Animal Testing 24 February 2015 at 4:52PM in Campaigns corner 38 replies 10.4K views

welshbookworm

Thalidomide was tested on animals and deemed safe - tell that to the 10,000 people affected by it
Penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs and useless to rabbits, but works well on humans
Aspirin causes birth defects in mice but not humans
Animals are different to humans and drugs react differently

malkie76

welshbookworm wrote: »

Thalidomide was tested on animals and deemed safe - tell that to the 10,000 people affected by it
Penicillin is toxic to guinea pigs and useless to rabbits, but works well on humans
Aspirin causes birth defects in mice but not humans
Animals are different to humans and drugs react differently

I could pull apart every point in your post to demonstrate why you are incorrect or misled. Is there any value in doing so ? (ie are you willing to enter a scientific debate, and be willing to alter your opinion when presented with compelling science ?)

arbroath_lass

antrobus wrote: »

Yes you did. You commented on mine.:)

You did not give an opinion, you quoted from the L'Oreal website. I answered your questions.

antrobus wrote: »

And if people don't want them changed then what? Will you continue to go around loftlily complaining that "Its because of people like you this happens" as if said 'people' were somehow morally inferior to you, just because they hold a contrary opinion?

Please check the previous posts. This was the OP made that comment, not me.

bluelass

Bagpuss741 wrote: »

Me too and I also will not wear any leather or suede which makes buying winter boots quite a task

Deichmann sell some really nice synthetic material boots and shoes. I got some faux suede and fur ugg type boots for £28.

SailorSam

antrobus wrote: »

We do eat them you know.:)

The only cows (beef) i eat, are those that have been eating grass.
So does that make me nearly a vegetarian ?

Corelli

Perhaps easier to read: http://antidote-europe.org/en/letter-andre-menache-cancer-research-cruk/

malkie76

I'd be careful reproducing BMJ material without their consent. I think it's also against MSE rules.

Reasonably well written article, but suffers from slight bias and cherry picking data to make points. I also struggle to trust articles written by people with no clinical or preclinical research experience (according to their backgrounds).

BMJ wrote:

If the foundations of the biomedical research enterprise are unsound, then whatever is built on these foundations will be similarly precarious.

I totally agree with this point, but it leads me to question how better to utilise animals for research purposes, rather than throw the baby out with the bath water. The contributions of animal research to modern medicine is undeniable, however it cannot be stated that errors have not been made.

welshbookworm

malkie76 wrote: »

I could pull apart every point in your post to demonstrate why you are incorrect or misled. Is there any value in doing so ? (ie are you willing to enter a scientific debate, and be willing to alter your opinion when presented with compelling science ?)

My opinion on animal testing is that it is a necessary evil.
A lot of medical animal testing (especially historic testing) was the only available testing and not doing it would had caused millions of human deaths and illnesses.But, currently there appears to be a lot of multiple testing of very similar products by different companies because new drugs are very big money makers.
But the other extreme of animal testing, testing cosmetics and other unneeded items seems wrong on so many levels.
We will always need animals for testing, but the nearer that gets to zero, the happier I will be.

malkie76

Totally agree with your thoughts there - a drive to eliminate animal use is ongoing and make huge strides forwards. If you could write computer software to identify the perfect drug for a disease you'd be an instant billionaire!

However, drugs with even minor chemical differences can have dramatically different biological effects, hence any new chemical structure being planned for clinical development needs to go through rigorous appropriate testing.

welshbookworm

malkie76 wrote: »

However, drugs with even minor chemical differences can have dramatically different biological effects, hence any new chemical structure being planned for clinical development needs to go through rigorous appropriate testing.

Having been on 4 different epilepsy medications on the last 4 months and had to come off 2 of them because the side effects were worse than the epilepsy (12 hours of tremors a day with one medication!) I appreciate how very subtle differences can have a huge difference. Even so, if companies could work together share their results, there would be less animals used and better medications would be available quicker.