 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / March 2005Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?
BMJ 2004;328:514-517 (28 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514 Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? Pandora Pound, research fellow1, Shah Ebrahim, professor1, Peter Sandercock, professor2, Michael B Bracken, professor3, Ian Roberts, professor4 Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically (RATS) Group 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, 2 Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh EH4 2XU, 3 Center for Perinatal, Pediatric, and Environmental Epidemiology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520 USA, 4 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1B 3DP .. Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view. Few methods exist for evaluating the clinical relevance or importance of basic animal research, and so its clinical (as distinct from scientific) contribution remains uncertain.1 Anecdotal evidence or unsupported claims are often used as justification-for example, statements that the need for animal research is "self evident"2 or that "Animal experimentation is a valuable research method which has proved itself over time."3 Such statements are an inadequate form of evidence for such a controversial area of research. We argue that systematic reviews of existing and future research are needed. Assessing animal research Despite the lack of systematic evidence for its effectiveness, basic animal research in the United Kingdom receives much more funding than clinical research.1 4 5 Given this, and because the public accepts animal research only on the assumption that it benefits humans,6 the clinical relevance of animal experiments needs urgent clarification. .............' http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7438/514 > BMJ 2004;328:514-517 (28 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514 > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > exist for evaluating the clinical relevance or importance of basic > animal research, and so its clinical (as distinct from scientific) So what proportion of basic animal research is conducted for clinical purposes? How many licences were issued for such research? > contribution remains uncertain.1 Anecdotal evidence or > unsupported claims are often used as justification-for example, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > basic animal research in the United Kingdom receives much > more funding than clinical research.1 4 5 Given this, and Ah so there isn't much clinical research!! > because the public accepts animal research only on the > assumption that it benefits humans,6 the clinical relevance of > animal experiments needs urgent clarification. Most educated people probably have the wits to understand that improved science does benefit people. They also demand a resonable level of product safety and accept that testing on animals does help to prevent dangerous products being sold. Why don't you believe that animal based research hasn't contributed to science or that testing on animals hasn't prevented some products that might have been harmful from being sold? Where is your evidence for these beliefs? > .............' > http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7438/514 Michael Saunby >> BMJ 2004;328:514-517 (28 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514 >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >Most educated people probably have the wits to understand that improved >science does benefit people. That's right. "Improved science" does benefit people. >They also demand a resonable level of product >safety and accept that testing on animals does help to prevent dangerous >products being sold. They don't prevent dangerous products being sold; they ensure their continued use. [Massive harm to humans also is attributable to what reliance on vivisection prevents. The role of cigarette smoking in the incidence of cancer is a case in point. As early as the 1950s, human epidemiological studies revealed a causal link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Nevertheless, repeated efforts, made over more than 50 years, rarely succeeded in inducing tobacco related cancers in animals. Despite the alarm sounded by public health advocates, governments around the world for decades refused to mount an educational campaign to inform smokers about the grave risks they were running. Today, one in every five deaths in the United States is attributable to the effects of smoking, and fully 60 percent of direct health care costs in the United States go to treating tobacco-related illnesses. How much of this massive human harm could have been prevented if the results of vivisection had not (mis)directed government health care policy? It is not clear that anyone knows the answer beyond saying, A great deal.] http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/animals/regan-emptycages.htm >Why don't you believe that animal based research hasn't contributed to >science or that testing on animals hasn't prevented some products that >might have been harmful from being sold? Where is your evidence for these >beliefs? [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 >>>Despite the lack of systematic evidence for its effectiveness, >>>basic animal research in the United Kingdom receives much [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That's right. "Improved science" does benefit people. Right. And animal usage leads to improved science. >>They also demand a resonable level of product >>safety and accept that testing on animals does help to prevent dangerous >>products being sold. > > They don't prevent dangerous products being sold; they > ensure their continued use. No, they don't. You consistently misstate the purpose of animal use in basic and clinical research, and you've done it again. Animals are NOT used to try to "prove" that something is safe for humans. They are used to try to demonstrate that something ISN'T safe for humans. If something causes a deleterious effect in animals, it isn't used on humans. If it fails to cause the deleterious effect in animals, that is NOT taken, EVER, to mean the thing is safe for humans. You are deliberately lying to suggest otherwise. Thalidomide is the classic example, as John Mercer showed repeatedly, usually in bloodying Sophist Boob Black's nose. When thalidomide was administered to pregnant mammals, it was embryotoxic to ALL species. The thalidomide tragedy occurred because NOT ENOUGH animal testing was done by the STUPID British researchers. If they had tested it on pregnant rabbits, the drug never would have been approved, or would have been approved for much more limited use. > [snip typically invalid bullshit] This is classic! What you've done is prove my point. If something DOESN'T produce an effect in animals, that may NOT be taken as "proof" that a bad effect won't happen in people. However, if something DOES produce a toxic effect in animals, that is taken as strong evidence that the thing will produce such an effect in people. As usual, you just don't understand logic and evidence. Anyway, your source LIED, deliberately as "aras" always do: It is false that 1 in 5 deaths in the U.S. is attributable to smoking. >>Why don't you believe that animal based research hasn't contributed to >>science or that testing on animals hasn't prevented some products that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the > fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] Lie of omission: if the animal testing "failed", and is to be declared useless, then all the MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE human clinical trials ALSO "failed", and necessarily must ALSO be declared useless. This great "ar" lie of omission is established beyond dispute. >>>They also demand a resonable level of product >>>safety and accept that testing on animals does help to prevent dangerous [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No, they don't. <unsnip> [Massive harm to humans also is attributable to what reliance on vivisection prevents. The role of cigarette smoking in the incidence of cancer is a case in point. As early as the 1950s, human epidemiological studies revealed a causal link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Nevertheless, repeated efforts, made over more than 50 years, rarely succeeded in inducing tobacco related cancers in animals. Despite the alarm sounded by public health advocates, governments around the world for decades refused to mount an educational campaign to inform smokers about the grave risks they were running. Today, one in every five deaths in the United States is attributable to the effects of smoking, and fully 60 percent of direct health care costs in the United States go to treating tobacco-related illnesses. How much of this massive human harm could have been prevented if the results of vivisection had not (mis)directed government health care policy? It is not clear that anyone knows the answer beyond saying, A great deal.] http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/animals/regan-emptycages.htm <endsnip> >>>Why don't you believe that animal based research hasn't contributed to >>>science or that testing on animals hasn't prevented some products that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >EXTENSIVE human clinical trials ALSO "failed", and >necessarily must ALSO be declared useless. It's only during clinical trials, all 4 of them, that these dangerous substances passed by animal testing are found, so there's no lie of omission here, Jon. Get it? Every new drug that comes onto the market has been through several testing phases in both animal and human trials. The animal testing trials, once over, are said to provide valuable information and a degree of safety to allow clinical trials to begin. In fact, according to ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the national institutes of health, only the drugs which show *promising* results are allowed to begin clinical trials. [Ideas for clinical trials usually come from researchers. After researchers test new therapies or procedures in the laboratory and in animal studies, the treatments with the most promising laboratory results are moved into clinical trials.] http://tinyurl.com/9d8c This promise, however, is a lie because once clinical trials begin 80% of the drugs said to show *promising* results from animal testing fail during the first three phases. [Testing in Humans For example, of 100 drugs for which investigational new drug applications are submitted to FDA, about 70 will successfully complete phase 1 trials and go on to phase 2; about 33 of the original 100 will complete phase 2 and go to phase 3; and 25 to 30 of the original 100 will clear phase 3 (and, on average, about 20 of the original 100 will ultimately be approved for marketing).] http://tinyurl.com/9d93 This small percentage, a mere 20%, is approved for marketing and enters into the fourth phase in clinical trials where they are tested on the general public. [Phase IV studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed. These studies continue testing the study drug or treatment to collect information about their effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.] http://tinyurl.com/9dj5 Studies using the general public for drug testing is nothing new because animal testing has always been a notoriously dangerous approach for filtering out substances that are dangerous to us. [Testimony revealed that it was common practice for drug companies to provide samples of experimental drugs, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, to physicians, who were then paid to collect data on their patients taking these drugs. Physicians throughout the country prescribed these drugs to patients without their knowledge or consent as part of this loosely controlled research. These practices and others prompted calls by Kefauver and other senators for an amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to address the injuriousness and ineffectiveness of certain drugs.] http://tinyurl.com/9db2 But nevertheless, even though much tougher controls are in place to ease the pressure pharmaceutical companies put upon us to test their drugs, the public is still being used as unwitting test subjects, and this practice is accountable for being the fourth or fifth leading cause of deaths among Americans. [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 So what does this promise given by animal testing actually provide, apart from an inaccurate assessment of the drugs it lets through and a legacy for being the fourth or fifth leading cause of deaths among the public who unwittingly test them? Another interesting question, is how many drugs which fail animal tests would have been beneficial to humans? ["Animal experimenters found, as a result of experimentation on animals that digitalis raised the blood-pressure, and, as a consequence, it was not used for some years on human beings. The fact that the blood-pressure is raised by digitalis was found - clinically - to be incorrect in the case of human beings, and it is now freely used in cases in which the laboratory experiments warned us that it would be dangerous." (Andrew S. McNeil, L.R.C.P.S. Ed., Medical World, February 5 1943, page 608.)] http://tinyurl.com/9ddg My concern is that once animal testing fails a beneficial drug, as in the case for digitalis, it can be lost to us forever as dangerous. Our reliance in using animals to test our drugs is possibly consigning thousands of perfectly good treatments to the dangerous list while more dangerous drugs are given to us as replacements. If it weren't for clinical trials, all four of them, the drugs passed as fit from animal testing to begin human trials would surely be killing a good deal more of the public in phase 4, seeing as 80% of them are thrown out during the first three stages before marketing, so why do defenders of animal testing conceal the fact that clinical trials reveal a huge error in animal trials? What other piece of testing apparatus can be shown to be the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths and yet still be allowed to continue in service? >>>>They also demand a resonable level of product >>>>safety and accept that testing on animals does help to prevent dangerous [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > It's only during clinical trials, all 4 Three phases of human clinical trials. There are only three phases required for approval, after which the drug is prescribed. If the alleged "failure" of the drug - over 90% of the time, the drug is simply relabeled to prohibit some problematic usage - demonstrates the failure of the animal testing phase, which never was a guarantee of safety anyway, then it necessarily has to demonstrate three human testing phases that followed the animal testing and preceded approval. The great "ar" lie of omission is, they don't say the human tests failed, despite the FACT that the problems with the drugs appear after those three phases - onlyh three - and after approval. You will never "win" on this fuckwitted, a.shole claim that there are four phases of testing. There are only three phases of human testing required for approval, and it is those three phases that logically must be held to be failures if the animal testing is so held, but the lying stupid "aras", ignorant of logic and dishonest to the core, won't do it. > Every new drug that comes onto the market has been > through several testing phases in both animal and > human trials. The animal testing trials, once over, are > said to provide valuable information and a degree of > safety to allow clinical trials to begin. And that is ALL the animal testing is intended to show. No drug is declared safe because of animal testing. >>>>>Why don't you believe that animal based research hasn't contributed to >>>>>science or that testing on animals hasn't prevented some products that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Three phases of human clinical trials. There are four phases of clinical trials. [Testing in Humans For example, of 100 drugs for which investigational new drug applications are submitted to FDA, about 70 will successfully complete phase 1 trials and go on to phase 2; about 33 of the original 100 will complete phase 2 and go to phase 3; and 25 to 30 of the original 100 will clear phase 3 (and, on average, about 20 of the original 100 will ultimately be approved for marketing).] http://tinyurl.com/9d93 This small percentage, a mere 20%, is approved for marketing and enters into the fourth phase in clinical trials where they are tested on the general public. [Phase IV studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed. These studies continue testing the study drug or treatment to collect information about their effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.] http://tinyurl.com/9dj5 > There are only >three phases required for approval, after which the >drug is prescribed. I've explained that to you already. After phase three in clinical trials, only 20% of all those drugs passed by the animals testing stages reach the market and into phase four. During this stage even more are removed, but not before proving how hazardous they were by killing hundreds of thousands of patients every year. [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 All these deaths are a consequence of the drugs given to patients after PASSING ALL the animal testing stages. >>>>>>Why don't you believe that animal based research hasn't contributed to >>>>>>science or that testing on animals hasn't prevented some products that [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > There are four phases of clinical trials. There are only three phases required for approval. If one phase of animal testing and three phases of human testing occur prior to approval, and then problems occur with the drug after approval, if you are going to say the animal phase of testing "failed", then logically you must say ALL of the three human testing phases failed. >>There are only >>three phases required for approval, after which the >>drug is prescribed. > > I've explained that to you already. You explained wrong; you lied. Only three phases required for approval. If one phase of animal testing and three phases of human testing occur prior to approval, and then problems occur with the drug after approval, if you are going to say the animal phase of testing "failed", then logically you must say ALL of the three human testing phases failed. >>>>>>>Why don't you believe that animal based research hasn't contributed to >>>>>>>science or that testing on animals hasn't prevented some products that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >There are only three phases required for approval. And this is what I've explained to you plenty of times now, so stop pretending you didn't already know. The part you snipped away went; "After phase three in clinical trials, only 20% of all those drugs passed by the animals testing stages reach the market and into phase four. During this stage even more are removed, but not before proving how hazardous they were by killing hundreds of thousands of patients every year. [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 All these deaths are a consequence of the drugs given to patients after PASSING ALL the animal testing stages." >If one phase of animal testing and three phases of >human testing occur prior to approval, and then >problems occur with the drug after approval, if you are >going to say the animal phase of testing "failed", then >logically you must say ALL of the three human testing >phases failed. Not at all, because the first three phases remove 80% of all the drugs which pass the animals testing stages. After that, when they reach phase four and onto the market, even more are removed, but not before killing thousand of patients first. >>>>>>Lie of omission: if the animal testing "failed", and >>>>>>is to be declared useless, then all the MUCH MORE [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And this is what I've explained to you No, this is what you've lied about. > All these deaths are a consequence of the drugs given to > patients after PASSING ALL the animal testing stages." All these deaths are a consequence of the drugs given to patients after PASSING ALL the ***HUMAN*** testing stages, which are the ONLY ones intended to show the drug is safe for human prescription. If you are going to be logically consistent, which of course as an "ara" you have no interest in being, you MUST say that those human testing phases are inherently flawed. You don't - you lie by omission. >>If one phase of animal testing and three phases of >>human testing occur prior to approval, and then [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Not at all Yes, at all: If you're going to say any one phase of testing "failed" prior to approval of the drug, leading to a bad approval, then you MUST logically say that ALL phases "failed". You don't - you lie by omission. QED >>>>>>>Lie of omission: if the animal testing "failed", and >>>>>>>is to be declared useless, then all the MUCH MORE [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >No, this is what you've lied about. So you claim, but the proof of what I wrote and what you keep snipping away is all stored in Google archives. <unsnip> And this is what I've explained to you plenty of times now, so stop pretending you didn't already know. The part you snipped away went; "After phase three in clinical trials, only 20% of all those drugs passed by the animals testing stages reach the market and into phase four. During this stage even more are removed, but not before proving how hazardous they were by killing hundreds of thousands of patients every year. [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 All these deaths are a consequence of the drugs given to patients after PASSING ALL the animal testing stages." >> All these deaths are a consequence of the drugs given to >> patients after PASSING ALL the animal testing stages." > >All these deaths are a consequence of the drugs given >to patients after PASSING ALL the ***HUMAN*** testing >stages, No, that's a lie because the fourth phase is on-going and removes even more of the drugs passed by animal testing. These drugs don't pass ALL the ***HUMAN*** testing, liar, and while you continue insisting only three clinical phases exist instead of the four which I've brought to your attention, you are lying by omission. >>>If one phase of animal testing and three phases of >>>human testing occur prior to approval, and then [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Yes, at all: Not at all, because the first three phases remove 80% of all the drugs which pass the animals testing stages. After that, when they reach phase four and onto the market, even more are removed, but not before killing thousand of patients first. >>>>>>>>Lie of omission: if the animal testing "failed", and >>>>>>>>is to be declared useless, then all the MUCH MORE [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > So you claim So I have proved. You keep lying about some fourth phase of testing, when we all know only three are required for approval. > All these deaths are a consequence of the drugs given to > patients after PASSING ALL the animal testing stages." And after passing the THREE humans phases required for approval. Of course, the animal phase is never interpreted by knowledgeable and thinking people as a guarantee of safety for general prescription to humans; ONLY the three human phases are intended to show that, and not as absolute proof of safety. The Great "ar" Lie of Omission is to neglect to point out that the human testing "failed", and only focus their ignorant attention on the animal testing, which wasn't intended to demonstrate overall safety anyway. It is a vile, criminal lie. >>>All these deaths are a consequence of the drugs given to >>>patients after PASSING ALL the animal testing stages." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, that's a lie because the fourth phase has nothing to do with the approval. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not at all Yes, at all: If you're going to say any one phase of testing "failed" prior to approval of the drug, leading to a bad approval, then you MUST logically say that ALL phases "failed". You don't - you lie by omission. QED >>>>>>>>>Lie of omission: if the animal testing "failed", and >>>>>>>>>is to be declared useless, then all the MUCH MORE [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >So I have proved. No, you haven't proved I lied about the first three phases, and this is easily proved by bringing back the paragraphs you keep snipping away where I describe them. <unsnip> Every new drug that comes onto the market has been through several testing phases in both animal and human trials. The animal testing trials, once over, are said to provide valuable information and a degree of safety to allow clinical trials to begin. In fact, according to ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the national institutes of health, only the drugs which show *promising* results are allowed to begin clinical trials. [Ideas for clinical trials usually come from researchers. After researchers test new therapies or procedures in the laboratory and in animal studies, the treatments with the most promising laboratory results are moved into clinical trials.] http://tinyurl.com/9d8c This promise, however, is a lie because once clinical trials begin 80% of the drugs said to show *promising* results from animal testing fail during the first three phases. [Testing in Humans For example, of 100 drugs for which investigational new drug applications are submitted to FDA, about 70 will successfully complete phase 1 trials and go on to phase 2; about 33 of the original 100 will complete phase 2 and go to phase 3; and 25 to 30 of the original 100 will clear phase 3 (and, on average, about 20 of the original 100 will ultimately be approved for marketing).] http://tinyurl.com/9d93 This small percentage, a mere 20%, is approved for marketing and enters into the fourth phase in clinical trials where they are tested on the general public. [Phase IV studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed. These studies continue testing the study drug or treatment to collect information about their effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.] http://tinyurl.com/9dj5 Studies using the general public for drug testing is nothing new because animal testing has always been a notoriously dangerous approach for filtering out substances that are dangerous to us. [Testimony revealed that it was common practice for drug companies to provide samples of experimental drugs, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, to physicians, who were then paid to collect data on their patients taking these drugs. Physicians throughout the country prescribed these drugs to patients without their knowledge or consent as part of this loosely controlled research. These practices and others prompted calls by Kefauver and other senators for an amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to address the injuriousness and ineffectiveness of certain drugs.] http://tinyurl.com/9db2 But nevertheless, even though much tougher controls are in place to ease the pressure pharmaceutical companies put upon us to test their drugs, the public is still being used as unwitting test subjects, and this practice is accountable for being the fourth or fifth leading cause of deaths among Americans. [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 So what does this promise given by animal testing actually provide, apart from an inaccurate assessment of the drugs it lets through and a legacy for being the fourth or fifth leading cause of deaths among the public who unwittingly test them? Another interesting question, is how many drugs which fail animal tests would have been beneficial to humans? ["Animal experimenters found, as a result of experimentation on animals that digitalis raised the blood-pressure, and, as a consequence, it was not used for some years on human beings. The fact that the blood-pressure is raised by digitalis was found - clinically - to be incorrect in the case of human beings, and it is now freely used in cases in which the laboratory experiments warned us that it would be dangerous." (Andrew S. McNeil, L.R.C.P.S. Ed., Medical World, February 5 1943, page 608.)] http://tinyurl.com/9ddg My concern is that once animal testing fails a beneficial drug, as in the case for digitalis, it can be lost to us forever as dangerous. Our reliance in using animals to test our drugs is possibly consigning thousands of perfectly good treatments to the dangerous list while more dangerous drugs are given to us as replacements. If it weren't for clinical trials, all four of them, the drugs passed as fit from animal testing to begin human trials would surely be killing a good deal more of the public in phase 4, seeing as 80% of them are thrown out during the first three stages before marketing, so why do defenders of animal testing conceal the fact that clinical trials reveal a huge error in animal trials? What other piece of testing apparatus can be shown to be the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths and yet still be allowed to continue in service? >You keep lying about some fourth phase of testing You do, rather, and this is despite being told of the existence of a fourth phase many times. [What are clinical trial phases? Clinical trials of experimental drugs proceed through four phases: In Phase I clinical trials, researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people (20-80) for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects. In Phase II clinical trials, the study drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people (100-300) to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety. In Phase III studies, the study drug or treatment is given to large groups of people (1,000-3,000) to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely. Phase IV studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed. These studies continue testing the study drug or treatment to collect information about their effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.] http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/c/a2r/info/whatis?JServSessionIdzone_ct=a4hnop56p1 Accept the fact that there ARE 4 phases of clinical trials, and not just 3, liar Jon. right on cue, Dreck pranced in and lied: >>>>>>>>>It's only during clinical trials, all 4 >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No, you haven't proved I lied about the first three phases Yes, you have. Mainly, you are lying about them by omission: you want to blame the earliest, least important phase of testing for alleged "failures", when the three human phases of testing that precede approval are much more closely linked with an attempt to demonstrate safety. > Accept the fact that there ARE 4 phases There are three phases of clinical trials prior to approval. We only are interested in what happens to gain approval in those very few instances in which a drug causes adverse reactions post-approval. There are three phases prior to approval. If you're going to be consistent, which of course lying "ara" shitbags have no interest in being, you must call them "failures" for letting a "bad" drug through. Of course, in over 90% of so-called "failures", the drug is simply relabeled to attach some new conditions to its use, and the drug remains on the market. The drug didn't "fail" at all in that case, and the animal testing had nothing to do with the problem. In fact, "failures" are often due to NOT ENOUGH animal testing. Thalidomide is the classic example: it is embryotoxic to ALL mammalian species, and if it had been tested on pregnant animals, it would never have been approved for prescription to pregnant human women. In fact, there are lots of drugs that are reasonably safe for general prescription that may not be prescribed to pregnant women. That knowledge comes, in part, from animal testing. Testing drugs on animals is generally effective and is morally acceptable. >right on cue, Dreck pranced in and lied: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Yes, you have. <unsnip> No, you haven't proved I lied about the first three phases, and this is easily proved by bringing back the paragraphs you keep snipping away where I describe them. <unsnip> Every new drug that comes onto the market has been through several testing phases in both animal and human trials. The animal testing trials, once over, are said to provide valuable information and a degree of safety to allow clinical trials to begin. In fact, according to ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the national institutes of health, only the drugs which show *promising* results are allowed to begin clinical trials. [Ideas for clinical trials usually come from researchers. After researchers test new therapies or procedures in the laboratory and in animal studies, the treatments with the most promising laboratory results are moved into clinical trials.] http://tinyurl.com/9d8c This promise, however, is a lie because once clinical trials begin 80% of the drugs said to show *promising* results from animal testing fail during the first three phases. [Testing in Humans For example, of 100 drugs for which investigational new drug applications are submitted to FDA, about 70 will successfully complete phase 1 trials and go on to phase 2; about 33 of the original 100 will complete phase 2 and go to phase 3; and 25 to 30 of the original 100 will clear phase 3 (and, on average, about 20 of the original 100 will ultimately be approved for marketing).] http://tinyurl.com/9d93 This small percentage, a mere 20%, is approved for marketing and enters into the fourth phase in clinical trials where they are tested on the general public. [Phase IV studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed. These studies continue testing the study drug or treatment to collect information about their effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.] http://tinyurl.com/9dj5 Studies using the general public for drug testing is nothing new because animal testing has always been a notoriously dangerous approach for filtering out substances that are dangerous to us. [Testimony revealed that it was common practice for drug companies to provide samples of experimental drugs, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, to physicians, who were then paid to collect data on their patients taking these drugs. Physicians throughout the country prescribed these drugs to patients without their knowledge or consent as part of this loosely controlled research. These practices and others prompted calls by Kefauver and other senators for an amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to address the injuriousness and ineffectiveness of certain drugs.] http://tinyurl.com/9db2 But nevertheless, even though much tougher controls are in place to ease the pressure pharmaceutical companies put upon us to test their drugs, the public is still being used as unwitting test subjects, and this practice is accountable for being the fourth or fifth leading cause of deaths among Americans. [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 So what does this promise given by animal testing actually provide, apart from an inaccurate assessment of the drugs it lets through and a legacy for being the fourth or fifth leading cause of deaths among the public who unwittingly test them? Another interesting question, is how many drugs which fail animal tests would have been beneficial to humans? ["Animal experimenters found, as a result of experimentation on animals that digitalis raised the blood-pressure, and, as a consequence, it was not used for some years on human beings. The fact that the blood-pressure is raised by digitalis was found - clinically - to be incorrect in the case of human beings, and it is now freely used in cases in which the laboratory experiments warned us that it would be dangerous." (Andrew S. McNeil, L.R.C.P.S. Ed., Medical World, February 5 1943, page 608.)] http://tinyurl.com/9ddg My concern is that once animal testing fails a beneficial drug, as in the case for digitalis, it can be lost to us forever as dangerous. Our reliance in using animals to test our drugs is possibly consigning thousands of perfectly good treatments to the dangerous list while more dangerous drugs are given to us as replacements. If it weren't for clinical trials, all four of them, the drugs passed as fit from animal testing to begin human trials would surely be killing a good deal more of the public in phase 4, seeing as 80% of them are thrown out during the first three stages before marketing, so why do defenders of animal testing conceal the fact that clinical trials reveal a huge error in animal trials? What other piece of testing apparatus can be shown to be the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths and yet still be allowed to continue in service? <endsnip right on cue, Dreck pranced in and lied: >>right on cue, Dreck pranced in and lied: >>>>>>No, this is what you've lied about. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > <unsnip> > No, you haven't proved I lied about the first three phases, I have proved it: you are lying by omission, like all other ignorant and dishonest "aras". > My concern is Your only concern is to lie in evil service to a filthy, intrinsically dishonest political agenda. [..] >> <unsnip> >> No, you haven't proved I lied about the first three phases, > >I have proved it: No, you haven't, and this is easily shown by bringing back the paragraphs you keep snipping away where I describe them. Every new drug that comes onto the market has been through several testing phases in both animal and human trials. The animal testing trials, once over, are said to provide valuable information and a degree of safety to allow clinical trials to begin. In fact, according to ClinicalTrials.gov, a service of the national institutes of health, only the drugs which show *promising* results are allowed to begin clinical trials. [Ideas for clinical trials usually come from researchers. After researchers test new therapies or procedures in the laboratory and in animal studies, the treatments with the most promising laboratory results are moved into clinical trials.] http://tinyurl.com/9d8c This promise, however, is a lie because once clinical trials begin 80% of the drugs said to show *promising* results from animal testing fail during the first three phases. [Testing in Humans For example, of 100 drugs for which investigational new drug applications are submitted to FDA, about 70 will successfully complete phase 1 trials and go on to phase 2; about 33 of the original 100 will complete phase 2 and go to phase 3; and 25 to 30 of the original 100 will clear phase 3 (and, on average, about 20 of the original 100 will ultimately be approved for marketing).] http://tinyurl.com/9d93 This small percentage, a mere 20%, is approved for marketing and enters into the fourth phase in clinical trials where they are tested on the general public. [Phase IV studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed. These studies continue testing the study drug or treatment to collect information about their effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.] http://tinyurl.com/9dj5 Studies using the general public for drug testing is nothing new because animal testing has always been a notoriously dangerous approach for filtering out substances that are dangerous to us. [Testimony revealed that it was common practice for drug companies to provide samples of experimental drugs, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, to physicians, who were then paid to collect data on their patients taking these drugs. Physicians throughout the country prescribed these drugs to patients without their knowledge or consent as part of this loosely controlled research. These practices and others prompted calls by Kefauver and other senators for an amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to address the injuriousness and ineffectiveness of certain drugs.] http://tinyurl.com/9db2 But nevertheless, even though much tougher controls are in place to ease the pressure pharmaceutical companies put upon us to test their drugs, the public is still being used as unwitting test subjects, and this practice is accountable for being the fourth or fifth leading cause of deaths among Americans. [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 So what does this promise given by animal testing actually provide, apart from an inaccurate assessment of the drugs it lets through and a legacy for being the fourth or fifth leading cause of deaths among the public who unwittingly test them? Another interesting question, is how many drugs which fail animal tests would have been beneficial to humans? ["Animal experimenters found, as a result of experimentation on animals that digitalis raised the blood-pressure, and, as a consequence, it was not used for some years on human beings. The fact that the blood-pressure is raised by digitalis was found - clinically - to be incorrect in the case of human beings, and it is now freely used in cases in which the laboratory experiments warned us that it would be dangerous." (Andrew S. McNeil, L.R.C.P.S. Ed., Medical World, February 5 1943, page 608.)] http://tinyurl.com/9ddg My concern is that once animal testing fails a beneficial drug, as in the case for digitalis, it can be lost to us forever as dangerous. Our reliance in using animals to test our drugs is possibly consigning thousands of perfectly good treatments to the dangerous list while more dangerous drugs are given to us as replacements. If it weren't for clinical trials, all four of them, the drugs passed as fit from animal testing to begin human trials would surely be killing a good deal more of the public in phase 4, seeing as 80% of them are thrown out during the first three stages before marketing, so why do defenders of animal testing conceal the fact that clinical trials reveal a huge error in animal trials? What other piece of testing apparatus can be shown to be the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths and yet still be allowed to continue in service? >you are lying by omission Rather, you are by insisting there are only three human phases rather than the four I keep proving exists with this evidence (below). [What are clinical trial phases? Clinical trials of experimental drugs proceed through four phases: In Phase I clinical trials, researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people (20-80) for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects. In Phase II clinical trials, the study drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people (100-300) to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety. In Phase III studies, the study drug or treatment is given to large groups of people (1,000-3,000) to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely. Phase IV studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed. These studies continue testing the study drug or treatment to collect information about their effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.] http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/c/a2r/info/whatis?JServSessionIdzone_ct=a4hnop56p1 >, like all other ignorant and dishonest "aras". Fallacy of division. >> My concern is > >Your only concern is to lie in evil service to a >filthy, intrinsically dishonest political agenda. Ipse dixit and false. > [..] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No, you haven't Yes, I have. Your tripe in no way gets you off the hook for your lie of omission. >>you are lying by omission > > Rather Yes, rather. Stop lying. >>>My concern is >> >>Your only concern is to lie in evil service to a >>filthy, intrinsically dishonest political agenda. >>>>No, you haven't proved I lied about the first three phases, >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Yes, I have. Your tripe in no way gets you off the >hook for your lie of omission. Unlike you, I haven't lied by omission by excluded the fourth phase in clinical trials and then claimed ALL the human phases must be said to have failed when only the first three might be said to have failed. The bottom line here is that your argument is specious while defending animal testing in this way. Quoting your so-called 'lie of omission' as the major premise in a conditional syllogism gives us: Lie of omission: 1) "If the animal testing "failed", and is to be declared useless, then all the MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE human clinical trials ALSO "failed", and necessarily must ALSO be declared useless." 2) Animal testing doesn't fail therefore 3) Clinical trials don't fail. You're denying the antecedent. Besides that, you're lying by omission while failing to declare all four phases of human trials instead of just the three you insist upon. Despite the evidence of this on-going fourth clinical trial, you still insist that ALL human trials fail if a dodgy drug passes the first three. You're lying by omission and using a specious argument to defend animal testing. >>>>>No, you haven't proved I lied about the first three phases, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Unlike you, I haven't lied by omission Yes, you have. You and all "ara" liars lie by omission by saying that only the testing on animals "fails", when in fact three much more extensive human clinical trial phases, which are much more directly focused on establishing safety, also took place in order to gain approval. If the animal testing phase is to be called a "failure", then logically you MUST call the human testing phases "failures", but you dishonestly omit to do so. That is a lie of omission: a deliberate lie of omission. > Dreck's Strawman: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're denying the antecedent. No one but you advances that shoddy argument. >>>>>>No, you haven't proved I lied about the first three phases, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Yes, you have. I include all four human phases while you omit phase four and then declare ALL human phases failed when a drug is removed from the shelves during phase four. What is it that removes those dangerous drugs if not phase four of clinical trials, Jon? [Phase IV studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed. These studies continue testing the study drug or treatment to collect information about their effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.] http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/c/a2r/info/whatis?JServSessionIdzone_ct=a4hnop56p1 >> 1) "If the animal testing "failed", and is to be declared >> useless, then all the MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >No one but you advances that shoddy argument. I've used your exact quote as the major premise to a syllogism which logically follows from it. It's your quote and your argument to promote animal testing, so stop lying and admit your reasoning is specious. Right on cue, Dreck pranced in and wrote: >>Right on cue, Dreck pranced in and wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I include all four human phases There are three phases of human clinical trials performed to gain approval. >>>1) "If the animal testing "failed", and is to be declared >>> useless, then all the MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I've used your exact quote as the major premise My statement is a complete argument in and of itself. Your shoddy strawman argument is entirely your own creation. In fact, it isn't an argument at all, NOT EVEN to illustrate Denying the Antecedent. Drop it. >>>>1) "If the animal testing "failed", and is to be declared >>>> useless, then all the MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >My statement is a complete argument in and of itself. And it commits a fallacy: denying the antecedent, so you ought to stop using it. >Your shoddy strawman argument is entirely your own >creation. How can your "complete argument, in and of itself" be MY straw man? You wrote the stupid thing. > In fact, it isn't an argument at all But you said it was a "complete argument in and of itself." Make up your mind, Jon. > NOT EVEN to illustrate Denying the Antecedent. The minor premise denies the antecedent of the major premise. Your argument is specious. >Drop it. That's my advice. Right on cue, Dreck pranced in and wrote: >> Right on cue, Dreck pranced in and wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > And it commits a fallacy: denying the antecedent No, it doesn't: it makes no denial of anything. Rather, it establishes that you lied by omission. >>Your shoddy strawman argument is entirely your own >>creation. > > How can your "complete argument, in and of itself" > be MY straw man? Your strawman is your fabrication of two other nonsense statements. > You wrote the stupid thing. No, you fabricated and wrote the two other nonsense statements. >>In fact, it isn't an argument at all > > But you said it was a "complete argument in and of itself." My statement is. Your additional nonsense statements appended to mine do not comprise an argument. >>NOT EVEN to illustrate Denying the Antecedent. >>> Derek wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >No, it doesn't Yes, it does, and I've demonstrated how and where exactly. >>>Your shoddy strawman argument is entirely your own >>>creation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Your strawman is your fabrication of two other nonsense >statements. Your minor premise and conclusion logically follow from your major premise. >> You wrote the stupid thing. > >No Yes, you did. >>>In fact, it isn't an argument at all >> >> But you said it was a "complete argument in and of itself." > >My statement is. Make up your mind. >>>NOT EVEN to illustrate Denying the Antecedent. <unsnip> The minor premise denies the antecedent of the major premise. Your argument is specious. >>>>Derek wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Yes, it does No, it doesn't. I didn't write the slovenly strawman; you did. >>>>Your shoddy strawman argument is entirely your own >>>>creation. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yes, you did. No. You fabricated two statements. I never advanced an argument like what you slopped together. >>>>In fact, it isn't an argument at all >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Make up your mind. The statement I wrote is a complete argument in and of itself. The bullshit you added is just worthless. > > >>>>NOT EVEN to illustrate Denying the Antecedent. >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >No, it doesn't. My syllogistic demonstration shows that your argument does deny the antecedent, and all your protests refuting this demonstration are of no use to you while that clear demonstration remains. You don't understand logic or deductive reasoning. >>>>You wrote the stupid thing. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No. Stop lying. Here (below) is your whole quote and a link to it proving you did in fact write it. "Lie of omission: if the animal testing "failed", and is to be declared useless, then all the MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE human clinical trials ALSO "failed", and necessarily must ALSO be declared useless. Jonathan Ball posting as Wilson Woods http://tinyurl.com/6bpou When are you going to stop lying, Jon? You're making a fool of yourself now, and using the nym Wilson Woods instead of your real name, Jonathan Ball doesn't get you off the hook either. We all know you're Jonathan the liar. > Stop lying. Here (below) is your whole quote and a link > to it proving you did in fact write it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > instead of your real name, Jonathan Ball doesn't get you > off the hook either. We all know you're Jonathan the liar. COMMENT: Why don't you guys start over? This stuff about accusing the other of using an alias isn't going anywhere. I read the article this whole argument is based on. Alas, it's done by a bunch of UK animal rights activists who based their argument on a review of historical articles in MEDLINE (ie in referenced journals) on the contribution of animal research to various medical developments. But most such historical surveys are IN medline journals. They're in history books, like (for example) the story of the discovery of vitamins E or K. Without animal studies, it wouldn't have happened, end of story. The authors overlook a huge amount of such nutritional stuff, and that's just for starters. Same with anesthesia. Nobody in their right mind would have dared knock a human out with ether unless they'd tried it first on a dog. Or give a human a spinal injection of cocaine for a spinal block, without trying THAT on an animal (what, do YOU want to be the first organism to get cocaine into your spine?!). And so on. But this is all history of medicine, not scholarly articles. Steve In article <79cf0a8.0407181100.2266d71@posting.google.com>, sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote: > Why don't you guys start over? This stuff about accusing the other of > using an alias isn't going anywhere. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > trying THAT on an animal (what, do YOU want to be the first organism > to get cocaine into your spine?!). Another area where animal research has been critical to developing human treatments is in many areas of surgery. Over the centuries, new operations have been tried first on animals before being attempted on humans. Transplantation is a field where this is especially true, as both the surgical technique and the immunosuppressive regimens needed to keep the organs from being rejected were developed in animal models before being tried on humans. (Again, do YOU want to be the first organism to have another's organ transplanted into you?) Another field is cardiac surgery, where giants in the field, like DeBakey and Blalock, spent years perfecting their techniques in the animal lab before attempting them on humans. Indeed, a recent HBO movie dramatized one such discovery by Alfred Blalock and his assistant Vivien Thomas), who together in the 1930's and 1940's developed an operation to reverse the invariably fatal cyanosis of the "blue baby" syndrome. Yes, it's a dramatization (and a rather conventional one at that), but it shows very powerfully how important research in dogs was to the development of this operation. Another area where animal research was critical is diabetes. Insulin was discovered through animal experimentation. Indeed, it's unlikely it could have been discovered any other way, as it took the grinding up of dog pancreas extract to discover that a specific protein factor decreased blood glucose. >And so on. But this is all history > of medicine, not scholarly articles. Actually, the history of medicine is not incompatible with scholarly articles. The history of medicine is a respected specialty among historians. It's just that most "scholarly" articles on the history of medicine are in history journals or (as you point out) history books, not in medical journals.  SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" Insulin was shown to be a factor in diabetes prior to Banting's experiment on beagles. Despite evidence in humans, scientists needed to see it "validated" in animals. Absurd but commonplace. As you may know, previous animal studies led to the faulty conclusion that diabetes was a disease of the liver. Blalock's and Thomas' dog experiments did not provide much confidence that the corrective surgery for Tetrology of Fallot would be successful. The experiments were, at best, an inexact model; the condition is rare in dogs, so they faked it by cutting out lung tissue. Often this type of "end around" leads to dreadfully misleading results (e.g., simulated strokes in animals that lead to medications that work on animals but fail in humans). Dr. Taussig suggested the surgery based on autopsy findings. Dr. Blalock called the dog experiments "not very conclusive." But he had respect for his, Taussig's, and Thomas' surgical experience and went forward. IMHO it is easily argued that the TOF surgery proceded despite, not because of animal experiments, but there's some wiggle room for disagreement. In any case, this is not the slam-dunk for animal experiments as commonly cited by the pro-vivisection side. >> Stop lying. Here (below) is your whole quote and a link >> to it proving you did in fact write it. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I read the article this whole argument is based on. No, you didn't. This whole argument is built around a quote from a book coauthored by a leading animal rights writer, Tom Regan, and a philosopher arguing against the proposition, Carl Cohen. >Alas, it's done by >a bunch of UK animal rights activists who based their argument on a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the discovery of vitamins E or K. Without animal studies, it wouldn't >have happened, end of story. Here's a reply to that very comment from Tom Regan. I took the liberty to type it directly from the book in question. [No one (at least no one with whom I am familiar) denies that sometimes, some people benefit from using some drug or from receiving some medical intervention originally developed and tested using animals. What is in dispute, in this context, is how much we have benefitted. Professor Cohen makes a number of claims on this topic. I consider two. First, he states that "In the history of modern medicine... virtually all of the greatest advances have relied essentially on animal research" (pg 85). This is false. Public health scholars who have studied improvements in human health attribute only a modest contribution ( somewhere between 3.5 and 5 per cent) to standard medical interventions that depend on animal model research. In particular, decline in mortality resulting from both infectious and chronic diseases are best explained by improvements to the environment and to changes in personal hygiene rather than because of the kinds of therapies professor Cohen describes in his essay. Professor Cohen's second claim arguably is different because more specific. Instead of saying something about "all the greatest advances" of modern medicine, he writes, "Vaccines, antibiotics, prosthetic devices, therapeutic drugs of every description, the basic science that will make possible advances not yet dreamed of, as well as the safety of products we consume every day - all are owed to animals research" (pg 120). Because this second point concerns specific medical therapies and tests, whereas the first point concerns much more, it is possible that the second is true while the first is false. To test the truth of point 2, consider the claimed importance of animal experimentation for the development and testing of therapeutic drugs. Professor Cohen would have us believe that we would not have access to these drugs unless they were first tested using animal models. Interpreted thus, what professor Cohen says is true but trivial, fully comparable to my saying, "We would not have newly elected representatives in congress today if people had not voted in the last election." Is that true? Yes. Does it tell us anything important? No. Why not? Because the only way to have newly elected representatives in Congress is for voters to have elected them. The situation respecting prescription drugs is similar. Throughout its regulatory history, there is not a single instance of the Food and Drug Administration's approving a drug that has not been tested on animals. So, yes, given the history of FDA regulatory practice, we would not have the prescription drugs we have today if they had not been tested on animals. That is true. But it is also trivial. Because the only way FDA has been willing to approve such drugs is after they were first tested on animals, it cannot be surprising that this is the only way drugs have become available on the market. Professor Cohen can be counted on to protest, insisting that his intention is to say something that is true and profound, not true and trivial. What might that be? How to answer is unclear. If his claim is that a matter of fact, ignoring regulatory policies and other extrascientific influences, we would not have the prescription drugs we do if they had not been tested on animals, he invites scepticism concerning how he could presume to know so much when the rest of us know so little. Who is to say what technologies might have been developed, and at what speed, if modern science had foresworn the use of animals and looked resolutely, as a community of investigators, for other ways to advance human understanding of disease and health? (Of course, many researchers already do this; but this is a point that can be set aside, given present interests.) Were professor Cohen to reply that generations of dedicated researchers would have failed, that they would have found nothing, the discussion is not moved forward. In general, we are not reassured that someone knows more than we think he does when he says he does for a second time. Suppose we grant Professor Cohen all that he might wish: the benefits human derive from animal experimentation not only are extraordinary but could not have been obtained in any other way. What, then? Has vivisection been justified, on utilitarian grounds? No. Why not? Because all those harms causally linked to reliance on animal model research must find their rightful place in the utilitarian mix. To fail to enter them into the calculations is manifestly to fail to make the utilitarian case in favour of vivisection. And there's the rub. Throughout his lengthy disquisition in praise of vivisection, one looks in vain to find so much as a hint that Professor Cohen is aware of the massive harm done to humans because of vivisection; one looks in vain as well for even the most modest effort to weigh the relevant harms preparatory to combining them with the alleged benefits. Are the harms calculable, the benefits not? Or are the harms, as the benefits are said to be, incalculable too? In either case, where is the honest effort made to meet those demands of rational justification?] Tom Regan. The Animal Rights Debate. Pg. 305 >The authors overlook a huge amount of >such nutritional stuff, and that's just for starters. They're discussing the proposition of animal rights, not nutrition, and if you'd "read the article this whole argument is based on.", as you claimed to have done, then you would've known that. >Same with anesthesia. Nobody in their right mind would have dared >knock a human out with ether unless they'd tried it first on a dog. Or >give a human a spinal injection of cocaine for a spinal block, without >trying THAT on an animal (what, do YOU want to be the first organism >to get cocaine into your spine?!). And so on. If human volunteers cannot be found, then so be it: go without. >But this is all history >of medicine, not scholarly articles. > >Steve > Here's a reply to that very comment from Tom Regan. I took > the liberty to type it directly from the book in question. > Professor Cohen makes a number of claims on this topic. I > consider two. First, he states that "In the history of modern [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > changes in personal hygiene rather than because of the kinds > of therapies professor Cohen describes in his essay. Actually, this is a point to which there is a lot of contention. There really is no way to parcel out death reduction in this century (which is mainly due to saving children from infectious deaths) to sanitation vs antibiotics vs modern fluid/electrolyte therapy vs vaccine use vs improved knowledge of nutrition. They all happened simultaneously and nobody ever did the controlled experiments to find out what was doing what. There's no doubt the with good sanitation a lot fewer people die of dysentery. It's also true that with good medical care, children no longer die of dysentery even when they do get it. And a lot of that is due to basic understanding of physiology which is impossible to come by without controlled experiments which are destructive. If you give too much potassium intravenously to a cholera victim, you'll kill them. So how much is safe to give? There's no way to find out but by giving more and more potassium until you start killing people with it. Your comment here is: "If you can't find volunteers, then do without." By answer is simply that I don't want to do without. And I vote that YOU be the volunteer for the IV potassium challenge, since you don't like use of animals for this. I think most cholera patients and their families would vote the same way. > The situation respecting prescription drugs is similar. Throughout > its regulatory history, there is not a single instance of the Food [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > surprising that this is the only way drugs have become available > on the market. We see the point, but it's obvious WHY the FDA requires animal tests of new chemicals which MIGHT be drugs. There is no such thing as a "new drug." There's just a yellow powder from a test tube in a lab, which has never existed before. It might be a slow poison, a quick poison, an inactive compound. What drug activity it has is a mystery. Nobody in their right mind would ever test toxicity of a new molecule from a lab by putting it in healthy people. Nor could you put it in ill people if you didn't even know what class of drug it might be. Back to my comments about voluneteers. You first. > Suppose we grant Professor Cohen all that he might wish: the > benefits human derive from animal experimentation not only are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > utilitarian mix. To fail to enter them into the calculations is manifestly > to fail to make the utilitarian case in favour of vivisection. We really have no way to guage human harm resulting from reliance on animal models to do things first. We'd have to run a side by side human experiment in which we developed something using only human volunteers. Not only would this be illegal, but even if we made it legal, nobody in their right mind would do it. So you couldn't even run the experiment to TEST how well things would work without animal-use. Though there is some pleasure in contemplating such a trial, using animal-rights activists as standins for the animals in the human arm. > And there's the rub. Throughout his lengthy disquisition in praise of > vivisection, one looks in vain to find so much as a hint that Professor > Cohen is aware of the massive harm done to humans because of > vivisection; COMMENT One looks in vain at the animal rights literature to see any kind of good evidence for the extravigant claims they make in this direction. They argument they use is always specious, and it goes like this: Animal trials of drug-candidate molecules catch a lot of problems which keep the molecules from going on to human testing, but not all of them. It's not fair to blame the animal testing process for the failures, because THOSE would have been failures even if you hadn't used animals. My impresssion is that the extra confidence gained from doing the animal tests actually harms few humans, because drugs that have been though animal trials are still treated with a lot of respect and fear in phase I and II human testing. Would you have even more respect and fear testing virgin chemicals in humans which had ever been put into an animal? Sure. But you'd also have a set of much more dangerous chemicals, too. I think it would more than even out. But of course, the experiment has never been done, for reasons discussed above. > >The authors overlook a huge amount of > >such nutritional stuff, and that's just for starters. > > They're discussing the proposition of animal rights, not nutrition, > and if you'd "read the article this whole argument is based on.", > as you claimed to have done, then you would've known that. I'm looking at claims for how we got medical advances. Knowing about vitamins and nutritional components (fluids, electrolytes, etc) are medical advances used by doctors every day. But they mostly come out of animal research, because it's hard to get human volunteers to eat a vitamin C free diet until their teeth fall out. Or at least it is, these days. Once upon a time (18th century) you could do it. But a lot of horrible things were done in the 18th century we wouldn't tolerate now. Slavery, impressment, etc. > >Same with anesthesia. Nobody in their right mind would have dared > >knock a human out with ether unless they'd tried it first on a dog. Or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If human volunteers cannot be found, then so be it: go without. No, YOU go without. If you want your surgery without anesthesia, be my guest. Good luck finding a surgeon. We all live on the deaths of animals. Anybody who has harvested a field of wheat knows what it does to the field mice and many other small mammals it harbors. And that's not counting the total destruction of the virgin forest or great plains area in the first place for farming. How much habitat and how many animals was that? If you stay on this planet, you do it at the expense of mammals who'd be taking your spot if you weren't here. I suggest you animal rights blokes all admit this, and quit your whining. You're in this mess with all the rest of us. The only way to get out is just shoot yourselves and leave your spot to the critters. And of course, please remember not to reproduce first. SBH >> Here's a reply to that very comment from Tom Regan. I took >> the liberty to type it directly from the book in question. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >nobody ever did the controlled experiments to find out what was doing >what. Then you must agree with Regan when criticizing Cohen for remarking, "In the history of modern medicine... virtually all of the greatest advances have relied essentially on animal research" (pg 85) As you concede, with Regan, "decline in mortality resulting from both infectious and chronic diseases are best explained by improvements to the environment and to changes in personal hygiene rather than because of the kinds of therapies professor Cohen describes in his essay. >There's no doubt the with good sanitation a lot fewer people die of >dysentery. It's also true that with good medical care, children no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Your comment here is: "If you can't find volunteers, then do without." >By answer is simply that I don't want to do without. Then become a volunteer yourself and start acting ethically. >And I vote that >YOU be the volunteer for the IV potassium challenge, since you don't >like use of animals for this. If I were desperate or ill enough to need it, I would volunteer, as most desperately sick patients do, for clinical trials of the substance or therapy which might hopefully ease their pain or cure them. >I think most cholera patients and their >families would vote the same way. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Back to my comments about voluneteers. You first. Of course, since it would be the only ethical way to test it. >> Suppose we grant Professor Cohen all that he might wish: the >> benefits human derive from animal experimentation not only are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >We really have no way to guage human harm resulting from reliance on >animal models to do things first. Then you are in agreement with Regan, because this failure to gauge harms, and the failure to then be able to enter them into the moral calculus utilitarianism demands manifestly fails to make a utilitarian case in favour of vivisection. It can't be done. > We'd have to run a side by side >human experiment in which we developed something using only human >volunteers. Not only would this be illegal, but even if we made it >legal, nobody in their right mind would do it. Sufferers are begging to involve themselves in clinical trials in the hope of some respite, and paid volunteers will meet the rest of the demand, especially as they're human models rather than the nude, transgenic and knockout mice you're currently struggling with. >So you couldn't even >run the experiment to TEST how well things would work without [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >failures, because THOSE would have been failures even if you hadn't >used animals. But when animals are used, as they currently are, and 80% of the drugs they pass fail during the first three phases in clinical trials, and then go on to kill hundreds of thousands of patients in phase four, then each of those failures belie the pass results given in the animal testing phases. >My impresssion is that the extra confidence gained from >doing the animal tests actually harms few humans, because drugs that >have been though animal trials are still treated with a lot of respect >and fear in phase I and II human testing. [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 And that's after the first three human phases removed 80% of the drugs passed during ALL the animal testing stages. If it weren't for the careful way in which the first three human phases are followed, then even more of the general public would be killed in phase four. >Would you have even more >respect and fear testing virgin chemicals in humans which had ever >been put into an animal? No. > Sure. I wrote, "No." >But you'd also have a set of much more >dangerous chemicals, too. And that's why I wrote, "No." >I think it would more than even out. Ipse dixit. >But of >course, the experiment has never been done, for reasons discussed [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >of animal research, because it's hard to get human volunteers to eat a >vitamin C free diet until their teeth fall out. That isn't WHY medical research use animals, "because it's hard to get human volunteers ...." or because we haven't enough patients with the particular ailment researchers are trying to find cures for. They use animals because it's cheaper and faster, but that rush to find our cures is a crime against animals and the patients killed by the prescribed treatments and drugs derived in this way. >Or at least it is, >these days. Once upon a time (18th century) you could do it. But a lot >of horrible things were done in the 18th century we wouldn't tolerate >now. There are many cases throughout medical history were human subjects have been used unethically to collect data to get medicine where it is today. More modern- day examples are; [Two of the cases that Beecher cited were especially important in provoking public indignation over the conduct of human research. One case involved researchers who fed live hepatitis virus to the residents of Willowbrook, a New York State institution for the retarded, in order to study the etiology of the disease and attempt to create a protective vaccine against it. The other case involved physicians injecting live cancer cells into twenty two elderly and senile hospitalized patients at the Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease hospital without telling them that the cells were cancerous, in order to study the body's immunological responses. (Ibid.) Another case that caused fierce public reaction in the early 1970's was the Tuskegee research of the US Public Health Service. Its researchers had been visiting Macon County, Alabama since the 1930's to examine, but not treat a group of African Americans who were suffering from secondary syphilis. The objective was to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis. Four hundred subject-victims were studied, along with two hundred uninfected control subjects. The study, whose first published scientific paper appeared In 1938, continued until a news paper account of it appeared in 1972. Its subject-victims were either uninformed or misinformed about the purpose of the study, as well as its associated interventions.] http://www.gulfwarvets.com/cristie.htm >Slavery, impressment, etc. Even prisoners; [Experimental medical research on inmates is on the rise. by Silja J.A. Talvi Research involving human subjects has become big business. Currently, more than 10,000 programs and an estimated 45,000 researchers conduct medical research on humans in the United States. With some 2 million Americans now behind bars, prisoners are increasingly being viewed in utilitarian terms by researchers eager to test experimental procedures on an array of chronic medical problems, ranging from asthma to cancer. Prisoners represent a particularly compelling and convenient test group for anti-viral medicines and vaccines: At least 17 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States have spent time in correctional facilities, and the HIV rate in prisons is believed to be six times greater than in the outside population. In addition, prison populations have the highest concentrations of Hepatitis C in the country; from state to state, between 20 to 60 percent of inmates are believed to harbor the virus.] http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/03/feature4.shtml >> >Same with anesthesia. Nobody in their right mind would have dared >> >knock a human out with ether unless they'd tried it first on a dog. Or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >No, YOU go without. I do. We all do. We still haven't cured many ailments which I'm sure could be cured much quicker if we used healthy children instead of animal models, but we don't, so we go without. So be it, and rightly so. >If you want your surgery without anesthesia, be my >guest. Good luck finding a surgeon. Anaesthesia already exists, and there's no moral obstacle in using what is already available. >We all live on the deaths of animals. Anybody who has harvested a >field of wheat knows what it does to the field mice and many other >small mammals it harbors. And that's not counting the total >destruction of the virgin forest or great plains area in the first >place for farming. How much habitat and how many animals was that? You'd better ask the person[s] who killed them. >If you stay on this planet, you do it at the expense of mammals who'd >be taking your spot if you weren't here. I suggest you animal rights >blokes all admit this, and quit your whining. You're in this mess with >all the rest of us. Rather, they're making the mess and we're putting the brakes on to stop them. Vivisectionists don't do what they do in my name; they do it for themselves. >The only way to get out is just shoot yourselves >and leave your spot to the critters. You're ranting now. >And of course, please remember not to reproduce first. >SBH > >Would you have even more > >respect and fear testing virgin chemicals in humans which had ever [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I wrote, "No." Well, then, you're a fool. Because the actions of a drug in various animals do somewhat predict what the drug will do in humans. It's not a perfect prediction, rather it's more like a weather forcast. It's much better than nothing. Just as the actions of a drug in one species somewhat predicts action in another. Exceptions (and there are many) say nothing about the general trend. > >But you'd also have a set of much more > >dangerous chemicals, too. > > And that's why I wrote, "No." And that's why you'd be wrong. A chemical which hasn't been through multispecies animal tests is far more dangerous to use in humans than one you don't know what to expect from. You obviously have spent little time in vet clinics, where almost all of the anesthetics, antibiotics, and other pharmaceuticals are all perfectly recognizable to a human doctor, since they're used in multiple animal species for just the same thing they are used for, in people. Without concordance of pharmacological effect, this would be impossible. > That isn't WHY medical research use animals, "because it's > hard to get human volunteers ...." or because we haven't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > animals and the patients killed by the prescribed treatments > and drugs derived in this way. You're wrong. It's hard to get human volunteers for much of what we need to do to test drugs. It's impossible in the modern tort climate, in fact. The "rush to find cures" is because people are dying without them. Cheaper and faster means lives saved. > There are many cases throughout medical history were > human subjects have been used unethically to collect > data to get medicine where it is today. More modern- > day examples are; [Beside the point historical cases deleted] You admit these were unethical. So we can't just start doing it again, to save animals. > >> >Same with anesthesia. Nobody in their right mind would have dared > >> >knock a human out with ether unless they'd tried it first on a dog. Or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I do. We all do. No, you don't. If you have surgery, you'll use the anesthetic gases and agents we first invented using animals. Which have responses to general anesthetics very much like those of humans. > We still haven't cured many ailments > which I'm sure could be cured much quicker if we used > healthy children instead of animal models, but we don't, > so we go without. So be it, and rightly so. Which you're "sure" would be cured much quicker if we used healthy children? What do you know about it? How much cross species testing of new pharmaceuticals have you done? I myself just finished preliminary testing of a new anesthetic preparation in dogs. Which data successfully predicted its performace in cats. Which predicted its performance in rabbits. So that when we finally tested it in horses, we knew what to expect. And we were right. That abstract was just accepted and will be presented next year at a vet conference in Europe. According to you, all that is pure luck. But I've been there, and I know differently. > >If you want your surgery without anesthesia, be my > >guest. Good luck finding a surgeon. > > Anaesthesia already exists, and there's no moral obstacle > in using what is already available. I don't see why there is no moral obstacle. Would you continue to use the products of slave labor, if you were campaigning against slavery? > >We all live on the deaths of animals. Anybody who has harvested a > >field of wheat knows what it does to the field mice and many other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You'd better ask the person[s] who killed them. I'm asking you. If you continue to benefit from it, and you know it, and you don't stop, then it's the same as if you did it yourself. Again, see use of products of slave labor. Next you'll be telling us you eat meat because you didn't kill it, and (heck) it was already dead. So why not eat it? > >If you stay on this planet, you do it at the expense of mammals who'd > >be taking your spot if you weren't here. I suggest you animal rights [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on to stop them. Vivisectionists don't do what they do in my > name; they do it for themselves. Antivivisectionists do it too, but are hypocrites. > >The only way to get out is just shoot yourselves > >and leave your spot to the critters. > > You're ranting now. Nope, just being logical. Either you're part of the food chain or you're not. > >And of course, please remember not to reproduce first. YOu get that? SBH >> >Would you have even more respect and fear testing >> >virgin chemicals in humans which had ever been put [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Well, then, you're a fool. Obviously not, since, as you've pointed out, "But you'd have a set of much more dangerous chemicals too." >> >But you'd also have a set of much more >> >dangerous chemicals, too. >> >> And that's why I wrote, "No." > >And that's why you'd be wrong. Then why did you write it? >> That isn't WHY medical research use animals, "because it's >> hard to get human volunteers ...." or because we haven't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >You're wrong. I've proved I'm right with evidence; [106,000 Americans died and another 1.3 million were injured as a result of adverse reactions to properly prescribed drugs... Deaths due to drug reactions are the fourth or fifth leading cause of death.] http://tinyurl.com/9d91 >It's hard to get human volunteers for much of what we >need to do to test drugs. Ipse dixit and false. >It's impossible in the modern tort climate, in fact. Evidence please, and bear in mind that clinical trials already exist while you're looking for it. >> >> >Same with anest |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message