Animal rights; which is your view?

Fifer

From Wiki (but the references are listed at the foot of the article):

"Thalidomide had 'passed' safety tests performed on animals, primarily because the proper tests — particularly those involving pregnant animals — had not been done. A court trial revealed that some tests were either conducted inadequately, or the results were faked.

There is also some evidence that the tests were carried out on a particular isomer of the drug, which forms a racemic mixture in the body. One element of this mixture has the intended beneficial action, while the other creates the horrific side effects.

The failure of these tests to discover the drug's disastrous consequences highlighted the inadequacy of testing methodologies in use at that time. This resulted in a dramatic increase in animal testing across a broad range of species in varying stages of pregnancy and lifecycle. In fact, later tests did demonstrate that administering thalidomide to rabbits and mice produces characteristic deformities in the offspring, although thalidomide has no effect on pregnant rats' offspring, (see Blake DA, Gordon GB, Spielberg SP. The role of metabolic activation in thalidomide teratogenesis. Teratology 1982;25(2):28A-29A.). If adequate testing had been done, thalidomide would never have been approved for pregnant women."

The same is true of penicillin. A proper testing regime (not that used by Fleming or Florey) would have demonstrated both effectively and safety.

7th_Song

As much as I enjoy wiki, I think I'll stay with primary sources, the Thalidomide entry seems to change constantly and includes a discussion request that ends with "We need to improve Wikipedia's credibility"

If thalidomide was pushed through, resulting in unreliable data, is there any reason to suggest that the same thing cannot happen again when huge profits beckon. A lot of the results of testing are discarded, in the case of Viagra it was found to damage livers in rats, constipate mice and cause extreme pain in the backs of beagles but these results were all considered irrelevant.

The victims of TGN1412 are no doubt looking forward to an explanation of what happened to them when a very small dose, despite being given the all clear by mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys, resulted in them being labelled the elephant men.

With regard to penicillin, Florey's point was that had the product been tested exhaustively using animals, production would have been greatly delayed if not prevented altogether.

A recent report for the NHS "Testing Treatment on Animals: Relevance to Humans" concluded amongst other things that:

animal tests fail to reliably predict effects in humans;
many animal experiments are of poor quality;
the results of animal tests are not being adequately communicated to those conducting later clinical trials.


Similarly, Dr. Richard Klausner, director of the US National Cancer Institute, has stated:

"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans."

Fifer

7th_Song wrote:

As much as I enjoy wiki, I think I'll stay with primary sources, the Thalidomide entry seems to change constantly and includes a discussion request that ends with "We need to improve Wikipedia's credibility"

I only quoted Wiki as a quick source, but did mention their references. There are 11 learned references at the foot of this article if you prefer something more academic.

If thalidomide was pushed through, resulting in unreliable data, is there any reason to suggest that the same thing cannot happen again when huge profits beckon.

There's every reason. Thalidomide was over 40 years ago. The incident was the trigger for all the medicines safety legislation we have today.

7th_Song

40 years, and corruption, greed and incompetence are as prevalent as ever, if not moreso.

Fifer

7th_Song wrote:

40 years, and corruption, greed and incompetence are as prevalent as ever, if not moreso.

Even if that were true, the law is much more strict in protecting people. Something must be working. We haven't had another tragedy on the scale of thalidomide. One thing which is much more prevalent is violence and threats against people who have even the most tenuous links with animal testing.

Just curious 7th Song; do you or your family never take any prescription or over-the-counter medications, pharmaceuticals or oral contraceptives?

victoriav

Fifer, I only ever have had homeopathic remedies if anything at all same as all my family, ...you'll have to try 'ah but I bet you wear leather shoes though'........If a drug had been tested on only a human, same species as me, then I'd maybe try it in a dire emergency...

victoriav

To reply to Coveredinbees post, QUOTE: 'I didn't get to the top of the food chain to eat broccoli and wear sandals' Maybe you would like to clog up your arteries with a greasy burger instead whilst relishing and smiling to yourself about the slaughter of the animal..........who told you that you were at the top of the food chain, your mam?

While I'm at it I wonder if people were forced to go witness the inside of an abbatoir if they would still desire to eat dead animals.....well maybe just the sicko's...... I rest my case.....

Fifer

victoriav wrote:

While I'm at it I wonder if people were forced to go witness the inside of an abbatoir if they would still desire to eat dead animals.....well maybe just the sicko's...... I rest my case.....

I was brought up on and around farms and I've seen inside abattoirs. I still eat meat. My vegetarian psychiatric nurse DW assures me I'm perfectly normal and not a 'sicko'. I think you rested your case prematurely ...

victoriav wrote:

If a drug had been tested on only a human, same species as me, then I'd maybe try it in a dire emergency...

Sorry Victoria, but there are no medicinal products which have not been tested on animls. They would be illegal in the UK and most of the rest of the world. Best hope for no dire emergencies ...

7th_Song

The BUAV, who are no doubt used to constantly being asked the cliched question, post this response:

"Unfortunately most pharmaceuticals will indeed have been tested on animals without your consent, regardless of the fact that animal testing offers no guarantee of human safety. However, taking these drugs does not exclude you from voicing your opposition to animal testing. Nor does it mean that you subscribe to the notion that the drug was necessarily developed in the safest and most reliable or ethical way. It is an entirely coherent position to take such drugs and yet firmly believe that there are safer, more reliable and humane techniques for developing and safety testing medicines for human conditions."

"Unfortunately almost everything in modern society has been tested on animals at one point or another. The dye in the carpet we walk on, the chemicals in the plastics from which our computers are made, the colouring in our food, even water. Clearly, it is impossible to live without water and unless all anti-vivisectionists condemn themselves to a virtually hermitic lifestyle excluding all interaction with the outside world, it is clearly impossible as citizens to either explicitly or implicitly avoid animal testing altogether. It is to the advantage of only the pro-vivisectionist to convince those who object to vivisection, that a pre-requisite for that position is total abstention from pharmaceuticals. That simply is not a valid argument because its only logical conclusion is that we should in fact abstain from everything."

For myself I am not sure that I am totally against all animal testing per se, I am just concerned that drug companies are not entirely trustworthy, that profitable drugs are more their concern than useful ones and that the dogmatic approach of the pros is as worrying as the antis.

I try to use all drugs as little as possible, I'm in no hurry to introduce any toxins into my body and have been subject to a range of side effects. When you next take anything read carefully the small print on the little leaflet, most of them will contain a long list of possible side effects, probably for legal reasons rather than out of genuine concern for the user.

Fifer

You could twist that argument for wearing fur. BTW, they don't seem to realise it, but all pharmaceuticals are tested on animals.

On the subject of cliches, their name is one. Is it just vivisection they are against or all animal testing?