quote:

Originally posted by welfarist:
I can't find any Nazi propaganda on the SIMR website either... could you please tell us where it is supposed to be?

As my last post I am reluctant to give a link to Nazi propaganda presented as fact, I have just checked and it is still on there, you are of course free to believe me or not.

quote:

I just want to have my say about the scientific arguement about the validity of animal tests. Whether or not animal tests are effective depends on who you ask, or which scientific papers you read.

I think that whether or not animal tests are effective depends on the hard facts not someone's personal opinion!

quote:

The point is, who is to say non-animal tests would be any better?

Crucially they would actually be relevent to humans (if using human tissue etc of course) and to the causal mechanisms and pathways of human diseases rather than to symptoms artificially induced in whatever particular non-human species/strain of non-human species. Also, even individual humans do not predict for all other humans, hence the need for pharmacogentics.

quote:

e.g. thalidomide. AV's always point out that animal tests failed to predict birth defects. Pro-v's always respond that thalidomide was never tested on pregnant animals prior to release.

Dr Simon Festing claimed in the webchat that "The same [thalidomide] birth defects show up clearly in rabbits, rats and mice (the most common used animals in this sort of testing).", however, here are just a couple of quotes re same -

"Thalidomide, which crippled 10,000 children, does not cause birth defects in rats or many other species, but does so in primates." (Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4)

"In approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, 11 breeds of rabbits, 2 breeds of dogs, 3 strains of hamsters, 8 species of primates, and in other such varied species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets, in which thalidomide has been tested, teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally" (Drugs as Teratogens, J. L. Schardein, 1976)

The point is, even if they had carried out such testing animals they wouldn't anyway have known which species/strain results to use, which species/strain would or would not 'predict' effects in humans. Also of course dosage is a factor.

quote:

Had thalidomide not been tested on animals at all, would test tube, cell culture or computer modelling results have predicted birth defects?

Firstly, I would like to highlight that what is usually not said is that thalidomide also caused temporary and irreversible nerve damage in thousands of people taking it (was also marketed as general sedative}, but the animal experiments had not indicated that would be the case, eg

"During June [1961] it became clear that although most cases of polyneuritis occurred in elderly patients, younger age groups could also be damaged...Meanwhile, [drug company Chemie] Grunenthal's research department tried to reproduce polyneuritis in animal experiments, but without success...Dr Muckter mentioned the negative results of animal experiments but Professor Schimert declared that no conclusions about the nerve-damaging properties of thalidomide in man could be made from the fact that no damage had been found in animal experiments." (Thalidomide and the Power of the Drug Companies', Henning Sjostrom [Swedish lawyer] and Robert Nilsson [research chemist], 1972)

However, re birth defects, "Karnofsky’s Law states any substance can be teratogenic if given to the right species, at the right phase in development, in the right dose. That means all medications can cause birth defects in some species. To give you an idea of the sensitivity level, even common table salt and water are teratogens in some species when they are administered in the right dose at the right time., An immense amount of experimentation has proven Karnofsky right." (Specious Science, C Ray Greek MD and Jean Swingle Greek DMV, 2002)
More re this
http://www.curedisease.com/FAQ.html#birth

and

"It is the actual results of teratogenicity [birth defect] testing in primates which have been most disappointing. Of the 15 listed putative human teratogens tested in non-human primates, only eight were also teratogenic in one or more of the various species..." (Dr JL Schardein, author of 'Chemically Induced Birth Defects')

Re replacements to animal tests, yes they would be better - in fact nothing at all with the precautionary principle would be better than the dangerous 'don't know' we have with animal tests* - the results would be relevant to humans rather than to another species.

* "it is usually anticipated that in vitro tests are able to identify thalidomide as a teratogen despite the fact that thalidomide cannot be identified when tested in vivo in the most common rodent species." (Reproduction and Development, paper for Scientific Group on Methodologies for the Safety Evaluation of Chemicals, Alternative Testing Methodologies, May 1997)

quote:

There will always be a risk with releasing new drugs, regardles of how it has been tested.

That is not an argument for animal experiments though.

quote:

Banning animal tests will not reduce this risk, if anything it will increase it, at least until we have more reliable alternatives.

No, in fact as they cannot know before testing on humans whether the previous animal tests did or did not 'predict' for humans, animal tests can be dangerously misleading and delay progress by losing us drugs (via the false negative and false positive results).
The 'one-size-fits-all' approach of testing on other species is scientifically invalid, bear in mind even the results from individual humans cannot be scientifically/safely applied to all other humans.

Animal testing should not be done by innocent animals,

tests should be carried out on people in prison that have done awful crimes such as rape, murder, child/animal abuse, terrorists, that have been proven by DNA.



Animal testing should not be done by innocent animals,

tests should be carried out on people in prison that have done awful crimes such as rape, murder, child/animal abuse, terrorists, that have been proven by DNA.

Can someone please clarify this for me then?

AVs almost always claim that animal tests are invalid, dangerous, do not work etc.
When someone questions whether they would prefer to see r + d stop completely they go on to claim that other more reliable methods are available.
But you then admit that there is no accurate way of predicting toxicity, side effects etc before giving a drug to a human.

So what do you propose? Giving out random drugs to people with not even the slightest indication of what it will do to them? Surely it's better to have at least a vague idea than no idea at all.

Not being a medical researcher, I cannot really propose anything with any authoritaty. There are many experienced researchers who have already proposed alternatives. My ideas are to use freshly dead human corpses, kept on life support machines. Quite a few people leave their bodies for medical research. Testing minute quantities of new drugs on humans and gradually increasing the doses, examining them at every stage, and often throughout the day, in affect, having them as professional testers for the duration of their stint. Giving much more money to educate people about prevention and better nutrition and lifestyles. Investing milliards of pounds in adult stem cell research, and gene therapy - if this can be done without killing the human models.

I know that stem cell and gene therapy research were developed using animals. But these methods exist now. As they do, we should use them. The Nazis and Japanese did experiments on humans into the effects of pressure and the effects of long exposure to cold water. Many of the victims died. I am sure that the results were used after the war to save the lives of astronauts and shipwrecked sailors. The tests were evil but it is right that the results should have been used.

Martin - I kind of understand your theory of keeping corpses alive on life support for testing but I don't think it would work. For a start, if the person was actually dead there is only a limited amount of testing you could do as their body systems would no longer be functioning. You would therefore have to test on live people, albeit unconscious and alive only through life support machines. But is this anyeasier to justify than using animals? When is a person no longer a person? Do you use coma victims, despite knowing that some are out for years before they wake up? I don't see it being a viable option myself, unless you find a way t re-animate dead bodies.

I do agree with using stem cells etc tho.

I'm thinking about people who die in hospital. If they have given permission, they can be immediately put on life support. Use them as much as possible. Until other methods are perfected.

quote:

I'm thinking about people who die in hospital. If they have given permission, they can be immediately put on life support. Use them as much as possible. Until other methods are perfected.

Nice idea MartinGBUK, if a little grotesque. But how would you assign your 'dead' patients to test groups and control groups? One of the advantages of using animals is that you can eliminate most variables by grouping similar animals (with similar genetic backgrounds, health status etc) and making sure they've had the same environmental experience (this extends to diet, cleanliness etc).

quote:

Originally posted by leo the lion:

quote:

I'm thinking about people who die in hospital. If they have given permission, they can be immediately put on life support. Use them as much as possible. Until other methods are perfected.

Nice idea MartinGBUK, if a little grotesque. But how would you assign your 'dead' patients to test groups and control groups? One of the advantages of using animals is that you can eliminate most variables by grouping similar animals (with similar genetic backgrounds, health status etc) and making sure they've had the same environmental experience (this extends to diet, cleanliness etc).

Why would it matter if the target subject did not life the same lifestyle? Humans are not identical and do not live the same lifestye

It's no more grotesque than the cadaver surgical training and anatomy lessons carried out now. And much less so than the experiments on living, feeling animals. As these would be human bodies, very small groups could be used. The results from one human body would be more relevant to humans than the results from 100s of rats or monkeys. Living volunteers could also be controls. The main aim, when I become Health Secretary, will be to get the stem cell and gene therapy programmes fully funded.

quote:

Originally posted by welfarist:
Can someone please clarify this for me then?
AVs almost always claim that animal tests are invalid, dangerous, do not work etc.
When someone questions whether they would prefer to see r + d stop completely they go on to claim that other more reliable methods are available. But you then admit that there is no accurate way of predicting toxicity, side effects etc before giving a drug to a human.

? A method of course though can still be more reliable than another even if it is not 100% accurate.

Re the issue of tiny genetic variations between humans and that one of the conseqences is different humans can and do react in different ways to the same drug - clearly then what we need are personalised, tailored, medicines and we need them fast, clearly this is the future, the only way forward.

It is estimated that in the US alone each year around 100,000 people are killed by adverse reactions to 'appropriately' taken medicines, with around 2 million more needing admission to hospital as a result of serious ADRs (adverse drug reactions). People are being seriously harmed or even killed by medicines they have taken in the belief they will actually help them. Surely anyone would agree this is just unacceptable.

In December 2003 the then Head of Glaxo admitted in public that 90+% of prescription drugs don't work in 50-70% of patients taking them. Bearing in mind that all drugs can have side-effects, sometimes very serious or even fatal for some people, 'don't work' must be at best.

So not only is the current one-size-fits-all approach squandering huge amounts of money paying for 100% of drugs which are going to be useless in 50-70% of patients taking them, but as all drugs have side-effects and sometimes in some people severe or fatal side-effects, it is clearly exposing a huge number of patients to pointless risks. Again, surely anyone would agree this is an unacceptable situation.

Research in pharmacogenetics investigates how differences in our, human, genes can affect the way in which individuals respond to medicines. Completely personalised medicines are a long way off, we have made a start though eg Herceptin, but the sooner we start putting appropriate resources into studying humans, instead of squandering untold resources studying non-human species the results from which are not even relevant to humans, the sooner we will have far, far safer and effective drugs.

I'll answer your next point on a separate post.

quote:

Originally posted by welfarist:
So what do you propose?

Scientific, human-relevant testing that acknowledges and incorporates, rather than ignores, the differences between humans. It is imperative that human tissue is used instead of tissue from other species.

The following is from 'Non-human primates in medical research and drug development: a critical review' by geneticist Jarrod Bailey, 2005 -
http://www.curedisease.net/pdfs/reportbiogenic.pdf

"Batteries of human-based tests provide reliable and relevant information on which to base further research and to speed the translation of research to the bedside.

These technologies include microarrays and other DNA technologies; proteomics and metabolomics; mathematical and computer modelling; epidemiology; clinical research; myriad in vitro molecular biological techniques; microfluidics devices harbouring many types of human cells in an lmost ‘natural’ environment and interacting with one another; and many more.

Human brains can now be studied non-invasively using a huge array of imaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET), magnetoencephalography (MEG), magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), EROS (event-related optical signals), VBM (voxel-based morphometric analysis) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)...

Perhaps the most exciting technology with regard to drug development is ‘microdosing’,
in which nanogram doses of new drugs are traced through the human body...and has already
been endorsed by the FDA (April 2005) and the European Agency for the Evaluation
of Medicinal Products (January 2003)."

quote:

Giving out random drugs to people with not even the slightest indication of what it will do to them? Surely it's better to have at least a vague idea than no idea at all.

That is exactly what is happening now with animal testing - see previous post, re Glaxo chief 90% drugs don't work in 50-70% of patients, serious and fatal ADRs etc.

quote:

Originally posted by welfarist:
Can someone please clarify this for me then?

AVs almost always claim that animal tests are invalid, dangerous, do not work etc.
When someone questions whether they would prefer to see r + d stop completely they go on to claim that other more reliable methods are available.
But you then admit that there is no accurate way of predicting toxicity, side effects etc before giving a drug to a human.

So what do you propose? Giving out random drugs to people with not even the slightest indication of what it will do to them? Surely it's better to have at least a vague idea than no idea at all.

Drugs are made from some sort of chemical that has usually been used before, so I should imagine that researchers must have a good idea of their affect before they even start developing the drug.

Martin and Rob321

If beings from another world came here and started using us for their experiments then that would be their decision, if we could not fight back or change their mind.

No it would not be their right, but it would be within their capabilities and they would put their own people first than caring about an overpopulated planet of, what they see as, lesser inteligent beings.

It could happen and Im sure we would not like it but at the same time I doubt we would fully understand or have any grasp of what they were doing. Indeed they may already be doing it. How do you know what happens to you when you are asleep.

quote:

Drugs are made from some sort of chemical that has usually been used before, so I should imagine that researchers must have a good idea of their affect before they even start developing the drug

Clare G - I don´t think you understand chemistry at all. Even if a chemical has been used before and seen to be safe, then if a slight change is made to the compound it can change dramatically what the chemical does.

You can find out that from A short history of nearly everything by Bill Bryson. A very good book.

RobK, that's correct, it wouldn't be right for aliens to use us in their experiments. And it's not right for us to use other animals. We only do so because we can and because those in power or with influence believe that animals should be used.

I have no doubt this post will make me sound insane but here goes... If aliens came to earth to use people in experiments I would not like it. But it would not be morally wrong. Being so far removed from nature in the usual sense humans have developed this superiority complex. We have developed the means to out-compete any other species for food or shelter, we have placed ourselves at the top of the food chain. Without our own technology we would still be at the mercy of predators in many parts of the world. This isn't much different to being at the mercy of an alien race who use us for their gain.

In short, just because we don't like something personally, does not automatically make it morally wrong.

welfarist, it would be morally wrong for aliens to use us. They would be able to do so because of their superior technology. It was morally wrong of white people to use black slaves. This was only possible because of superior technology and weapons. And because we can do something doesn't make it right.

I am returning to my argument that human beings wouldn't be as horrified having to be the first people to take a new drug as the pro vivisection lobby would have us believe.

If a drug company claims to be developing a drug to fight AIDS (for example) people with the disease clamour to be able to take it long before it has gone through the standard tests. By definition, people with a 'life threatening' disease are dying anyway so are more than happy to try anything that might help them. As for the majority of non-life saving drugs - well I know hundreds of men who routinely shove anything labelled as a 'drug' into their systems without a second thought and who would snap my hand off if I actually paid them (and a couple of £s would suffice) to take them. And as they are already incarcerated, it would be no problem keeping track of what else they ate/did.

Hi Martin its Rob K

I don't think you can say something like the aliens using us is morally wrong. It would not be up to us to say, it would be up to them to decide if its wrong.

And as someone who does not believe in absolutes, you cannot always say that something is wrong or right.

Black people suffered under slavery but at the time nobody had decided it was wrong. It was a concept that needed thought and and took many years before it was generally accepted to be wrong.

So saying it is wrong for us to experiment on or use animals is not enought. You need to justify why you think it is wrong and convince others to your way of thinking.

However, if we faced a pandemic that appeared capable of wiping us out. I.e. over the course of a few weeks millions of people had died and the virus was infecting millions of people every day. Would it then be "wrong" to test a newly developed cure or vaccine on a rabbit? Killing it in the process.

RobDeManc K, when black people were suffering under slavery it was wrong in the sense that it shouldn't have been happening. When a lion kills an antelope the lion doesn't think that it is causing suffering. The antelope knows that it is feeling pain. The black slaves knew that they were suffering. It didn't matter if their masters thought this.

It is wrong to experiment on animals because they are not humans, and the results of the experiments can't be applied to humans with anything more than hope that they will work in the same way. It is also wrong because the animals feel pain. If there was a pandemic, the answer to it wouldn't be found in rabbits.