it does make you think why we keep injecting millions of pounds in to animal based research and yet to this day we still have not found the cures for the major diseases, no matter what educational establishment you have been too, i would like for someone to answer that simple question, are we all been conned with our tax money
lol. Any 5th grader could tell you the similarities too :)...Mammals, carbon-based life forms, DNA-based. Sometimes the differences between humans and animals are important in figuring out how something works.
"sadist" or "greedy" lol, you're not very bright if you think those are the only 2 options. For the record, I do smell trollery.
why not use harmonic resonance of sound? you can see with sound. the ancients used sound for almost everything. our brains use harmonic resonance patterns of tones. geometry is the pattern that the brain makes out of tones. the brain have 7 sets of duplicate patterns interfering with each other. each set have a color. the interference pattern create symmetrical folds of geometry. the inverse patterns create temporal particles. light does not contain colors. light only reflect geometric patterns
Dear viewers of this video, do not be fooled by Dr. Menache's misleading arguments. For people without a science background, I understand that reliable information on this subject can be difficult to find. Allow me to help.
I am a medical student with a background in animal protein analysis. If you are on the fence about the pros/cons of animal research or have any serious questions about the MANY uses of animals in research, plz message me. I'm not arguing on this comment board anymore though.
@MarshalNey13 I notice you are no longer replying to my comments which thoroughly refute your vested interests with evidence. IE human medicine cannot be based on any other species and to do so is counterproductive for humans. Again, if you can name one animal which is predictive for humans please tell me. I advise viewers to scroll down and see my comments and to see curedisease. net mrmcmed. org vivisectioninformation. com
@MarshalNey13 No, YOU don't know what you're talking about. Any 5th grader would know the DIFFERENCE between humans and non human species. You are either a sadist and got into the fireld so you could torture animals unpunished, or you are greedy and care ONLY about money, or you are an idiot. Take your pick.
another is that it's so easy to publish. "A rat is an animal which when injected produces a paper" as the saying goes, which means easy work in this 'publish or perish' scientific world. Clinical research is infinitely more valuable, but requires ingenuity, planning, people skills, and time. Anyone can do animal experiments - they may not give useful results but at least they're results
This causes other motives, ie the scientists are trained almost exclusively in animal experiments and the whole system is set up for them, peopel have careers, titles, qualifications, status and income based on them. I am not saying that none of these people (especially young people) are frauds who really never wanted to cure cancer etc, only that they have been misled from the outset
@J801506 There are many motives the main one is that they will pass anything as 'safe' and that provides legal protection to drug co's but also chem co's, kept warnings off cigarette packs for 10 years, no payouts for thalidomide etc. AE is expensive but it is a lot cheaper than being sued and when your products are the fourth largest cause of death in western world (pharmaceuticals) you need legal protection, thats why drug/chem co's donate to uni's
@J801506 His licence would be from south africa, you are suggesting it si froma third world country by saying 'africa' instead of south africa. ps you directed this comment to yourself when you said 'so dont bother responding anymore to me.'
When you say he is a fraud are you suggesting that he is not a qualified veterinarian?
@J801506 2009...Dr Kelly BéruBé, Cardiff University, speaking on the Today Programme, BBC Radio 4, 4th June
Now we can do our experiments in petri dishes with functional human tissue. Now you have human data, so no need for the rat. I say, why use a rat when a human lung will do?
I don’t see any reason why we can’t use human tissue. It’s the best way to go. You get human end point data, you don’t have to worry about saying, well, this happened in the rat, this might happen in man.
"I don’t see any reason why we can’t use human tissue. It’s the best way to go. You get human end point data, you don’t have to worry about saying, well, this happened in the rat, this might happen in man."
@MarshalNey13 Why do both when only one is predictive for humans? "...you don’t have to worry about saying, well, this happened in the rat, this might happen in man"
Because you're not using actual humans, right? You're using human cells in a DISH. That is very different from how these cells would act in the body. There is still use in using them in that setting but it's no a substitute. The only alternative that is better in every way to animal testing is using real human subjects. That would be highly unethical. using "both" human cell cultures and animals is the next best thing.
@MarshalNey13 No, human cells are more accurate and can now be followed with comp. model of human body. mice are not predictive for humans (in fact even monkeys are not predictive) so the fact that they are a living system is irrelevant. Unless you can show that they are predictive ie correct even half the time there is no substance to your claims
So we can’t trust scientists (the authorities on the matter) because they are “in” on this huge conspiracy? You’re delusional. If scientists could generate good data without animals they would, but they use them because they are useful…mice are cheap, genetically mapped, easy to breed, expendable and more ethical alternatives to using human subjects for risky tests.
“cherry picking.” You’re accusing me of cherry picking? You quoted experiments from the 1940’s…that’s 70 years ago dude. I gave you an example that continues to save tens of thousands of lives. I think all the animals sacrificed thus far would be worth that trade alone, not to mention the advances in genetics, proteomics, and just about every other field. Btw, exactly how many individual examples do you expect anyone to cite on a Youtube video?
“It is not possible to account for the differences predictively, only retrospectively this makes the animal of no value for huamn medical research.” I already addressed this last post, you’re just blindly regurgitating your debunked “predictive” argument. Unless you have something particularly profound to say, or counter my points in a logical and informed way, I’m done with you. You are hopelessly misinformed and I hope one day you’ll be able to appreciate what medical science has done for you.
@MarshalNey13 You have not responded to this as you have not shown what animal is predictive. Just show me some statistically significant randomised trial which shows animals to be predictive in any area of medcial research, toxicology, teratogenisis etc
Mice for example may be very different from a human OVERALL, in certain AREAS they are VERY similar to humans. Those are the areas you test with drugs or chemicals. Good science prefers a multidimensional approach to just a single one. Human cultures ARE being used in CONJUNCTION with animal tests and computer modeling. It is really quite sad that you’d think cell cultures could mimic the complexity of a living creature. Most of science is trial and error.
"predictive, predictive, predictive" This is hopeless. You want a yes/no answer to a very complicated question. You boil animal research down to "predictive/non predictive" and make it a black/white test. Your conception of animal use is very limited and one dimensional… I.e. I give a drug to an ordinary mouse, and if it doesn't respond the same way as a human then it's useless. You can't seem grasp that you learn from dissimilarities. You can learn why things work the way they do.
@MarshalNey13 It is not complicated. No animal is opredictive for humans in any area of medical research, product testign etc, any area of animal experimentation. I didnt say human sells were a living system, i said they are followed with computer models and then micro dosed in humans, that gives more accurate results for humans. The living system of a mouse or even a monkey is not useful for humans as it is not predcitive. If something is not predictive it is not science
"No animal is [predictive] for humans in any area of medical research."
This reply is sufficiently ignorant for me to call it quits. I honestly wish I could take you around the lab I worked at and point out all the animal protein samples that we use, or even take you through an introductory biology book and show you all the milestone discoveries that we owe to animal research. Then again, even that probably wouldn't change your mind. I give up.
@MarshalNey13 You mean 'this reply is sufficiently accurate for me to call it quits." Tell me one milestone (should be millstone as around our neck), I have invioted you several times to tell me one predictive animal area or a breakthrough causally realted to animal experiments. The invitation remains open...
@MarshalNey13 Clearly your view is at odds with the conclusion presented from the JAMA...and speaking of introductory books the Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models, Svendensen and Hau (Eds) (CRC Press) says on page 4...."Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans." you realise what 'cost' means here?
What is noxious or ineffective in nonhuman species can be innoxious or effective in humans. For example, penicillin is fatal for guinea pigs but generally well tolerated by human beings; aspirin is teratogenic in cats, dogs, guinea pigs, rats, mice, and monkeys but obviously not in pregnant women despite frequent consumption. Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models, p4, Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) (CRC Press).
@MarshalNey13 Again, if you have a milestone which your pharmaceutical co. sponsored university has 'taught' you please pass it on. 1987
"Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates." Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).
if even monkeys are not predictive what animal is?
@MarshalNey13 Ofcourse you are cherry picking as you referred to one case. I am referring to whole or statistically significant samples eg 800 teratogens, the year studies were done hardly seems relevant but i have provided recent quotes anyway.
@MarshalNey13 re individual eg's how about just oen animal which is predictive for humans. With 200 million animals a year used then if dr Haywood etc are correct and animals are correct 5-25% of the time then even if you provide the experiments in which 10 million to 50 million animals were used in a year that will still not prove that they are predictive
@MarshalNey13 You will find a strong link between the US FDA and drug co's etc. Anyway scientists are nto expected to cure disease, they will get paid decade after decade without doing so, they do not need to be aware of a conspiracy, just to go on doing what they've done for years. You ahve highlighted some other reasons fotr aniaml use..."mice are cheap, genetically mapped, easy to breed, expendable"...not predicitive though
The animal models are pretty useless, to be honest. Dr Clive Svendsen, a cell biologist from the Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, speaking about models for Spinal Muscular Atrophy in Nature, 22nd December
The acid test is what happens in the human. Professor Ian Chopra, a biofilm specialist from Leeds University news .bbc.co.uk /go/em/fr/-/1/hi/health/7599818. stm
@J801506 One reason cures are not occurring is because vast majority of funds goes to animal exp. therefore no human cures. Re 70's and 80's quotes, again as mice and us went our seperate ways 70 million years ago and monkeys 7.5 million it is hard to imagine how much changed in 30-40 years, nevertheless again i will present more recent quotes to conform that...
@J801506 I realise tht having a conversation with those who agree with you avoids the slight problem of having to respond to the opinions of the 3 nobel prize winners for penicillin, former directors of the national cancer institute and statistically significant samples of data indicating that animal exp. is not predictive for humans but if you do have an argument i invite you again to present it.
Yeah you're absolutely right, this guy is no authority on medicine or science. I looked into him 3 months ago when i first saw this video because I couldn't believe what he was saying. I looked him up on the scientific literature database PubMed. I found only 2 articles by him almost a decade ago, neither of which offered any scientific insights. I found it ironic that he'd furiously advocate for this great alternative method of science yet have nothing to show for it.
Yeah, nobody knows everything, so it's important to keep an open mind.
Personally, I consider myself an animal lover. I have two dogs that I really adore and I'm very much against unnecessary animal cruelty and abuse. What super militant activists can't see is that society has decided that the undeniable benefit from animal research outweighs the animal's suffering. I'd respect activists more if they just went for the moral argument rather than lying about facts like this "Dr" Menache dude.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right. This guy's arguments are silly, but then again so are "Dr. Andre Menache's" from this video yet he has 64 "likes" and 13 "dislikes." This just reminds me how misinformed some of these activists are. Not everyone has had the opportunity to work in a scientific setting so I thought I'd share my perspective and a more logical line of argumentation than menache or noratmedicine.
@MarshalNey13 If my arguments are silly by all means refute them. Tell me, what animal is predictive for humans? More miisinformed activists?...1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former Director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known...
@MarshalNey13 "...Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer." Maybe the director of the national cancer institute hasn't had the opportunity to work in a scientific sretting though.
@J801506 If you are directing a comment to me please click on my comment so that i will be able to reply, nless youre trying to avoid that. will be back tomorrow
I suspect that you're trolling, but I'll respond in hopes you'll discuss this logically.
First, let me clarify something that is often misrepresented.
The "scientific argument" and the "moral argument" against animal experimentation (AE) are two INDEPENDENT issues with no bearing on each other. I.e., just because something is ethical DOESN’T mean it’s also effective & just because something is effective DOESN’T mean it’s ethical.
Researchers I’ve met believe AE to be both effective AND ethical. Now, it’s possible they’re wrong and AE is unethical AND ineffective, but in order to be intellectually honest you’ll need to argue these two issues separately.
Why did I bring that up? Well, you are trying to use the science argument against AE. You’ve dropped numerous quotes, citing AE's shortcomings, and while these quotes point out several flaws of AE, they fail to prove it USELESS or to suggest a BETTER alternative.
It is no secret that animal models are imperfect, no scientist will argue with that. I'm a medical student and I've done laboratory research before. I can tell you that AE is not 100%. Still, animals are often the best alternative to (unethical) human experimentation. Because of this, AE is better than nothing.
Ex: CPR has a relatively low resuscitation rate, but you lose nothing by doing it if someone isn’t breathing.
@MarshalNey13 ...but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection. So the methods we propose for medical research should be called ‘scientific methods’… they are not ‘alternatives’."
- Prof. Pietro Croce M.D, Fulbright Scholar, Vivisection or Science: A Choice to Make, page 21
@MarshalNey13 re 'alternatives' “Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities;...
@MarshalNey13 Here are some real scientific methods, ie ones which are predictive for humans and not merely for the strain and species used. microdosing for drug testing, computer models, mass spectrometry, epidemiology, stem cell research, clinical observation, technology, human cell cultures, human genome etc see curedisease. net and drugtestingconference. com for more. the criticism that none of these is a living system is invalid as the living system of another species is not predictive
@MarshalNey13 re it not being useless, that is correct it is much worse than that as 'useless' could be described as being correct 50% of the time...As the former scientific director of Huntington Life Sciences, one of the largest contract research labs in the world, Dr Ralph Haywood said, "The best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions between human and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%"
@MarshalNey13 re 'useless'...More than 800 chemicals have been defined as teratogens in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately 20, have been shown to be teratogenic in humans. This discrepancy can be attributed to differences in metabolism, sensitivity and exposure time. Schmid, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol 8, p 133.
that is a 97.5% failure rate, alot worse than just useless. There is no animal which is predictive for humans
I think you are very misinformed about how laboratory science is conducted and your reply is filled with logical fallacies. ex: you try to define “useless” as equaling 50%, you make the blanket statement that animal models are “not predictive,” and you make tangential points (Singer, teratogens). I had to chuckle at some of the “real methods” you listed because they are used in animal research. for ex, I looked at animal proteins using Mass spec and "technology."
Troll factor aside, all I need to do to win this argument is show you that there are certain circumstances where animal models are useful. That means you could theoretically tell me that 99% of the time animal models are not helpful, but you’d have to concede that in 1% of experiments they are useful. Unless you say that animal experimentation is unhelpful 100% of the time, you’ll have to concede that it’s sometimes useful.
The problem is that you’re not objective enough to see that. You'll probably respond with more quotes showing showing how AE is sometimes flawed. Your line of argumentation goes: animals are different than humans in some ways, therefore we can learn NOTHING from using them as models. I've shown you how this logic is flawed and you've provided no rebuttal. You desperately want AE to be useless but I'm sorry, that's just not the case. Please stop telling scientists how to do their job.
@MarshalNey13 When it comes to flawed logic you would be hard to outdo. 97.5% failure is not 'sometimes', even 50% failure is not 'sometimes'. I don't tell scientists how to do their job as animal experimentation is not science, ie it is not predictive for humans, not projectable, reliable, transferable. By "scientists' I presume that you mean the same poeple who fail to cure any disease year after year. PS I don't need to say it as i am just presenting the facts and expert opinion
I never heard of Dr. Bross but after looking him up I can definitely say that his views do not reflect the stance of the scientific community. He may be a smart man, but he’s wrong because there is proof animal research has aided drug development. (Btw, I see you ripped his “less than useless” argument). Somehow I don’t think any amount of proof will satisfy you but I’ll give you one example. Look up Gleevec, it’s an anticancer compound. This is a short excerpt from a paper:
“Administration of STI 571 3 times per day, over an 11-day period, cured 87–100% of treated mice, whereas administration once or twice per day did not. This confirmed our hypothesis that continuous exposure may be critical to the success of this inhibitor as a therapeutic agent.” “Lessons learned… inhibitor for chronic myelogenous leukemia,” B. Druker1 & N. Lydon, 2000.
Don't quote Flemming, Penicillin long predated the field of genetics. Plz stop quote mining the last half century.
You throw the word “predictive” around a lot but just stop there. All you’re saying is that mice are different humans…no kidding. Scientists account for this difference by comparing humans with mice only in areas where they are similar, ie homologous genes. Not to mention the fact that animals can be used in science for more than just drug testing. protein analysis and commercial production of monoclonal IgG's to name a few.
Your lottery analogy betrays a very poor understanding of both the goals behind animal research and the scientific method itself. If a disease/drug affects a human but not a chimp that raises interesting questions as to what’s encoded in the differing “1.6%.” You gain just as much useful data by observing dissimilarities as you do similarities.
As for disease cures, you are free to boycott any medical care derived from animal testing.
@MarshalNey13 You said "but you’d have to concede that in 1% of experiments they are useful. Unless you say that animal experimentation is unhelpful 100% of the time, you’ll have to concede that it’s sometimes useful." that is the same as saying 'unless you can say that no-one ever wins a lotter you would have to say that it is sometimes a good investment". Do you understand the logical flaw in your claim? Re disease cures you have yet to provide me with one example of a human benefit from AE
@MarshalNey13 It is not possible to account for the differences predictively, only retrospectively this makes the animal of no value for huamn medical research
@MarshalNey13 When one considers that over a billion animal have been killed in cancer 'research' over the last century finding one example to support your claim rather than looking at whole data just supports the position that the vast majority of animal results are incorrect and claims made in support of AE are made retrospectively and selectively, ie cherry picked
@MarshalNey13 His views may not reflect the stated views of people who's careers, titles, incomes adn status are based on animal experiments as he has conciseley and accurately described their failure in regard to huamsn. A position which the evidence supports and which is supported by other former directors of the US National Cancer Institute and in similar positions
@MarshalNey13 This comment shows either a deliberate or contrived misunderstanding of 'predictive'. You may as well say 'entering lotteries is a good financial plan because sometimes some people win'. If you do not know which 1% is correct for humans until after the fact then that means it is 100% useless. It is difficult to believe that a med. student wouldn't understand such a simple thing.
@MarshalNey13 You have not made a point here. The data provided indicates that animal exp is wrong 97.5% of the time for teratogens. If you believe that there is even one area eg toxicology, drug testing, teratogenicity, disease research where animal experiments are right even 50% of the time by all means tell me
@MarshalNey13 Not sure how this realtes to me. i present the scientific arguemnt as quotes presented indicate. This is the valid anti viv position, the 'moral' argument is actually funded by the vivisectors. google 'ajudem nos now its official peter singers lecture tours sponsored by rockefeller drug lobby'
@J801506 Why they do it...“Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless.”; - Dr James D. Gallagher; Director of Medical Research; Lederle Laboratories; Journal of the American Medical Association; March 14 1964.; Costs millions but saves trillions (no apyouts to millions damaged by animal 'tested' substances)
@J801506 The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong. Animal experimentation is not scientific because it is not predictive.
@J801506 Disease is increasing as a percentage. re cancer, carcinogens pass animal 'tests'..." Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice.[23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]
@J801506 You really have to design the medicine for the species of interest…You'll find it very rare to find a medicine that will work in both… Patrick M. O'Connor, head of oncology research for Pfizer, quoted in The New York Times, 24 November. 2006
2007
We have learned well how to treat cancer in mice and rats but we still can’t cure people. Professor Colin Garner, quoted in Accelerator MS Is a Powerful New Tool, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Vol. 27, No. 15.
@J801506 rem quotes from 1970's, as humans and mice went our seperate ways 70 million years ago and monkeys 7.5 million it is difficult to imagine what coule have changed since 1970. Anyway i will humour you and provide more recent quotes...2006
We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans. Dr Sally Burtles, Cancer Research UK, Report of the Expert Scientific Group on phase one clinical trials, following the TGN1412 clinical trial disaster.
@J801506 Yes variances occur even between humans but intra species variation is much less than inter species variation. I would volunteer for valid drug testing, ie microdosing as this removes the misleading animal phase see drugtestingconference. com. re where we are today, ie 30,000 diseases, cancer and diabetes increasing, no cures year after year despite over 200 million animal killed in 'experiments'
@J801506 And a further 29 year delay occurred as penicillin was ineffective systemically in rabbits so was only used topically. Thousands if not millions could have been saved if that rabbit data had not been relied on. So thanks for your opinion, i prefer that of the 3 nobel prize winners for penicillin, our most important medicine. If you have any more claims i am happy to respond to them
@J801506 Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernst Boris Chain who co-discovered the anti-bacterial effects of penicillin. According to the court records on 2 February 1970 he stated: No animal experiment with a medicament, even if it is tested on several animal species, including primates, under all conceivable conditions, can give any guarantee that the medicament tested in this way will behave the same in humans: because in many respects the human is not the same as the animal.
@J801506 Florey (cont.) "...If we had used guinea-pigs exclusively we should have said that penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have proceeded to
try and overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man."
@J801506 All 3 nobel rpize winners for penicillin condemned animal experimentation. Here is another example of a quote from another of them... Howard Florey:
"Mice were used in the initial toxicity tests [by Florey and Chain] because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was, for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea-pig...
@J801506 As quotes are meaningless to you i will explain what they are. They are words which someone has said either verbally or in writing. references tell you who said the quote and where it si published originally. The source which publishes them is incidental and for those i presented were not from veg sites. I will provide you with some more examples to enlighten you.
@J801506 A veterinarian is well placed to know the differences between species and would certainly know that different medicine is used for different species, thus highlighting the insurmountable problem with animal experiments, species difference.
@J801506 Sir Alexander Flemming, nobel prize winner for penicillin, out most beneficial medicine...
"How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940’s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized." [7]
We have learned well how to treat cancer in mice and rats but we still can’t cure people. Professor Colin Garner, quoted in Accelerator MS Is a Powerful New Tool, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Vol. 27, No. 15.
We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans. Dr Sally Burtles, Cancer Research UK, Report of the Expert Scientific Group on phase one clinical trials, following the TGN1412 clinical trial disaster.
re qualified people on this subject...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. Dr Richard Klausner, Director, National Cancer Institute, LA Times, May 6.1998
God knows we’ve cured mice of all sorts of tumours. But that isn’t medical research. Thomas E Wagner, senior scientist at Ohio University’s Edison Biotechnology Institute, the Columbus Dispatch, March 20.1998
@J801506 Stop being so modest about yourself and tell us how many years of science you have studied after finishing high school (presumably you do have a high school degree)?
@kursk124 As animal experiments are not science and in fact are as unscientific a practice as can be imagined in regard to humans medicine this seems irrelevant"...but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection."
- Prof. Pietro Croce M.D, Fulbright Scholar, Vivisection or Science: A Choice to Make, page 21.
"vivisection" here refers to all animal experimentation
This guy completely misses the goals of animal research. If you are on the fence about whether to support it or not, I encourage you to read up on this topic. Without animals as model organisms, biomedical research would grind to a halt.
mis respetos para este señor que no esta tapado del cerebro como tantos estudiantillos de veterinaria que se creen omnipotentes y que pueden hacer lo que les de la gana!! ya es hora que la ley se actualice con la ciencia, y castigue los experimentos en animales.
Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates. Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).1987
* The polio vaccine was delayed for decades by ‘the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in primates’ according to Albert Sabin MD, the vaccine’s inventor.
...and primates are as close as you can get to a human and they are still worse than useless. curedisease. net
# 80 AIDS vaccines have failed in human trials following success in primates.
# Again, everything we know about HIV and AIDS has been learned by studying people, through epidemiology and in vitro research on human blood cells.
# In the French blood scandal in the 1980s, thousands of people contracted HIV through contaminated blood – given to patients because it was safe in chimps.
Infectious disease research * Even chimpanzees, our closest living relative, are immune to the human AIDS virus, Hepatitis B and C, malaria and many other serious human pathogens. It is futile to study infections in animals that do not contract them in any similar way. * Indeed, the US government redirected $10 million of AIDS research funding away from chimpanzee studies after concluding they are a ‘deficient model’.
# Hundreds of drugs for stroke have been developed and tested in primates and other animals, yet all of them have failed and even harmed patients in trials. ‘The stroke community needs to think long and hard about whether these animal models are financially and ethically viable’ – Lancet editorial 2006.
In 2003, a senior planning inspector dismissed Cambridge University’s proposed primate laboratory because ‘no national need’ for such research was demonstrated.
# Everything we know about neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s has been learned from studying patients, their families and their tissues. ‘It is in human tissue that we will find the answers to these diseases’ – Dr John Xuereb, Director, Cambridge Brain Bank & Wolfson Imaging Centre.
# Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease was pioneered in patients, not monkeys, as its developer makes plain in New Scientist (2457) 24.7.04, p 40.
Primates and Brain research * The second major use of primates is for brain research. Yet the most dramatic differences between humans and other primates are in the brain. * Human brains can now be studied non-invasively using remarkable high-tech scanners. These enable the conscious brain to be observed while engaged in a variety of cognitive tasks of which monkeys are not even capable.
# Arthritis drug Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004, killed up to 140,000 people – the biggest drug disaster in history – after being ‘proved safe’ in monkeys.
# Isoprenaline killed 3,500 young British asthmatics in the 1960s. Retrospective attempts to induce similar effects in primates and other animals failed.
# Hormone replacement therapy, given to millions of women on the basis of research in monkeys, has been found to increase rather than decrease the risk of heart disease and stroke, as well as breast and ovarian cancer. HRT (labelled ‘the new thalidomide’ by the German Commission on the Safety of Medicines) caused 20,000 cases of breast cancer in Britain in one decade plus 1,300 cases of ovarian cancer since 1991, according to The Lancet.
Primates and drug testing... * The major experimental use of primates is for safety testing of medicines. Yet primates’ track record at predicting drugs’ dangerous side effects is abysmal. Many drugs that were safe for primates have gone on to injure or kill people. * Arthritis drug Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004, killed up to 140,000 people – the biggest drug disaster in history – after being ‘proved safe’ in monkeys.
ibid 2009 "- Best yet, researchers can test hundreds of different donors from a diverse genetic pool, a feat that's impossible to replicate with lab animals since they are bred to be genetically similar. "The information you get from this type of test is far and beyond what you'd get out of a mouse study, both because it's humans and because you can see the effect across a spectrum of genotypes." Michael Rivard, vice president of corporate development at VaxDesign.
The following quotes are all taken from Catherine Guthrie, Putting Immunity in a Test Tube, Time, 27th March.2009
- In the end, you can only extrapolate so much from a monkey model. Wayne Koff, senior vice president of research and development at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.
If you make a drug that's effective against HIV, sometimes it works against SIV and sometimes it doesn't. So that basically devalues SIV as an animal model for doing experiments involved with developing drugs…The slight problem (with using monkeys as an animal model for AIDS in humans) is the monkeys don't go on to develop AIDS, they don't get sick. Dr Paul Bieniasz of the Rockefeller University in New York. Quoted in Scientists make HIV that can infect monkeys, Reuters, 3rd March.
last quote was from 2005. "Because most human teratogens have been discovered by alert physicians or epidemiology studies, not animal studies, animal studies play a minor role in discovering teratogens... Well-performed epidemiology studies are still the best method for determining the human risk and the effects of environmental toxicants. Brent, Pediatrics, 113(4 Suppl):984-95. 2004
Mean positive and negative predictivities barely exceed 50%; discordance among the species used is substantial; reliable extrapolation from animal data to humans is impossible, and virtually all known human teratogens have so far been identified in spite of, rather than because of, animal-based methods. Bailey and colleagues, Biogenic Amines, vol.19, N° 2, pp 97-146
"Birth defects induced by maternal exposure to exogenous agents during pregnancy are preventable, if the agents themselves can be identified and avoided. Billions of dollars and man-hours have been dedicated to animal-based discovery and characterisation methods over decades. We show here, via a comprehensive systematic review and analysis of this data, that these methods constitute questionable science and pose a hazard to humans..."
"— and the response rate is declining. Almost all drugs tried in humans work against subcutaneous xenografts in mice. “How many more negative data do you want? It’s very depressing.” said Isaiah Fidler , Ph.D., of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Research Center in Houston. Ken Garber, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 98, No. 17, September 6.
"Change is needed. Thirty years of experience with subcutaneous xenografts, human tumors implanted under the skin of the mouse, have satisfied few because so many drugs that cure cancer in these mice fail to help humans. A 2004 analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that only 3.8% of patients in phase I cancer drug trials between 1991 and 2002 achieved an objective clinical response..." cont.
You really have to design the medicine for the species of interest…You'll find it very rare to find a medicine that will work in both… Patrick M. O'Connor, head of oncology research for Pfizer, quoted in The New York Times, 24 November 2006
Even when drugs with evidence of anticancer activity in preclinical in vivo models are given at their maximum tolerated doses, they frequently fail to produce useful activity in humans. Sausville & Burger, Cancer Research, 66, 3351-3354, April 1 2006
last quote was from 2008. In summary, mouse xenograft models should not be viewed as ideal models for cancer drug development. Altered, nonhuman host stroma, poor predictive value when applied in an empirical sense, and questionable relation to the naturally occurring human disease are but a few features, which temper enthusiasm for their use. Sausville & Burger, Cancer Research, 66, 3351-3354, April 1, 2006
with the same tumor, with the exception of lung and possibly ovarian cancer."There's this mantra: 'Xenografts don't predict for human effects,'" said P HoughtonPh.D., a cancer researcher at the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Ken Garber, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 30th December.said Peter Houghton, Ph.D., a cancer researcher at the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Ken Garber, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 30/12/0
Mouse xenograft models of cancer, understandably, have a terrible reputation. Although researchers and companies routinely use these human tumors in mice for preclinical drug testing, individual models poorly predict how drugs will act in the clinic. Retrospective reviews published by the National Cancer Institute in 2001 and the National Cancer Institute of Canada in 2003 came to the same conclusion: Drugs that work againstcancer in xenograft mice rarely work in people..." cont curediseasenet
I'm very against animal testing, it's cruel, immoral and i've unfortunately witnessed it, but the arguments this guy puts forward are very weak. Animals aren't so different from humans, especially the brain mechanisms. The only difference is how certain parts of the brain influences behaviour, which they can usually find comparrissons for
@Decimated3 To quote well known French neurologist Jean Martin Charcot, "The only really decisive data touching the cerebral pathology of man are, in my opinion, those developed according to the anatomico-clinical method (i.e. humans)...To it, I may justly say we owe whatever definitive knowledge we have of brain pathology." cont. above curedisease. net health. org. nz
@Decimated3 As for the localization of certain cerebral functions, this method is not only the best, but the only one that can be employed. What light for instance could experimentation [on animals] have thrown on the question as to the seat of the function of speech?...The study of the brain, if it is to bear fruit, must be made on man,
@Decimated3 i.e., at the bedside and at the post-mortem theatre; the discovery of the exact seat of aphasia was made in that way and could nothave been made in any other... The utmost that can be learned from experiments on the brains of animals is the topography of the animals brain,
@Decimated3 and it must still remain for the science of human anatomy and clinical investigation to enlighten us in regard...of our own species; and in fact, it is from the department of clinical and post-mortem study that so far all our best data for brain localizations have been secured." curedisease. net vivisectionresearch. ca
Using other sentient creatures for our own selfish reasons is immoral and a symptom of speciesism-- the violent prejudice against non humans. It is no more acceptable to use a whale or a mouse for research than a Jewish person or Chinese person. It is baseless discrimination.
I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or does not. The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of this enmity without looking further. Mark Twain
Daymyth, you gave an incorrect ratio in stating 140, 000 dead out of 6 BIL people, since you assumed that ALL 6 BIL are using prescription drugs each year, In fact, the number of people on medical drugs is only a small fraction of our population.
i could not pull myself to continue watching this bullshit past minute 4.. some other ignorant attempting pseudo-scientific discourse.. the horror, o pussycat!
experimenting on animals would have been an option when we were dumb just a 100 or 150 or 200 years ago or w.e but now we know shit about genes DNA and crap so why do animal tests if we've already broken down the components of life? simple answer whats still happening is quicker. just like why we're only JUST
beginning to look into an alternative to gas engines. it was there it worked but now oh look at what we did. so lets move onto something that gets better results and is better for all!
You need to create a liver cancer replication to test a new drug and maintain for 6 months in vivo what do you do? Before you move into human testing you test on mice/rats. Animals with similar biochemical and anatomical responses. Then if it passes that stage you move into human trails. It makes sense it's the only real way to do it. You should talk to a scientist in medical research.
You seem to have missed the crucial point - it can never be known, before testing in humans, whether the results from other species will or will not correspond to effects in SOME humans.
When we identify a new protein, we do not know its function. But by analyzing its core structure and identifying domains. We can correlate to simliar structures and hypothesise a function. This gives us a reasonable idea, a direction with which to seek evidence for.
Untill we move into human testing we can not make statements about reactions with humans. But we can hypothesize. If trials work well in mice, then we can move on to humans. Animal testing is a stepping stone.
@daymyth considering the stats and opinions expressed animal testing is not s stepping stone to humans, it is a diversion, a lottery which may or may not be correct for humans.
@sciencenotrats Your really talented at quote mining and avoiding questions which deal with the science. So I'll ask again. How much genetic variation is to much genetic variation?
Also do you understand what I mean when I say you can't prove a negative?
@daymyth 1% is too much. hav e you ever a mistaken a monkey for a human? thats what 1% looks like. its scientific uselessness is equally apparant. I have already provided some quotes re. the uselessness of the primate model, ill provide more. 200 million animals a year vivisected to make us healthier yet no cures (and 30,000 diseases to choose from). the onus is on you to find even one animal which is a reliable model for humans is drug testing or medical research. Can you?
@sciencenotrats You are aware that some humans can vary between each other by as much as 1%. Its not about genes its about physiology. Most major functions are conserved.
You don't understand basic genetics or biochemistry or biology in general. You have no grasp of evolution, you've probably never used an NCIB database. All you do is quote mine.
Yes thier are downsides to animal testing that are valid. That does not mean you entirely rule it out.
@daymyth yes drug effects vary between humans so what is the point in using animals. Your personal criticisms of me are not relevant to the issue at hand which is that animals are not a reliable model for humans. that is a fact. If not show me the animal which is a good model for humans in drug testing or medical research. You and i both know that there is no such animal and that therefore supporters of vivisection cannot provide evidence for their claims.
@sciencenotrats The problem is it's difficult to discuss these things with you because you have no understanding of the basic science. Do you not see the problem in that?
@daymyth I understand that human medicine cannot be reliably based on animals. That is also made clear by the stats and quotes provided and the fact that diseases remain uncured and we are not protected from harmful substances. It also fits with common sense. Challenging my personal knowledge is avoiding the point, that no animal is a reliable model for the human and they never will be. If there is one tell me what it is.
@sciencenotrats I can't convince you because your an animal rights activist with no clear science background. If you don't understand the basics how can I explain it to you? The statement you said regards to Drosophila made me facepalm myself.
Look the basic, Yes animal testing has downsides and what those scientists say are true pitfalls of working with a different animal model. But it doesn't mean we should rule it out as a procedure. You work with it.
@daymyth you are in effect saying that about the scientists that i have quoted, i am only passing on the message. mice would not become more human irresective of my qualifications. dr greek has already explained why animals cannot be predictive for humans and that is correct, if it were not it could be falsified.
@sciencenotrats Like I've said before I don;t disagree with the points they make. And as I will continue to repeat myself, animal testing is just a stepping stone in the model. Yes thier are pitfalls in this method. But that does not mean we should rule it out as a point of inquiry. I'm going to say it again, basic physiology is conserved, although you cannot gleam direct predictions you can use it as a guide.
@daymyth A stepping stone would lead on a path to a goal. Animal experiments may lead to a conclusion but it will always require a test which is predictive for humans to tell us what will happen in humans. We do not know if the "stepping stone' of animal experimentation will be correct for human or not. It cannot be used as a guide.
@sciencenotrats If you work out that the mechanism of action of why your drug failed is not applicable to humans then you could move onto human trails. But in terms of basic functions we share alot in common with mice, core components are conserved evolutionarily.
I guess if you understood the science we wouldn't be having this type of argument.
@daymyth You would know that differences at a cellular level make animals poor models for humans, basic functions in common are not enough to make them a good model for us. drugtestingconference. com has better methods
@sciencenotrats The cellular level is where there are the least differences. Most of the differences are anatomical and developmental. Cellular function is highly conserved. See if you had the basic knowledge you would understand that.
@daymyth again refer to dr greeks description of why animals cannot be predictive for humans. There is little point in criticising me. if you cannot counter the claims by those I have quoted or find even one animal which is a relaible model for drug testing or medical research then you argument in favour of animal experimentation will rely on tangents not on whether it can achieve what the public is told it can, curing disease and protecting us from harmful substances.
@sciencenotrats I'm not countering claims, as I've said before I've agreed with the statements made. And I'm just going to end up repeating my self. If you could understand the science this would be a lot shorter discussion. Because you lack the general knowledge it makes it difficult for you to understand my position.
What I'm saying is yes I understand the pitfalls but, and because you have no understanding of biology you can't understand the but.
@daymyth Ok, im glad we agree generally. But re animals being a 'stepping stone' to humans ..."In support of animal testing vivisectors say, "We don't expect final answers from animal experiments, but just hints, indications which encourage us to continue in a particular direction". But what's an indication? An approximate indication, merely orientative and as the compass card shows the compass can point in the right direction,..." cont next
@daymyth cont. "...of which there is only one, or in many wrong directions. And an animal experiment only very rarely points in the right direction, and when it does it is due to coincidence, verifiable only after the fact. Experimenting on animals to do medical research is like playing roulette." Prof Pietro croce, "That's why I am against vivisection" in CIVIS International Foundation Report Autumn 1989 Hans Ruesch (Ed.) CIVIS Massagno/Lugano Switzerland 1989 nr7 p1
@sciencenotrats I understand your desire to quote those which appear to have more knowledge on the sciences than yourself. But to make an informed decision and not fall into error, wouldn't it be best if you yourself understood the sciences?
@daymyth There is no point in re wording 'stepping stones' or saying that a person needs scientific knowledge to understand this issue. One species of animal cannot be predictive for another species, there are even variations between strains of the same species. There is no point in persisting with the claim that animal experimentation is even useful let alone necessary, even to claim that its not counter productive would be false. curedisease. net
@sciencenotrats Your kidding right? "One species of animal cannot be predictive for another species" How do you make that statement if you do not know the science behind it? Your just reveling in your own ignorance.
Do you even know what a non-synonymous change is? How about a frame shift mutation? How can you understand genetic variation if you do not understand the context of these terms?
@daymyth in fact it is not even possible to reliably transfer results between strains of the same species. Again..."Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984." cont.
@daymyth "...If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals." Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78. i make that statement because it is proven through hundreds of millions of animal experiments. What evidence do you provide for the claim that a species can be a reliable model for another species. Can you find a species which is predictive for humans?
@noratmedicine Ummm I don't know... Because of an understanding of a fundamental understanding of biology. All you do is quote mine. You don't even understand what your saying.
If there is so much evidence, hundreds of millions of animal experiments. What could science possibly have to gain from wasting its time studying model organisms?
@daymyth i think that history and inertia play a role in the continuation of viv. as do titles, established protocols etc but everwhelmingly the provision of legal protection to the manufacturers of artificial substances are a motive. i would regard that as the most insidious.
@noratmedicine Well yes, hence the term model organism. Like yeast. Fully gene sequenced and mostly annotated. You can actually buy mice clones with a known gene sequence. These are very useful tools in research. Studying some organisms can be very very difficult and costly. Hence a more manageable species as a precursor. Zebra Fish, great vertebrate model. Models however are just that... Models.
@daymyth i dont think that science has much to gain but i think that certain industries, individuals and institutions do. perhaps ypu can tell me of one disease which ahs been cured, hundreds of millions of animals have been used in thw pursuit of a cure
it does make you think why we keep injecting millions of pounds in to animal based research and yet to this day we still have not found the cures for the major diseases, no matter what educational establishment you have been too, i would like for someone to answer that simple question, are we all been conned with our tax money
debvegandeb 1 month ago
Comment removed
MizVegan 2 months ago in playlist MizVegan's favorites
We have regenerative medicine. Maybe the "good", semi-human experimentation might work.
hubbabubbarubbalubba 4 months ago
lol. Any 5th grader could tell you the similarities too :)...Mammals, carbon-based life forms, DNA-based. Sometimes the differences between humans and animals are important in figuring out how something works.
"sadist" or "greedy" lol, you're not very bright if you think those are the only 2 options. For the record, I do smell trollery.
MarshalNey13 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are stupid
thumbs up if you agree
Beaydude 6 months ago
why not use harmonic resonance of sound? you can see with sound. the ancients used sound for almost everything. our brains use harmonic resonance patterns of tones. geometry is the pattern that the brain makes out of tones. the brain have 7 sets of duplicate patterns interfering with each other. each set have a color. the interference pattern create symmetrical folds of geometry. the inverse patterns create temporal particles. light does not contain colors. light only reflect geometric patterns
coldarc 9 months ago
Dear viewers of this video, do not be fooled by Dr. Menache's misleading arguments. For people without a science background, I understand that reliable information on this subject can be difficult to find. Allow me to help.
I am a medical student with a background in animal protein analysis. If you are on the fence about the pros/cons of animal research or have any serious questions about the MANY uses of animals in research, plz message me. I'm not arguing on this comment board anymore though.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 I notice you are no longer replying to my comments which thoroughly refute your vested interests with evidence. IE human medicine cannot be based on any other species and to do so is counterproductive for humans. Again, if you can name one animal which is predictive for humans please tell me. I advise viewers to scroll down and see my comments and to see curedisease. net mrmcmed. org vivisectioninformation. com
noratmedicine 10 months ago
@MarshalNey13 BS- animal "research" is a FRAUD. It is done NOT for cures but for MONEY. YOU are the one LYING to people.
22sheilamahon 5 months ago
@22sheilamahon
You don't know what you're talking about. What is your background in research?
MarshalNey13 5 months ago
@MarshalNey13 No, YOU don't know what you're talking about. Any 5th grader would know the DIFFERENCE between humans and non human species. You are either a sadist and got into the fireld so you could torture animals unpunished, or you are greedy and care ONLY about money, or you are an idiot. Take your pick.
22sheilamahon 5 months ago
another is that it's so easy to publish. "A rat is an animal which when injected produces a paper" as the saying goes, which means easy work in this 'publish or perish' scientific world. Clinical research is infinitely more valuable, but requires ingenuity, planning, people skills, and time. Anyone can do animal experiments - they may not give useful results but at least they're results
noratmedicine 11 months ago
This causes other motives, ie the scientists are trained almost exclusively in animal experiments and the whole system is set up for them, peopel have careers, titles, qualifications, status and income based on them. I am not saying that none of these people (especially young people) are frauds who really never wanted to cure cancer etc, only that they have been misled from the outset
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 There are many motives the main one is that they will pass anything as 'safe' and that provides legal protection to drug co's but also chem co's, kept warnings off cigarette packs for 10 years, no payouts for thalidomide etc. AE is expensive but it is a lot cheaper than being sued and when your products are the fourth largest cause of death in western world (pharmaceuticals) you need legal protection, thats why drug/chem co's donate to uni's
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 His licence would be from south africa, you are suggesting it si froma third world country by saying 'africa' instead of south africa. ps you directed this comment to yourself when you said 'so dont bother responding anymore to me.'
When you say he is a fraud are you suggesting that he is not a qualified veterinarian?
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 2009...Dr Kelly BéruBé, Cardiff University, speaking on the Today Programme, BBC Radio 4, 4th June
Now we can do our experiments in petri dishes with functional human tissue. Now you have human data, so no need for the rat. I say, why use a rat when a human lung will do?
I don’t see any reason why we can’t use human tissue. It’s the best way to go. You get human end point data, you don’t have to worry about saying, well, this happened in the rat, this might happen in man.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine
"I don’t see any reason why we can’t use human tissue. It’s the best way to go. You get human end point data, you don’t have to worry about saying, well, this happened in the rat, this might happen in man."
Do both.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 Why do both when only one is predictive for humans? "...you don’t have to worry about saying, well, this happened in the rat, this might happen in man"
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine
Because you're not using actual humans, right? You're using human cells in a DISH. That is very different from how these cells would act in the body. There is still use in using them in that setting but it's no a substitute. The only alternative that is better in every way to animal testing is using real human subjects. That would be highly unethical. using "both" human cell cultures and animals is the next best thing.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 No, human cells are more accurate and can now be followed with comp. model of human body. mice are not predictive for humans (in fact even monkeys are not predictive) so the fact that they are a living system is irrelevant. Unless you can show that they are predictive ie correct even half the time there is no substance to your claims
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine
So we can’t trust scientists (the authorities on the matter) because they are “in” on this huge conspiracy? You’re delusional. If scientists could generate good data without animals they would, but they use them because they are useful…mice are cheap, genetically mapped, easy to breed, expendable and more ethical alternatives to using human subjects for risky tests.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
“cherry picking.” You’re accusing me of cherry picking? You quoted experiments from the 1940’s…that’s 70 years ago dude. I gave you an example that continues to save tens of thousands of lives. I think all the animals sacrificed thus far would be worth that trade alone, not to mention the advances in genetics, proteomics, and just about every other field. Btw, exactly how many individual examples do you expect anyone to cite on a Youtube video?
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
“It is not possible to account for the differences predictively, only retrospectively this makes the animal of no value for huamn medical research.” I already addressed this last post, you’re just blindly regurgitating your debunked “predictive” argument. Unless you have something particularly profound to say, or counter my points in a logical and informed way, I’m done with you. You are hopelessly misinformed and I hope one day you’ll be able to appreciate what medical science has done for you.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 You have not responded to this as you have not shown what animal is predictive. Just show me some statistically significant randomised trial which shows animals to be predictive in any area of medcial research, toxicology, teratogenisis etc
noratmedicine 11 months ago
Mice for example may be very different from a human OVERALL, in certain AREAS they are VERY similar to humans. Those are the areas you test with drugs or chemicals. Good science prefers a multidimensional approach to just a single one. Human cultures ARE being used in CONJUNCTION with animal tests and computer modeling. It is really quite sad that you’d think cell cultures could mimic the complexity of a living creature. Most of science is trial and error.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
"predictive, predictive, predictive" This is hopeless. You want a yes/no answer to a very complicated question. You boil animal research down to "predictive/non predictive" and make it a black/white test. Your conception of animal use is very limited and one dimensional… I.e. I give a drug to an ordinary mouse, and if it doesn't respond the same way as a human then it's useless. You can't seem grasp that you learn from dissimilarities. You can learn why things work the way they do.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 It is not complicated. No animal is opredictive for humans in any area of medical research, product testign etc, any area of animal experimentation. I didnt say human sells were a living system, i said they are followed with computer models and then micro dosed in humans, that gives more accurate results for humans. The living system of a mouse or even a monkey is not useful for humans as it is not predcitive. If something is not predictive it is not science
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine
"No animal is [predictive] for humans in any area of medical research."
This reply is sufficiently ignorant for me to call it quits. I honestly wish I could take you around the lab I worked at and point out all the animal protein samples that we use, or even take you through an introductory biology book and show you all the milestone discoveries that we owe to animal research. Then again, even that probably wouldn't change your mind. I give up.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 You mean 'this reply is sufficiently accurate for me to call it quits." Tell me one milestone (should be millstone as around our neck), I have invioted you several times to tell me one predictive animal area or a breakthrough causally realted to animal experiments. The invitation remains open...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 Clearly your view is at odds with the conclusion presented from the JAMA...and speaking of introductory books the Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models, Svendensen and Hau (Eds) (CRC Press) says on page 4...."Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans." you realise what 'cost' means here?
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 1994
What is noxious or ineffective in nonhuman species can be innoxious or effective in humans. For example, penicillin is fatal for guinea pigs but generally well tolerated by human beings; aspirin is teratogenic in cats, dogs, guinea pigs, rats, mice, and monkeys but obviously not in pregnant women despite frequent consumption. Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science Volume II Animal Models, p4, Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) (CRC Press).
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 Again, if you have a milestone which your pharmaceutical co. sponsored university has 'taught' you please pass it on. 1987
"Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates." Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).
if even monkeys are not predictive what animal is?
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 if animal proteins have been found which have a use for humans then that, like all animal data, is arrived at retrospectively
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 Ofcourse you are cherry picking as you referred to one case. I am referring to whole or statistically significant samples eg 800 teratogens, the year studies were done hardly seems relevant but i have provided recent quotes anyway.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13...Finally, poor
replication of even high-quality animal studies should be
expected by those who conduct clinical research.
Daniel G. Hackam, MD
Daniel.Hackam@ices.on.ca
Donald A. Redelmeier, MD, MSHSR
Department of Medicine
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
©2006 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. (Reprinted) JAMA, October 11, 2006—Vol 296, No. 14 1731
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13
Nevertheless, we believe these findings have important
implications. First, patients and physicians should remain
cautious about extrapolating the findings of prominent animal
research to the care of human disease. Second, major
opportunities for improving study design and methodological
quality are available for preclinical research.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 Limitations
of this review include a focus on highly cited animal studies
published in leading journals, which by their positive and highly
visible nature may have been more likely to translate than less
frequently cited research. In addition, this study had limited
power to discern individual predictors of translation.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 From the Journal of the American Medical Association..."...Comment. Only about a third of highly cited animal research
translated at the level of human randomized trials. This
rate of translation is lower than the recently estimated 44%
replication rate for highly cited human studies.4...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 you would also know that quotes from 1940's etc are often because that is when the product in question was made/discussed etc.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 re individual eg's how about just oen animal which is predictive for humans. With 200 million animals a year used then if dr Haywood etc are correct and animals are correct 5-25% of the time then even if you provide the experiments in which 10 million to 50 million animals were used in a year that will still not prove that they are predictive
noratmedicine 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MarshalNey13 You will find a strong link between the US FDA and drug co's etc. Anyway scientists are nto expected to cure disease, they will get paid decade after decade without doing so, they do not need to be aware of a conspiracy, just to go on doing what they've done for years. You ahve highlighted some other reasons fotr aniaml use..."mice are cheap, genetically mapped, easy to breed, expendable"...not predicitive though
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 2008
The animal models are pretty useless, to be honest. Dr Clive Svendsen, a cell biologist from the Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, speaking about models for Spinal Muscular Atrophy in Nature, 22nd December
The acid test is what happens in the human. Professor Ian Chopra, a biofilm specialist from Leeds University news .bbc.co.uk /go/em/fr/-/1/hi/health/7599818. stm
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 One reason cures are not occurring is because vast majority of funds goes to animal exp. therefore no human cures. Re 70's and 80's quotes, again as mice and us went our seperate ways 70 million years ago and monkeys 7.5 million it is hard to imagine how much changed in 30-40 years, nevertheless again i will present more recent quotes to conform that...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 I realise tht having a conversation with those who agree with you avoids the slight problem of having to respond to the opinions of the 3 nobel prize winners for penicillin, former directors of the national cancer institute and statistically significant samples of data indicating that animal exp. is not predictive for humans but if you do have an argument i invite you again to present it.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506
Yeah you're absolutely right, this guy is no authority on medicine or science. I looked into him 3 months ago when i first saw this video because I couldn't believe what he was saying. I looked him up on the scientific literature database PubMed. I found only 2 articles by him almost a decade ago, neither of which offered any scientific insights. I found it ironic that he'd furiously advocate for this great alternative method of science yet have nothing to show for it.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
Yeah, nobody knows everything, so it's important to keep an open mind.
Personally, I consider myself an animal lover. I have two dogs that I really adore and I'm very much against unnecessary animal cruelty and abuse. What super militant activists can't see is that society has decided that the undeniable benefit from animal research outweighs the animal's suffering. I'd respect activists more if they just went for the moral argument rather than lying about facts like this "Dr" Menache dude.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@J801506
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right. This guy's arguments are silly, but then again so are "Dr. Andre Menache's" from this video yet he has 64 "likes" and 13 "dislikes." This just reminds me how misinformed some of these activists are. Not everyone has had the opportunity to work in a scientific setting so I thought I'd share my perspective and a more logical line of argumentation than menache or noratmedicine.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 If my arguments are silly by all means refute them. Tell me, what animal is predictive for humans? More miisinformed activists?...1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former Director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: "The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 "...Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer." Maybe the director of the national cancer institute hasn't had the opportunity to work in a scientific sretting though.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 As animal experimentation does not fill even one criteria of science it seems irrelevant.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 If you are directing a comment to me please click on my comment so that i will be able to reply, nless youre trying to avoid that. will be back tomorrow
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine
I suspect that you're trolling, but I'll respond in hopes you'll discuss this logically.
First, let me clarify something that is often misrepresented.
The "scientific argument" and the "moral argument" against animal experimentation (AE) are two INDEPENDENT issues with no bearing on each other. I.e., just because something is ethical DOESN’T mean it’s also effective & just because something is effective DOESN’T mean it’s ethical.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
Researchers I’ve met believe AE to be both effective AND ethical. Now, it’s possible they’re wrong and AE is unethical AND ineffective, but in order to be intellectually honest you’ll need to argue these two issues separately.
Why did I bring that up? Well, you are trying to use the science argument against AE. You’ve dropped numerous quotes, citing AE's shortcomings, and while these quotes point out several flaws of AE, they fail to prove it USELESS or to suggest a BETTER alternative.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
It is no secret that animal models are imperfect, no scientist will argue with that. I'm a medical student and I've done laboratory research before. I can tell you that AE is not 100%. Still, animals are often the best alternative to (unethical) human experimentation. Because of this, AE is better than nothing.
Ex: CPR has a relatively low resuscitation rate, but you lose nothing by doing it if someone isn’t breathing.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 ...but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection. So the methods we propose for medical research should be called ‘scientific methods’… they are not ‘alternatives’."
- Prof. Pietro Croce M.D, Fulbright Scholar, Vivisection or Science: A Choice to Make, page 21
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 re 'alternatives' “Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities;...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 Here are some real scientific methods, ie ones which are predictive for humans and not merely for the strain and species used. microdosing for drug testing, computer models, mass spectrometry, epidemiology, stem cell research, clinical observation, technology, human cell cultures, human genome etc see curedisease. net and drugtestingconference. com for more. the criticism that none of these is a living system is invalid as the living system of another species is not predictive
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 re it not being useless, that is correct it is much worse than that as 'useless' could be described as being correct 50% of the time...As the former scientific director of Huntington Life Sciences, one of the largest contract research labs in the world, Dr Ralph Haywood said, "The best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions between human and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%"
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 re 'useless'...More than 800 chemicals have been defined as teratogens in laboratory animals, but only a few of these, approximately 20, have been shown to be teratogenic in humans. This discrepancy can be attributed to differences in metabolism, sensitivity and exposure time. Schmid, Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol 8, p 133.
that is a 97.5% failure rate, alot worse than just useless. There is no animal which is predictive for humans
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine
I think you are very misinformed about how laboratory science is conducted and your reply is filled with logical fallacies. ex: you try to define “useless” as equaling 50%, you make the blanket statement that animal models are “not predictive,” and you make tangential points (Singer, teratogens). I had to chuckle at some of the “real methods” you listed because they are used in animal research. for ex, I looked at animal proteins using Mass spec and "technology."
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
re:
Troll factor aside, all I need to do to win this argument is show you that there are certain circumstances where animal models are useful. That means you could theoretically tell me that 99% of the time animal models are not helpful, but you’d have to concede that in 1% of experiments they are useful. Unless you say that animal experimentation is unhelpful 100% of the time, you’ll have to concede that it’s sometimes useful.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
Re:
The problem is that you’re not objective enough to see that. You'll probably respond with more quotes showing showing how AE is sometimes flawed. Your line of argumentation goes: animals are different than humans in some ways, therefore we can learn NOTHING from using them as models. I've shown you how this logic is flawed and you've provided no rebuttal. You desperately want AE to be useless but I'm sorry, that's just not the case. Please stop telling scientists how to do their job.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 When it comes to flawed logic you would be hard to outdo. 97.5% failure is not 'sometimes', even 50% failure is not 'sometimes'. I don't tell scientists how to do their job as animal experimentation is not science, ie it is not predictive for humans, not projectable, reliable, transferable. By "scientists' I presume that you mean the same poeple who fail to cure any disease year after year. PS I don't need to say it as i am just presenting the facts and expert opinion
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@noratmedicine
I never heard of Dr. Bross but after looking him up I can definitely say that his views do not reflect the stance of the scientific community. He may be a smart man, but he’s wrong because there is proof animal research has aided drug development. (Btw, I see you ripped his “less than useless” argument). Somehow I don’t think any amount of proof will satisfy you but I’ll give you one example. Look up Gleevec, it’s an anticancer compound. This is a short excerpt from a paper:
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
“Administration of STI 571 3 times per day, over an 11-day period, cured 87–100% of treated mice, whereas administration once or twice per day did not. This confirmed our hypothesis that continuous exposure may be critical to the success of this inhibitor as a therapeutic agent.” “Lessons learned… inhibitor for chronic myelogenous leukemia,” B. Druker1 & N. Lydon, 2000.
Don't quote Flemming, Penicillin long predated the field of genetics. Plz stop quote mining the last half century.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
You throw the word “predictive” around a lot but just stop there. All you’re saying is that mice are different humans…no kidding. Scientists account for this difference by comparing humans with mice only in areas where they are similar, ie homologous genes. Not to mention the fact that animals can be used in science for more than just drug testing. protein analysis and commercial production of monoclonal IgG's to name a few.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
Your lottery analogy betrays a very poor understanding of both the goals behind animal research and the scientific method itself. If a disease/drug affects a human but not a chimp that raises interesting questions as to what’s encoded in the differing “1.6%.” You gain just as much useful data by observing dissimilarities as you do similarities.
As for disease cures, you are free to boycott any medical care derived from animal testing.
MarshalNey13 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MarshalNey13 You said "but you’d have to concede that in 1% of experiments they are useful. Unless you say that animal experimentation is unhelpful 100% of the time, you’ll have to concede that it’s sometimes useful." that is the same as saying 'unless you can say that no-one ever wins a lotter you would have to say that it is sometimes a good investment". Do you understand the logical flaw in your claim? Re disease cures you have yet to provide me with one example of a human benefit from AE
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 It is not possible to account for the differences predictively, only retrospectively this makes the animal of no value for huamn medical research
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 When one considers that over a billion animal have been killed in cancer 'research' over the last century finding one example to support your claim rather than looking at whole data just supports the position that the vast majority of animal results are incorrect and claims made in support of AE are made retrospectively and selectively, ie cherry picked
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 His views may not reflect the stated views of people who's careers, titles, incomes adn status are based on animal experiments as he has conciseley and accurately described their failure in regard to huamsn. A position which the evidence supports and which is supported by other former directors of the US National Cancer Institute and in similar positions
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 This comment shows either a deliberate or contrived misunderstanding of 'predictive'. You may as well say 'entering lotteries is a good financial plan because sometimes some people win'. If you do not know which 1% is correct for humans until after the fact then that means it is 100% useless. It is difficult to believe that a med. student wouldn't understand such a simple thing.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 You have not made a point here. The data provided indicates that animal exp is wrong 97.5% of the time for teratogens. If you believe that there is even one area eg toxicology, drug testing, teratogenicity, disease research where animal experiments are right even 50% of the time by all means tell me
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@MarshalNey13 Not sure how this realtes to me. i present the scientific arguemnt as quotes presented indicate. This is the valid anti viv position, the 'moral' argument is actually funded by the vivisectors. google 'ajudem nos now its official peter singers lecture tours sponsored by rockefeller drug lobby'
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 Why they do it...“Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless.”; - Dr James D. Gallagher; Director of Medical Research; Lederle Laboratories; Journal of the American Medical Association; March 14 1964.; Costs millions but saves trillions (no apyouts to millions damaged by animal 'tested' substances)
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong. Animal experimentation is not scientific because it is not predictive.
refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
24# Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 Disease is increasing as a percentage. re cancer, carcinogens pass animal 'tests'..." Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice.[23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 You really have to design the medicine for the species of interest…You'll find it very rare to find a medicine that will work in both… Patrick M. O'Connor, head of oncology research for Pfizer, quoted in The New York Times, 24 November. 2006
2007
We have learned well how to treat cancer in mice and rats but we still can’t cure people. Professor Colin Garner, quoted in Accelerator MS Is a Powerful New Tool, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Vol. 27, No. 15.
want more?
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 rem quotes from 1970's, as humans and mice went our seperate ways 70 million years ago and monkeys 7.5 million it is difficult to imagine what coule have changed since 1970. Anyway i will humour you and provide more recent quotes...2006
We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans. Dr Sally Burtles, Cancer Research UK, Report of the Expert Scientific Group on phase one clinical trials, following the TGN1412 clinical trial disaster.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 Yes variances occur even between humans but intra species variation is much less than inter species variation. I would volunteer for valid drug testing, ie microdosing as this removes the misleading animal phase see drugtestingconference. com. re where we are today, ie 30,000 diseases, cancer and diabetes increasing, no cures year after year despite over 200 million animal killed in 'experiments'
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 And a further 29 year delay occurred as penicillin was ineffective systemically in rabbits so was only used topically. Thousands if not millions could have been saved if that rabbit data had not been relied on. So thanks for your opinion, i prefer that of the 3 nobel prize winners for penicillin, our most important medicine. If you have any more claims i am happy to respond to them
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 Nobel Prize winner Sir Ernst Boris Chain who co-discovered the anti-bacterial effects of penicillin. According to the court records on 2 February 1970 he stated: No animal experiment with a medicament, even if it is tested on several animal species, including primates, under all conceivable conditions, can give any guarantee that the medicament tested in this way will behave the same in humans: because in many respects the human is not the same as the animal.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 Florey (cont.) "...If we had used guinea-pigs exclusively we should have said that penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have proceeded to
try and overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man."
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 All 3 nobel rpize winners for penicillin condemned animal experimentation. Here is another example of a quote from another of them... Howard Florey:
"Mice were used in the initial toxicity tests [by Florey and Chain] because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was, for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea-pig...
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 As quotes are meaningless to you i will explain what they are. They are words which someone has said either verbally or in writing. references tell you who said the quote and where it si published originally. The source which publishes them is incidental and for those i presented were not from veg sites. I will provide you with some more examples to enlighten you.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 A veterinarian is well placed to know the differences between species and would certainly know that different medicine is used for different species, thus highlighting the insurmountable problem with animal experiments, species difference.
Will reply re other claims later
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 Sir Alexander Flemming, nobel prize winner for penicillin, out most beneficial medicine...
"How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940’s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized." [7]
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 Some more 'frauds'...2007
We have learned well how to treat cancer in mice and rats but we still can’t cure people. Professor Colin Garner, quoted in Accelerator MS Is a Powerful New Tool, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Vol. 27, No. 15.
We do trials in people because animal models do not predict what will happen in humans. Dr Sally Burtles, Cancer Research UK, Report of the Expert Scientific Group on phase one clinical trials, following the TGN1412 clinical trial disaster.
noratmedicine 11 months ago
re qualified people on this subject...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. Dr Richard Klausner, Director, National Cancer Institute, LA Times, May 6.1998
God knows we’ve cured mice of all sorts of tumours. But that isn’t medical research. Thomas E Wagner, senior scientist at Ohio University’s Edison Biotechnology Institute, the Columbus Dispatch, March 20.1998
noratmedicine 11 months ago
@J801506 Couldn't see anything on your page about your science qualifications. I'll answer you after you answer me.
kursk124 1 year ago
@J801506 Stop being so modest about yourself and tell us how many years of science you have studied after finishing high school (presumably you do have a high school degree)?
kursk124 1 year ago
@kursk124 As animal experiments are not science and in fact are as unscientific a practice as can be imagined in regard to humans medicine this seems irrelevant"...but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and misleading than vivisection."
- Prof. Pietro Croce M.D, Fulbright Scholar, Vivisection or Science: A Choice to Make, page 21.
"vivisection" here refers to all animal experimentation
noratmedicine 11 months ago
This guy completely misses the goals of animal research. If you are on the fence about whether to support it or not, I encourage you to read up on this topic. Without animals as model organisms, biomedical research would grind to a halt.
MarshalNey13 1 year ago
@MarshalNey13 Without animal real science would begin. See my comments before responding
noratmedicine 11 months ago
mis respetos para este señor que no esta tapado del cerebro como tantos estudiantillos de veterinaria que se creen omnipotentes y que pueden hacer lo que les de la gana!! ya es hora que la ley se actualice con la ciencia, y castigue los experimentos en animales.
lizzyabc 1 year ago
He's right, its not only cruel, its bad science. Plain & Simple.
wellallright 1 year ago
Drugs known to damage the human foetus are found to be safe in 70% of cases when tried on primates. Developmental Toxicology: Mechanisms and Risk, p313, McLachlan, Pratt, and Markert (Eds).1987
humanmedforhumans 1 year ago
* The polio vaccine was delayed for decades by ‘the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in primates’ according to Albert Sabin MD, the vaccine’s inventor.
...and primates are as close as you can get to a human and they are still worse than useless. curedisease. net
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
# 80 AIDS vaccines have failed in human trials following success in primates.
# Again, everything we know about HIV and AIDS has been learned by studying people, through epidemiology and in vitro research on human blood cells.
# In the French blood scandal in the 1980s, thousands of people contracted HIV through contaminated blood – given to patients because it was safe in chimps.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
Infectious disease research * Even chimpanzees, our closest living relative, are immune to the human AIDS virus, Hepatitis B and C, malaria and many other serious human pathogens. It is futile to study infections in animals that do not contract them in any similar way. * Indeed, the US government redirected $10 million of AIDS research funding away from chimpanzee studies after concluding they are a ‘deficient model’.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
# Hundreds of drugs for stroke have been developed and tested in primates and other animals, yet all of them have failed and even harmed patients in trials. ‘The stroke community needs to think long and hard about whether these animal models are financially and ethically viable’ – Lancet editorial 2006.
In 2003, a senior planning inspector dismissed Cambridge University’s proposed primate laboratory because ‘no national need’ for such research was demonstrated.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
# Everything we know about neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s has been learned from studying patients, their families and their tissues. ‘It is in human tissue that we will find the answers to these diseases’ – Dr John Xuereb, Director, Cambridge Brain Bank & Wolfson Imaging Centre.
# Deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease was pioneered in patients, not monkeys, as its developer makes plain in New Scientist (2457) 24.7.04, p 40.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
Primates and Brain research * The second major use of primates is for brain research. Yet the most dramatic differences between humans and other primates are in the brain. * Human brains can now be studied non-invasively using remarkable high-tech scanners. These enable the conscious brain to be observed while engaged in a variety of cognitive tasks of which monkeys are not even capable.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
# Arthritis drug Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004, killed up to 140,000 people – the biggest drug disaster in history – after being ‘proved safe’ in monkeys.
# Isoprenaline killed 3,500 young British asthmatics in the 1960s. Retrospective attempts to induce similar effects in primates and other animals failed.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
continued...
# Hormone replacement therapy, given to millions of women on the basis of research in monkeys, has been found to increase rather than decrease the risk of heart disease and stroke, as well as breast and ovarian cancer. HRT (labelled ‘the new thalidomide’ by the German Commission on the Safety of Medicines) caused 20,000 cases of breast cancer in Britain in one decade plus 1,300 cases of ovarian cancer since 1991, according to The Lancet.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
Primates and drug testing... * The major experimental use of primates is for safety testing of medicines. Yet primates’ track record at predicting drugs’ dangerous side effects is abysmal. Many drugs that were safe for primates have gone on to injure or kill people. * Arthritis drug Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004, killed up to 140,000 people – the biggest drug disaster in history – after being ‘proved safe’ in monkeys.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
ibid 2009 "- Best yet, researchers can test hundreds of different donors from a diverse genetic pool, a feat that's impossible to replicate with lab animals since they are bred to be genetically similar. "The information you get from this type of test is far and beyond what you'd get out of a mouse study, both because it's humans and because you can see the effect across a spectrum of genotypes." Michael Rivard, vice president of corporate development at VaxDesign.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
The following quotes are all taken from Catherine Guthrie, Putting Immunity in a Test Tube, Time, 27th March.2009
- In the end, you can only extrapolate so much from a monkey model. Wayne Koff, senior vice president of research and development at the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
2009
If you make a drug that's effective against HIV, sometimes it works against SIV and sometimes it doesn't. So that basically devalues SIV as an animal model for doing experiments involved with developing drugs…The slight problem (with using monkeys as an animal model for AIDS in humans) is the monkeys don't go on to develop AIDS, they don't get sick. Dr Paul Bieniasz of the Rockefeller University in New York. Quoted in Scientists make HIV that can infect monkeys, Reuters, 3rd March.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
last quote was from 2005. "Because most human teratogens have been discovered by alert physicians or epidemiology studies, not animal studies, animal studies play a minor role in discovering teratogens... Well-performed epidemiology studies are still the best method for determining the human risk and the effects of environmental toxicants. Brent, Pediatrics, 113(4 Suppl):984-95. 2004
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
Mean positive and negative predictivities barely exceed 50%; discordance among the species used is substantial; reliable extrapolation from animal data to humans is impossible, and virtually all known human teratogens have so far been identified in spite of, rather than because of, animal-based methods. Bailey and colleagues, Biogenic Amines, vol.19, N° 2, pp 97-146
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
last quote was from 2006.
"Birth defects induced by maternal exposure to exogenous agents during pregnancy are preventable, if the agents themselves can be identified and avoided. Billions of dollars and man-hours have been dedicated to animal-based discovery and characterisation methods over decades. We show here, via a comprehensive systematic review and analysis of this data, that these methods constitute questionable science and pose a hazard to humans..."
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
"— and the response rate is declining. Almost all drugs tried in humans work against subcutaneous xenografts in mice. “How many more negative data do you want? It’s very depressing.” said Isaiah Fidler , Ph.D., of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Research Center in Houston. Ken Garber, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 98, No. 17, September 6.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
"Change is needed. Thirty years of experience with subcutaneous xenografts, human tumors implanted under the skin of the mouse, have satisfied few because so many drugs that cure cancer in these mice fail to help humans. A 2004 analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that only 3.8% of patients in phase I cancer drug trials between 1991 and 2002 achieved an objective clinical response..." cont.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
You really have to design the medicine for the species of interest…You'll find it very rare to find a medicine that will work in both… Patrick M. O'Connor, head of oncology research for Pfizer, quoted in The New York Times, 24 November 2006
Even when drugs with evidence of anticancer activity in preclinical in vivo models are given at their maximum tolerated doses, they frequently fail to produce useful activity in humans. Sausville & Burger, Cancer Research, 66, 3351-3354, April 1 2006
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
last quote was from 2008. In summary, mouse xenograft models should not be viewed as ideal models for cancer drug development. Altered, nonhuman host stroma, poor predictive value when applied in an empirical sense, and questionable relation to the naturally occurring human disease are but a few features, which temper enthusiasm for their use. Sausville & Burger, Cancer Research, 66, 3351-3354, April 1, 2006
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
with the same tumor, with the exception of lung and possibly ovarian cancer."There's this mantra: 'Xenografts don't predict for human effects,'" said P HoughtonPh.D., a cancer researcher at the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Ken Garber, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 30th December.said Peter Houghton, Ph.D., a cancer researcher at the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Ken Garber, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 30/12/0
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
Mouse xenograft models of cancer, understandably, have a terrible reputation. Although researchers and companies routinely use these human tumors in mice for preclinical drug testing, individual models poorly predict how drugs will act in the clinic. Retrospective reviews published by the National Cancer Institute in 2001 and the National Cancer Institute of Canada in 2003 came to the same conclusion: Drugs that work againstcancer in xenograft mice rarely work in people..." cont curediseasenet
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
I'm very against animal testing, it's cruel, immoral and i've unfortunately witnessed it, but the arguments this guy puts forward are very weak. Animals aren't so different from humans, especially the brain mechanisms. The only difference is how certain parts of the brain influences behaviour, which they can usually find comparrissons for
Decimated3 1 year ago
@Decimated3 To quote well known French neurologist Jean Martin Charcot, "The only really decisive data touching the cerebral pathology of man are, in my opinion, those developed according to the anatomico-clinical method (i.e. humans)...To it, I may justly say we owe whatever definitive knowledge we have of brain pathology." cont. above curedisease. net health. org. nz
sciencenotrats 1 year ago 2
@Decimated3 As for the localization of certain cerebral functions, this method is not only the best, but the only one that can be employed. What light for instance could experimentation [on animals] have thrown on the question as to the seat of the function of speech?...The study of the brain, if it is to bear fruit, must be made on man,
sciencenotrats 1 year ago 2
@Decimated3 i.e., at the bedside and at the post-mortem theatre; the discovery of the exact seat of aphasia was made in that way and could nothave been made in any other... The utmost that can be learned from experiments on the brains of animals is the topography of the animals brain,
sciencenotrats 1 year ago 2
@Decimated3 and it must still remain for the science of human anatomy and clinical investigation to enlighten us in regard...of our own species; and in fact, it is from the department of clinical and post-mortem study that so far all our best data for brain localizations have been secured." curedisease. net vivisectionresearch. ca
sciencenotrats 1 year ago 2
Using other sentient creatures for our own selfish reasons is immoral and a symptom of speciesism-- the violent prejudice against non humans. It is no more acceptable to use a whale or a mouse for research than a Jewish person or Chinese person. It is baseless discrimination.
jamierivet 1 year ago
I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or does not. The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of this enmity without looking further. Mark Twain
jamierivet 1 year ago
Daymyth, you gave an incorrect ratio in stating 140, 000 dead out of 6 BIL people, since you assumed that ALL 6 BIL are using prescription drugs each year, In fact, the number of people on medical drugs is only a small fraction of our population.
jamierivet 1 year ago
heres the point, when u havent done this
stuff u know its wrong, once youve been
round the block a few times it can seem ok. this is not OK. no simple lego block
breakdown of the worlds words to describe can help u escape it.
McmullenEJ 1 year ago
i could not pull myself to continue watching this bullshit past minute 4.. some other ignorant attempting pseudo-scientific discourse.. the horror, o pussycat!
asf04 2 years ago
theres is not good or bad science
do you think that you can fuck all the science history, this is not a sociology or moral class of highschool
you are a pendejo! man, you can eliminate one of the rules of science there is no moral, is ethical and thats diferent
im no saying that is good doing animal test they are living organism and are alive
im saying that you are a pendejo!
lordtonk 2 years ago
There is no good in vivisection. You might as well flip a coin for the results because research tested on animals are often dangerous and incorrect.
Ry4n 2 years ago
experimenting on animals would have been an option when we were dumb just a 100 or 150 or 200 years ago or w.e but now we know shit about genes DNA and crap so why do animal tests if we've already broken down the components of life? simple answer whats still happening is quicker. just like why we're only JUST
beginning to look into an alternative to gas engines. it was there it worked but now oh look at what we did. so lets move onto something that gets better results and is better for all!
McmullenEJ 2 years ago
You need to create a liver cancer replication to test a new drug and maintain for 6 months in vivo what do you do? Before you move into human testing you test on mice/rats. Animals with similar biochemical and anatomical responses. Then if it passes that stage you move into human trails. It makes sense it's the only real way to do it. You should talk to a scientist in medical research.
daymyth 1 year ago
daymyth
You seem to have missed the crucial point - it can never be known, before testing in humans, whether the results from other species will or will not correspond to effects in SOME humans.
AR2048 1 year ago
Over decades of testing it has correlated well that effects in related animals relates most often with corresponding animals.
Model organisms are used for study for this purpose. They represent good examples for us to understand the way life systems work.
Drosophila - Eukaryotes. Zebra Fish - Vertebrates. E. Coli - Prokaryotes. Arabadopsis - Plants.
For the most part cells function in similar ways, as do systems, the closer the system the more correlations of function.
daymyth 1 year ago
daymyth
Causal/functional asymmetry - the theory states although we cannot infer similarity of causal properties from similarity of functional properties...
we can infer differences in causal properties from differences in functional properties.
AR2048 1 year ago
When we identify a new protein, we do not know its function. But by analyzing its core structure and identifying domains. We can correlate to simliar structures and hypothesise a function. This gives us a reasonable idea, a direction with which to seek evidence for.
Untill we move into human testing we can not make statements about reactions with humans. But we can hypothesize. If trials work well in mice, then we can move on to humans. Animal testing is a stepping stone.
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth considering the stats and opinions expressed animal testing is not s stepping stone to humans, it is a diversion, a lottery which may or may not be correct for humans.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats Your really talented at quote mining and avoiding questions which deal with the science. So I'll ask again. How much genetic variation is to much genetic variation?
Also do you understand what I mean when I say you can't prove a negative?
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth 1% is too much. hav e you ever a mistaken a monkey for a human? thats what 1% looks like. its scientific uselessness is equally apparant. I have already provided some quotes re. the uselessness of the primate model, ill provide more. 200 million animals a year vivisected to make us healthier yet no cures (and 30,000 diseases to choose from). the onus is on you to find even one animal which is a reliable model for humans is drug testing or medical research. Can you?
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats You are aware that some humans can vary between each other by as much as 1%. Its not about genes its about physiology. Most major functions are conserved.
You don't understand basic genetics or biochemistry or biology in general. You have no grasp of evolution, you've probably never used an NCIB database. All you do is quote mine.
Yes thier are downsides to animal testing that are valid. That does not mean you entirely rule it out.
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth yes drug effects vary between humans so what is the point in using animals. Your personal criticisms of me are not relevant to the issue at hand which is that animals are not a reliable model for humans. that is a fact. If not show me the animal which is a good model for humans in drug testing or medical research. You and i both know that there is no such animal and that therefore supporters of vivisection cannot provide evidence for their claims.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats The problem is it's difficult to discuss these things with you because you have no understanding of the basic science. Do you not see the problem in that?
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth I understand that human medicine cannot be reliably based on animals. That is also made clear by the stats and quotes provided and the fact that diseases remain uncured and we are not protected from harmful substances. It also fits with common sense. Challenging my personal knowledge is avoiding the point, that no animal is a reliable model for the human and they never will be. If there is one tell me what it is.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats I can't convince you because your an animal rights activist with no clear science background. If you don't understand the basics how can I explain it to you? The statement you said regards to Drosophila made me facepalm myself.
Look the basic, Yes animal testing has downsides and what those scientists say are true pitfalls of working with a different animal model. But it doesn't mean we should rule it out as a procedure. You work with it.
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth you are in effect saying that about the scientists that i have quoted, i am only passing on the message. mice would not become more human irresective of my qualifications. dr greek has already explained why animals cannot be predictive for humans and that is correct, if it were not it could be falsified.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats Like I've said before I don;t disagree with the points they make. And as I will continue to repeat myself, animal testing is just a stepping stone in the model. Yes thier are pitfalls in this method. But that does not mean we should rule it out as a point of inquiry. I'm going to say it again, basic physiology is conserved, although you cannot gleam direct predictions you can use it as a guide.
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth A stepping stone would lead on a path to a goal. Animal experiments may lead to a conclusion but it will always require a test which is predictive for humans to tell us what will happen in humans. We do not know if the "stepping stone' of animal experimentation will be correct for human or not. It cannot be used as a guide.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats Perhaps it was my fault in giving that allusion. Perhaps a better term of phrase would be course of action to judge feasibility.
daymyth 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats If you work out that the mechanism of action of why your drug failed is not applicable to humans then you could move onto human trails. But in terms of basic functions we share alot in common with mice, core components are conserved evolutionarily.
I guess if you understood the science we wouldn't be having this type of argument.
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth You would know that differences at a cellular level make animals poor models for humans, basic functions in common are not enough to make them a good model for us. drugtestingconference. com has better methods
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats The cellular level is where there are the least differences. Most of the differences are anatomical and developmental. Cellular function is highly conserved. See if you had the basic knowledge you would understand that.
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth again refer to dr greeks description of why animals cannot be predictive for humans. There is little point in criticising me. if you cannot counter the claims by those I have quoted or find even one animal which is a relaible model for drug testing or medical research then you argument in favour of animal experimentation will rely on tangents not on whether it can achieve what the public is told it can, curing disease and protecting us from harmful substances.
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats I'm not countering claims, as I've said before I've agreed with the statements made. And I'm just going to end up repeating my self. If you could understand the science this would be a lot shorter discussion. Because you lack the general knowledge it makes it difficult for you to understand my position.
What I'm saying is yes I understand the pitfalls but, and because you have no understanding of biology you can't understand the but.
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth Ok, im glad we agree generally. But re animals being a 'stepping stone' to humans ..."In support of animal testing vivisectors say, "We don't expect final answers from animal experiments, but just hints, indications which encourage us to continue in a particular direction". But what's an indication? An approximate indication, merely orientative and as the compass card shows the compass can point in the right direction,..." cont next
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@daymyth cont. "...of which there is only one, or in many wrong directions. And an animal experiment only very rarely points in the right direction, and when it does it is due to coincidence, verifiable only after the fact. Experimenting on animals to do medical research is like playing roulette." Prof Pietro croce, "That's why I am against vivisection" in CIVIS International Foundation Report Autumn 1989 Hans Ruesch (Ed.) CIVIS Massagno/Lugano Switzerland 1989 nr7 p1
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats I understand your desire to quote those which appear to have more knowledge on the sciences than yourself. But to make an informed decision and not fall into error, wouldn't it be best if you yourself understood the sciences?
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth There is no point in re wording 'stepping stones' or saying that a person needs scientific knowledge to understand this issue. One species of animal cannot be predictive for another species, there are even variations between strains of the same species. There is no point in persisting with the claim that animal experimentation is even useful let alone necessary, even to claim that its not counter productive would be false. curedisease. net
sciencenotrats 1 year ago
@sciencenotrats Your kidding right? "One species of animal cannot be predictive for another species" How do you make that statement if you do not know the science behind it? Your just reveling in your own ignorance.
Do you even know what a non-synonymous change is? How about a frame shift mutation? How can you understand genetic variation if you do not understand the context of these terms?
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth in fact it is not even possible to reliably transfer results between strains of the same species. Again..."Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984." cont.
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@daymyth "...If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals." Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78. i make that statement because it is proven through hundreds of millions of animal experiments. What evidence do you provide for the claim that a species can be a reliable model for another species. Can you find a species which is predictive for humans?
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@noratmedicine Ummm I don't know... Because of an understanding of a fundamental understanding of biology. All you do is quote mine. You don't even understand what your saying.
If there is so much evidence, hundreds of millions of animal experiments. What could science possibly have to gain from wasting its time studying model organisms?
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth i think that history and inertia play a role in the continuation of viv. as do titles, established protocols etc but everwhelmingly the provision of legal protection to the manufacturers of artificial substances are a motive. i would regard that as the most insidious.
noratmedicine 1 year ago
@noratmedicine Well yes, hence the term model organism. Like yeast. Fully gene sequenced and mostly annotated. You can actually buy mice clones with a known gene sequence. These are very useful tools in research. Studying some organisms can be very very difficult and costly. Hence a more manageable species as a precursor. Zebra Fish, great vertebrate model. Models however are just that... Models.
daymyth 1 year ago
@daymyth i dont think that science has much to gain but i think that certain industries, individuals and institutions do. perhaps ypu can tell me of one disease which ahs been cured, hundreds of millions of animals have been used in thw pursuit of a cure
noratmedicine 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show