leads to explosions does not mean that the observation of explosions was wrong. Just that the assumptions made from the observations were wrong. And these wrong assumptions don't mean that there is something wrong with studying the bottle - humans.

Using mice to find a way to stop chemical E from splashing about too much when it's poured in the bottle - in the belief that that is what causes the explosion - and to dilute it, so it is weaker and less likely to explode, won't prevent the explosion when the two chemicals come into contact with each other. Relying on the results of these mice experiments means that you are relying on false data. And, as the explosions in the mice-type of bottles is different to the human explosions, you will never be able to have confidence in any conclusions formed from experimenting on the mice. Which is what this whole debate is about. That is it in a nutshell. Or in a bottle.

Those who observed that chemical E caused an explosion (asthma) when poured into the bottle were partly correct in that chemical E was involved - as are eosinophils in asthma - but the conclusions they came to were wrong.

Then Malkie said that the human data came from vivisection experiments on humans.

Now, according to Malkie, vivisection experiments have been performed on humans. So, in these asthma experiments, humans were given new drugs and were then cut open and had various organs removed to see what the drugs had done to them. I wonder if they were also given huge amounts of the drug to see how much would kill them?

And then Malkie asks for examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading lab animal data. Conveniently forgetting that every drug that goes to clinical trials has lab animal data accompanying it. And most drugs fail in the clinical trials. And most of them fail because they are not safe or not effective - despite the lab animals having said that they would be safe and effective.
--------------------------------

Martin - you talk about a lot of studies with conflicting data, but don't reference them.

Can you reference them please, but more specifically, can you highlight the studies which resulted in incorrect drug discovery decisions being made please.

quote:

It is only when eosinophils interact with certain nerves that there is inflammation

Is that fact, or opinion from a handful of papers which disagree with the majority?

Can you also explain why the anti-eosinophil drugs didn't work in humans please.

quote:

Now, according to Malkie, vivisection experiments have been performed on humans. So, in these asthma experiments, humans were given new drugs and were then cut open and had various organs removed to see what the drugs had done to them.

I find it extremely amusing that you change your version of what "vivisection" is depending on the point you are making. Earlier in the thread when I pointed out that you were using the term vivisection incorrectly you responding by saying that vivisection is a blanket expression used to cover any scientific experiment.

So which is it?

quote:

Conveniently forgetting that every drug that goes to clinical trials has lab animal data accompanying it. And most drugs fail in the clinical trials. And most of them fail because they are not safe or not effective - despite the lab animals having said that they would be safe and effective

Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

I've given you examples of failed drugs which weren't due to misleading animal data. Why can't you show the converse ?

Why? Because it simply doesn't happen. If you disagree, then please show us some real examples rather than you continued guess work and assumption. Otherwise, my examples stand as fact with nothing to the contrary.

I have made my replies in upper case letters because I haven't replied at the end of each of the questions, which I usually do. I have separated the questions into their main parts.
----------------------
Malkie said: 'Martin - you talk about a lot of studies with conflicting data, but don't reference them. Can you reference them please, but more specifically, can you highlight the studies which resulted in incorrect drug discovery decisions being made please.'

I SAY: AS YOU WELL KNOW, THE DRUGS THAT FAIL DO NOT HAVE EXTENSIVE LITERATURE ABOUT THEM AVAILABLE FOR ALL TO READ. DRUGS THAT GET THROUGH THE CLINICAL TRIALS DO.
=====================
In Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997 Oct;156(4 Pt 2):S78-81 they say:

'In some experiments, anti-IL-5 pretreatment has been reported not only to inhibit allergen-induced eosinophil influx, but also the increased airway responsiveness. This finding is not invariably confirmed in other studies . For example, Corry and colleagues reported that pretreatment of Balb/C mice with anti-IL-5 in a dose sufficient to block antigen-induced eosinophil influx did not affect the increase in airway responsiveness.'
=====================
Malkie quotes me: 'It is only when eosinophils interact with certain nerves that there is inflammation'

And then Malkie said: 'Is that fact, or opinion from a handful of papers which disagree with the majority?'

I SAY: I HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO THE PAPERS. AND, AS YOU WOULDN'T HELP ME TO FIND A RELEVANT PAGE WITH YOUR QUESTIONS ON, I WILL LEAVE YOU TO SEARCH FOR IT.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS MUCH USE RELYING ON THE MAJORITY OPINION. REMEMBER, THE MAJORITY OF 'EXPERTS' DENIED THAT GASTRIC ULCERS WERE CAUSED BY BACTERIA. TWO MAVERICKS KNEW BETTER. TWO KNOW-ALL, IMPUDENT UPSTARTS KNEW MORE THAN THOSE WHO DISAGREED WITH THEM. AND THEN THEY BECAME NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS. IT'S A FUNNY OLD WORLD.
----------------------
Malkie said: 'Can you also explain why the anti-eosinophil drugs didn't work in humans please.'

I SAY: DO YOU MEAN THAT ANTI-EOSINOPHIL DRUGS DON'T REDUCE EOSINOPHILIA IN HUMANS? OR DO YOU MEAN THAT REDUCING ESOSINOPHILIA DOESN'T REDUCE ASTHMA? IF SO, IT IS BECAUSE EOSINOPHILIA DOESN'T CAUSE ASTHMA.
-----------------
Malkie quoted me: 'Now, according to Malkie, vivisection experiments have been performed on humans. So, in these asthma experiments, humans were given new drugs and were then cut open and had various organs removed to see what the drugs had done to them.'

And then Malkie said: 'I find it extremely amusing that you change your version of what "vivisection" is depending on the point you are making. Earlier in the thread when I pointed out that you were using the term vivisection incorrectly you responding by saying that vivisection is a blanket expression used to cover any scientific experiment. So which is it?'

I SAY: ANY SCIENTIFIC OR 'SO CALLED' SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT OR PROCEDURE PERFORMED ON ANY UNWILLING OR UNWITTING ANIMAL THAT CAUSES PAIN, DISTRESS OR SUFFERING IS VIVISECTION IF IT IS DONE IN THE HOPE OF INCREASING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT A PROCEDURE OR DRUG.

KILLING SHEEP FOR MEAT IS NOT VIVISECTION, EVEN THOUGH IT CAUSES PAIN AND SUFFERING.

GIVING A HUMAN BABY AN INJECTION IS NOT VIVISECTION, EVEN THOUGH IT WILL CAUSE PAIN AND DISTRESS. IT IS DONE TO HELP THAT INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL.

TESTING A DRUG ON A DOG THAT HAS A CERTAIN DISEASE AND FOR WHICH THERE IS NO OTHER TREATMENT - AND THE DOG WILL DIE WITHOUT SOME SORT OF TREATMENT - IS NOT VIVISECTION. IT IS DONE TO HELP THAT INDIVIDUAL DOG. TESTING A DRUG ON A DOG TO FIND A CURE FOR OTHER DOGS IS VIVISECTION. IF OTHER DOGS MIGHT BENEFIT, THAT IS A BONUS. BUT NOT IF THE EXPERIMENT WAS DESIGNED ONLY TO HELP OTHER DOGS. HELP FOR THEM MUST BE SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE AIM OF THE EXPERIMENT - WHICH WAS TO HELP THAT DOG WITH THAT DISEASE.

THERE COULD BE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS BUT I CAN'T THINK OF ANY AT PRESENT. THE MAIN CONCERN IS THAT NO UNWILLING OR UNWITTING ANIMAL IS USED IN ANY EXPERIMENT OF THE KIND WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING. LEAVING HUMANS UNTREATED TO OBSERVE THE OUTCOME OF A DISEASE IS VIVISECTION.

ANYHTHING THAT WAS DONE TO ANY HUMANS IN THE PURSUIT OF DRUGS FOR ASTHMA - THAT MALKIE SAID WAS VIVISECTION - COULD NEVER BE CLASSIFIED AS VIVISECTION BY THE CRITERIA OF MY EXCELLENT DEFINITION. ACTUALLY, I SCRIBBLED IT DOWN OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I MIGHT REFINE IT. BUT WHY TAMPER WITH PERFECTION? IT IS PROBABLY THE CLEAREST AND BEST DEFINITION OF VIVISECTION THAT ANYONE HAS EVER THOUGHT OF OR COULD POSSIBLY THINK OF. MODESTY FORBIDS THAT I SAY MUCH MORE.
------------------------
Malkie quoted me: 'Conveniently forgetting that every drug that goes to clinical trials has lab animal data accompanying it. And most drugs fail in the clinical trials. And most of them fail because they are not safe or not effective - despite the lab animals having said that they would be safe and effective'

Then Malkie said: 'Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?'

I SAY: IT WOULD SEEM THAT MALKIE BELIEVES THAT MOST (OR IS IT ALL?) DRUGS THAT FAIL IN THE CLINICAL TRIALS FOR REASONS OTHER THAN COMMERCIAL, FAIL BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING CONDITION THEY ARE DESIGNED TO TREAT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD. A BIT LIKE EOSINOPHILIA AND ASTHMA. TO HAVE THIS BELIEF DEMONSTRATES A VERY POOR VIEW OF RESEARCHERS. ARE THEY ALL ON WILD GOOSE CHASES, CREATING DRUGS TO TREAT SYMPTOMS, THE ALLEVIATION OF WHICH WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE DISEASE? BECAUSE THE RESEARCHERS MISINTERPRETED THE RESULTS OF THEIR EXPERIMENTS? SUCH PEOPLE SHOULD BE SACKED IMMEDIATELY. MALKIE, IF HE HOLDS THIS STRANGE BELIEF, MUST BELIEVE THAT MOST (OR IS IT ALL?) LAB ANIMAL DATA IS CORRECT BUT THAT IT IS DATA FOR THE WRONG CONDITIONS. OR THAT IT IS MISINTERPRETED. IF HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS, HE MUST BELIEVE THAT THE DATA FROM THE LAB ANIMALS DOES NOT APPLY TO HUMANS, SEEING AS HOW MOST DRUGS FAIL IN THE CLINICAL TRIALS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SAFE OR NOT EFFECTIVE.
-----------------------

Malkie said: 'I've given you examples of failed drugs which weren't due to misleading animal data. Why can't you show the converse ? Why? Because it simply doesn't happen. If you disagree, then please show us some real examples rather than you continued guess work and assumption. Otherwise, my examples stand as fact with nothing to the contrary.'

I SAY: WHICH FAILED DRUGS? THE MS ONES WEREN'T DISCOVERED AND DEVELOPED IN THE SAME WAY AS OTHER DRUGS SO ARE NOT RELEVANT. THE DRUGS FOR EOSINOPHILIA? THEY FAILED TO TREAT ASTHMA BECAUSE ASTHMA IS NOT CAUSED BY EOSINOPHILIA. THE OBSERVATION THAT EOSINOPHILIA ACCOMPANIES ASTHMA WAS CORRECT. DRUGS DEVELOPED TO REDUCE IT DID NOT FAIL TO CURE ASTHMA BECAUSE ASTHMA ISN'T CURED BY REDUCING EOSINOPHILIA. DON'T FORGET, THE OBSERVATION THAT EOSINOPHILIA ACCOMPANYING ASTHMA WAS ALSO SEEN IN LAB ANIMALS - ALTHOUGH, OF COURSE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ASTHMA. JUST A CONDITION THAT SEEMS TO MIMIC HUMAN ASTHMA.

AND, AS MALKIE SAID ABOVE THAT NO DRUGS FAIL BECAUSE OF MISLEADING LAB ANIMAL DATA HE MUST HOLD THAT STRANGE BELIEF I DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS ANSWER. SAYING THAT 'IT SIMPLY DOESN'T HAPPEN' INDICATES THIS.
---------------------------------------

quote:

IF SO, IT IS BECAUSE EOSINOPHILIA DOESN'T CAUSE ASTHMA.

exactly, hence the drugs failed on poor human data, not misleading animal data. Hence you agree that these drugs did not failed due to misleading animal data, and my point stands.

However, you've failed to proof the converse. Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

quote:

ANYHTHING THAT WAS DONE TO ANY HUMANS IN THE PURSUIT OF DRUGS FOR ASTHMA - THAT MALKIE SAID WAS VIVISECTION - COULD NEVER BE CLASSIFIED AS VIVISECTION BY THE CRITERIA

You mean now that you've changed your definition to match your current view point

I getcha

===================================

Your current debating strategy is rather weak - all you've done is attempt to pick apart my evidence, rather than provide evidence which supports your point. Failure to prove your side of the arguement pretty soon, and you've lost this debate.

Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

Hey Hi all. Still debating I see.

I am so pleased I have seen lots of articles, news items and programs on tv that show the AR movement for what they really are. A bunch of anarchists who don't really know why they are protesting, they just are.

Interesting article in the guardian by a vegetarian vivisector. She justifies the research but has a personal aversion to eating meat. But she states that the anti-vivs stance is muddled, confused and hypocritical. She also states that she just can't understand why they attack vivisection so much while at the same time completely disregarding the meat industry and its treatment of animals.

You see they are not even bright enough to know which is the cruelest to animals.

Malkie, you haven't shown any drug failures that weren't due to misleading lab animal data. As late as 1996 and 1997 lab animals also seemed to indicate that eosinophilia caused asthma. So, when eosinophilia drugs failed to cure asthma, the misunderstanding could have been due to both human and non-human data.

SP Hogan et al Immunol Cell Biol. 1997 Jun;75(3):284-8 said:

'Treatment of mice with anti-IL-5 mAb before aeroallergen challenge, abolished blood and airway eosinophilia, lung damage and significantly reduced bronchial hyperreactivity. These results show that IL-5 and eosinophilic inflammation play a substantial role in the pathophysiology of allergic airway disease and, moreover, that aeroallergen-induced bronchial hyperreactivity is not exclusively regulated by IL-4. These results also suggest that eosinophils are predominantly responsible for regulating aeroallergen-induced structural changes to the airways which contribute, in part, to the mechanism underlying the induction of bronchial hyperreactivity.'

As I have said, eosinophils do have a role in asthma.
----------
Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol 183, 195-201 1996 said that IL-5 and eosinophils are central mediators in the pathogenesis of allergic lung disease. Again, this was a study in mice. The mice said that eosinophils have a role in this form of asthma. A bit like the human data. So, mice data has helped to form opinions about asthma that will have led to drugs being made to treat eosinophilia.
--------------
In Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 159, Number 2, February 1999, 580-587 they said that mouse 'models' of asthma had their eosinophilic airway inflammation and AHR reduced by treatment. Malkie earlier said that drugs were developed that reduced esinophilia but didn't reduce symptoms of asthma. Yet, other studies have found that a drug can reduce eosinophilic inflammation as well as other symptoms of asthma in mice. So, the failure of drugs for asthma is not due to misleading human data despite there having been 'accurate' (according to Malkie) lab animal data. They were both misleading. In the case of the human data, it was misinterpreted.
-------
In 1995 researchers used an antibody to IL-5 in mice. It suppressed both airway eosinophilia and bronchial hyperreactivity. So, mice said that something that suppressed eosinophilia also suppressed another symptom of asthma.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol 92, 12290-12294 1995.
-------------------------------------
In Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 156, Number 4, October 1997, S78-S81
they admit that there is some debate about whether or not eosinophilia causes an increase in airway responsiveness. This was based on studies in mice and guinea pigs. So, there was some lab animal data that seemed to indicate that eosinophilia caused sypmptoms of asthma. At some time, that was considered to be misleading data.
------------------------------------
But even if you, Malkie, can show a few drugs that fail, even though lab animal data was correct, you will have to show why all the other drugs - perhaps hundreds a year - fail in the clinical trials. I am talking about those that fail for reasons of safety or efficacy. I am convinced that you believe that they are all due to misunderstandings - like the asthma and eosinophilia drugs.

I don't know how anyone can have such a belief - if anyone does - and still have faith in scientists.

If lab animal data is not misleading, the human data must be. So, how can studying non-humans be of any use? If the lab animal data is misleading, how can studying them be of any use?

Most drugs in the clinical trials fail because they are unsafe or not effective. What does that tell us about the present system of drug research?
---------------------------
Malkie seems to think that I've changed my definition of vivisection. I haven't. It might have been refined over a long period but it hasn't changed much.
--------------------
RobK seems to agree with someone that those who are opposed to vivisection should devote their time and efforts to other things that cause suffering to various animals. Some of us oppose vivisection on scientific grounds. It wouldn't matter if such a person ate meat, owned a slaughterhouse and went pheasant shooting. Their stance would be valid and consistent.

Don't forget, many anti-vivisectionists campaign against other things. Human rights violations. Environmental damage. Unjust wars. Political corruption.
------------------

quote:

As I have said, eosinophils do have a role in asthma.

Then why don't anti-eosinophil drugs work ?

quote:

But even if you, Malkie, can show a few drugs that fail, even though lab animal data was correct, you will have to show why all the other drugs - perhaps hundreds a year - fail in the clinical trials.

Sorry, but if you are unwilling to give a single example, then why should I go to any length to find further examples which support my case.

My examples so far :-

I've mentioned the failed asthma drugs which weren't due to misleading animal data.

In addition to that we have the failed novel anti-MS drugs which weren't due to misleading animal data (because there wasn't any)

Furthermore we have the failed drug trails by Pharmagene, which again weren't due to misleading animal data (because there wasn't any). (I don't care that you think they weren't doing their job properly - the fact remains that they ran clinical trials on drugs without animal efficacy data, which resulted in a failed trial and contributed to the failed NCE data you keep quoting)

Now, to provide yet another example for you :- another reason you get failed drug trails which weren't due to misleading animal data is because of opportunistic trials. I don't know why I didn't mention that before, as it's a perfect example of a failed drug on grounds of lack of efficacy for which there is absolutely no misleading animal data (again because there is no animal data generated).

[I'm sure, given your knowledge you don't need me to explain what an opportunistic drug trial is]

So that's four examples right there which are reasons for failed drugs which weren't due to misleading animal data.

Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

quote:

I am talking about those that fail for reasons of safety or efficacy.

Which are ?

Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

quote:

Most drugs in the clinical trials fail because they are unsafe or not effective.

But not due to misleading animal data - please see my above points (and remember those drugs which are progressed despite animal data showing clear toxicity eg cyclosporin)

Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

quote:

Malkie seems to think that I've changed my definition of vivisection. I haven't. It might have been refined over a long period but it hasn't changed much.

Refined = changed, but I'm not going to get into a semantics debate, which is just another feeble attempt on your part to distract from that fact that you have absolutely no evidence to support your arguement.

=================================

So, san you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

Malkie said: 'Then why don't anti-eosinophil drugs work ?'

I say: According to the latest theory, eosinophils interact with nerves to cause some of the symptoms of asthma. Anti-eosinophil drugs can reduce eosinophilia but they would have to completely eliminate all eosinophils before they come into contact with nerves. Giving someone these drugs when they have eosinophilia will be like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
-----------------------------
Then Malkie lists his examples of failed drugs that he says show that not all drugs fail because of misleading lab aminal data. He mentions asthma drugs, MS drugs and Pharmagene.

We have already seen that the asthma drugs were designed to combat something that didn't cause asthma and that there was both human and lab animal data that suggested that eosinophilia caused asthma. This is wrong. And lab animals have given conflicting data about IL-5 in asthma studies.

The MS drugs were not discovered and developed in the same way as other drugs and can be ignored. The human data wasn't obtained in the same way that lab animal data is obtained.

Pharmagene were non-starters, due to their limited and limiting beliefs about lab animals. I would never trust those who believe in the necessity of vivisection to find non-vivisection ways of producing drugs. Far better to trust a cannibal to cook a vegan meal.

Opportunistic trials? Never heard of them. By any chance, do you mean trials to find treatments for opportunistic infections?

Cyclosporin? Why do you refer to that? Toxicity tests in rats, using high doses, found liver and kidney toxicity. Tests in dogs didn't. Tests in monkeys found some toxicity. The results of the toxicity tests suggested to the researchers that it was worth trying in humans. Obviously, the risks from toxicity were not considered great enough. I don't see your point in mentioning this. There are other drugs that showed some toxicity in pre-clinical trials. They were sent to human testing because it was thought that they would not be too toxic.

One of the developers of cyclosporin, Staehelin, has said that an earlier drug a colleague of his was working on, ovalicin, was sent to clinical trials but had to be abandoned because of side effects not seen in lab animals. Deary-me. A drug that had misleading lab animal data. This is mentioned in his account of the development of cyclosporin. Trying to find that info by trying to find the records of the clinical trials would be difficult if not impossible. It is only in these personal records that such information is available to the public. It is not always easy, or possible, to find information about clinical trials for drugs that were approved, never mind those that failed. In the US the drug companies need only supply information to the FDA. They do not need to supply it to anyone else. They certainly won't publicise their failures.
-----------------

so, you are again unable to provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data.

Yet again you attempt (and fail) to pick apart my examples.

quote:

The MS drugs were not discovered and developed in the same way as other drugs and can be ignored. The human data wasn't obtained in the same way that lab animal data is obtained.

Congrats on missing the point ! I rementioned these because NCEs were generated and failed in the clinic, and hence contributed to the failed clinical trial data that you keep quoting (you know, when you say "most drugs fail due to safety and lack of efficacy".)

In other words I'm giving you an example of a drug which failed without any misleading animal data. The reason why it failed is irrelevant - I'm only mentioning it because it contradicts your arguement that drugs only go to clinical trials after being through animal models etc.

In this case there is no misleading animal data.

quote:

Pharmagene were non-starters.......

Again, totally missing the point, which I actually believe is deliberate on your part. The reasons for Pharamegene's failures is irrelevant - the point is that their failed trials contributed to the statistics which you keep quoting and claiming are all due to misleading animal data.

Clearly in the case of Pharmagene the failed drugs were not due to misleading animal data, and hence your arguement doesn't stand.

quote:

Opportunistic trials? Never heard of them.

LOL, I though you knew a little about drug discovery - how wrong was I ?

quote:

By any chance, do you mean trials to find treatments for opportunistic infections?

No, of course not.

An opportunistic trial can take two forms - either a clinical trial of an existing drug for a different disease, or alternatively a clinical trial of (for example) a herbal medicine which is already available on the market and hence no safety studies are required. (surely you've heard of companies running a double-blind placebo controlled study of a herbal medicine to see if it actually works or not)

So, if you run a trial with an existing drug for a new disease you run a high risk of failure. There is no animal data associated with that trial, but if the trial fails it still counts as a drug which failed due to lack of efficacy. Often a totally new molecule (ie and NCE) will be used which has the same mechanism as the existing drug, but designed for a better application. (say take the active ingredient from an eczema drug, but use a altered structure better designed for an inhaled drug for asthma)

So, in other words, a NCE can fail without any animal data associated with it.

Similarly with herbal medicines a drug company will take the putative active ingredient and immediately run a clinical trial with it. There's no need to run any animal experiments to do this. If the extract fails then it would contribute to the statistics you keep quoting. Furthermore, the trial might reveal safety issues and hence the drug could fail on safety grounds.

quote:

Cyclosporin? Why do you refer to that?

Because it's a drug that was progressed despite clear indications from animal studies that the drug was toxic. You can't say it was subsequently found to be toxic in clinical trials because it was already established in the animal models.

Other drugs are shown to be toxic in animals yet are still progressed 'at risk' to human to evaluate if the therapeutic effects outweigh the toxic effects. So, other drugs can fail on safety grounds, but the animal data isn't misleading - it clearly showed the toxicity in advance.

quote:

One of the developers of cyclosporin, Staehelin, has said that an earlier drug a colleague of his was working on, ovalicin, was sent to clinical trials but had to be abandoned because of side effects not seen in lab animals

Really ? A quick search shows plenty of data showing the toxicity of ovalicin in animals *before* the clinical trials.

quote:

Trying to find that info by trying to find the records of the clinical trials would be difficult if not impossible........They certainly won't publicise their failures.

So, in other words your scientific disagreement of vivisection isn't based on any evidence that you've seen - so, why on earth can you claim that your opinion is fact ? You've got absolutely nothing supporting your case.


=============================================

I've provided you with plenty of examples of drugs which failed due to non-animal reasons. Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

quote:

Malkie said: 'Then why don't anti-eosinophil drugs work ?'........... Anti-eosinophil drugs can reduce eosinophilia but they would have to completely eliminate all eosinophils before they come into contact with nerves. Giving someone these drugs when they have eosinophilia will be like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I forgot to respond to this little gem - so if anti-eosinophil drugs don't work because the eosinophils have already have already come into contact with nerves, then why do inhaled steriods work ?

Pity you don't understand biology, and don't comprehend why your statement is so laughable.

p.s. Can you provide examples of failed drugs which were due to misleading animal data please ?

Being a strict vegetarian, bordering on vegan, I am bound to say that I find all Animal testing abbhorent, I just wish it would all stop, it makes me feel quite ill when my over-active imagination gets the better of me, and I start thinking about these poor animals, the suffering, the torture and pain, then I start thinking perhaps they should test products and medicines on murderers, rapists and paedophiles, where their sick crimes are proven.
If animals could do as humans do, I bet they would test on humans to get their own back, wouldn't be very nice if the boot were on the other foot, would it?
How would any of us like it, it just ins't right, some of the pictures i've seen of animal testing look like something out of a horror film, or even a concentration camp, it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG...PERIOD.