[redsniper]

red X's are quite unsettling...

[Swamp_Thing]

This will never work on humans, and i doubt the dog was  of full health after the experience. One of he greatest obstacules to freezing a body to revive later, is the fact that the water within each cell isn´t frozen fast enough, so it forms crystals that destroy the cell in the process. This saline solution doesn´t freeze you, granted. So the cells aren´t destroyed. But how can it deal with the fact that the human brain is damaged after only a few minutes without oxygen?
If they invented a new type of anti-coolant or something, that they could replace the blood with, and deep freeze the body, there could be a chance of this working. But saline solution alone won´t cut it. They need a substance that preserves the cells, while at the same time places them in deep hibernation.

Anyway, i too am not pleased with animal experiments, but medical research cannot be made any other way. It´s a burden we need to bare, no matter how much we deslike it.
Actually, i wouldn´t mind seing them experiment on humans aswell, just as long as they are volunteers. Experimenting with humans directlly would cut the research time in half. Unfortunally governments and religious authorities have deemed such experiments as "immoral", even if the subjects are strictly volunteers. I would rather see this done to a man, than to a poor dog that had no vote in the matter...

If they do find a way to make it work, the possibilities are tremendous. Just as long as Racoon City stays well over the other side of the ocean.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
But how can it deal with the fact that the human brain is damaged after only a few minutes without oxygen?

Why are you finding hard to believe that they can pump the blood out of the body, pump saline solution in and yet have trouble figuring out how they could oxygenate the solution and continuously pump it around the animals body?

[Unknown Target]

It's not even them oxygenating the saline. The saline preserves cells as they were when they were the saline was first introduced. Therefore, the saline keeps the brain cells in the same condition as the other cells: ready to be reanimated.

That's my take on it, at least.

And yes, I don't like animal testing either, but it's necessary, imo. As long as it's done in such a way as that the animals are not tortured (such as undue pain, etc), then I'm cautiously pro about it.

[Flipside]

My main concern is about long-term effects. Saline solution, obviously, contains an awful lot of salt, and salt has a habit of forming into crystals and growing over time.

The idea itself has considerable medical possibilities, and, this would be a 'do or die' option, I don't see many doctors approaching this casually due to the possible contradiction to the Hippocratic Oath.

However, like cloning, it would be wise to wait and see if there are any long-term effects before considering taking it further. After all, Dolly the Sheep seemed perfectly healthy at first, but ended up revealing a large number of genetic defects as time passed.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by karajorma


If you ever get cancer. Take an asprin. Lose an arm, asprin. Get an infection, witch hazel. Need a heart transplant, die.

Every single drug and medical technique was pioneered using animal testing. Don't like it, then don't use ANY of them.

I'm so sick of anti-vivisectionists acting as though it's wrong to experiment on animals when the techniques developed as a result save human lives. Especially as the same bastards who complain the loudest about it are always the first in line to use the products of those experiments when they get sick.

Meh..there is a limit to everything.

Testing a cold or cancer remedy on some "lower" animals I can live with.
But making really bizzare experiments on animals like DOGS.. They are like, mans best friend.

humane tratment of animals and respect for ALL life on Earth. That is the motto I live by. And in case you don't know, I happen to love msot animals more than i love most humans.

[karajorma]

Then you need to sort your f**king priorities out.

Like I said I bet you won't be complaining if 20 years down the line this technique saves your son or daughter who was in a car crash.

Its very easy to condem other people to die because you want to prevent the use of animals in medical experiments but when it's your own flesh and blood I'd bet you'd be singing a completely different tune.

As I keep saying this is no more bizzare than the first heart transplants were. You want to say that those also shouldn't have been researched? Cause IIRC they tested those on dogs first too. Will you refuse to have a bypass or any other kind of surgery involving work on even trasplantation of blood vessels from your own body because of the number of man's best friends who died to perfect the procedure?

[aldo_14]

I'm against the testing of life saving drugs on animals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think we should use PETA members instead - then everybody can be happy.

[Taristin]

Originally posted by TrashMan

Testing a cold or cancer remedy on some "lower" animals I can live with.
But making really bizzare experiments on animals like DOGS.. They are like, mans best friend.

humane tratment of animals and respect for ALL life on Earth. That is the motto I live by. And in case you don't know, I happen to love msot animals more than i love most humans.

You contradict yourself.
What makes an animal 'lower'? Because they're less cute? Because they're not fuzzy? Because they've not been domesticated?

How can you consider all life sacred, and then call some species 'lower' and say they are acceptable to submit to testings?

[Flipside]

My problem has always been with csometic testing etc on Animals, which was un-neccesary and pointless. It needs to be borne in mind that these animals weren't nicked off the street or bought from Dogs homes for experimentation (or, at least, I sincerely hope they weren't, I have no real evidence to prove that). The chances are that they were bred as lab animals, much as some rats and apes are.

Yes, from a certain point of view it is - distasteful, and I don't believe in running rickshod over animal rights, however, I also realise that a great many people who are around today would not be so had it not been for experiments that were orignally run on animals.

A lot of research has actually moved away from animal testing now, preferring to use other methods, though, they face problems, because, despite the fact no-one wants them testing on live animals, no-one wants them testing on cloned human cells, or stem cells either, so they kind of get boxed into a corner.

[karajorma]

I'm 100% behind the ban on cosmetic testing as it was completely unnecessary. I don't like animal testing at all in fact and I'm all for any laws that make sure the animals are treated with as much respect as possible but the fact is that unfortunately it's an necessary evil.

What a lot of the idiots who are against vivisection don't realise is that the drug companies would love to move away from animal testing.
 Animal testing is hugely expensive for one thing. It would be in the drug companies finacial interest to move away animal testing. The problem is that the body is like an incredibly complex chemical factory and there is no possible way to fully model that using cell cultures or any of the other claptrap that the animal lovers come out with.

Cell cultures can help but they can't replace proper animal testing. Sad but true.

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by karajorma


Why are you finding hard to believe that they can pump the blood out of the body, pump saline solution in and yet have trouble figuring out how they could oxygenate the solution and continuously pump it around the animals body?

Yes they could. But did they? The article doesn´t mention that.
And what are the consequences of joining oxygen and saline solution? I´m no chemist, obviously. But i expect the oxygen to have an adverse effect on the saline solution. Even if you continuaslly pump the solution through the body, some cristals are bound to be left behind and start forming larger crystal clusters. What effect would that have?
There´s lots of questions, that we as non-scientists cannot answer. For example, an excess of salt in the body severly disrupts the electrolite balance, and the liver and kidneys would be shot to hell trying to deal with the unbalance.
What i mean to say is, saline solution alone would not cut it. There must be something else that we don´t know about, some drug, or some other procedure that we as non-scientists don´t know about.
I would need to read more about this to make a closer acessment.

[Bobboau]

when your cold your metabolism shuts down, that's how it works, it isn't cryogenics and will never lead to anything for cyrogenics, it's simply an controled version of the whole "kid falls into a frozen lake is found nine hours later and revived undamaged" thing.

animals are animals, I don't give a damn what happens to them, much like I don't give a damn about the bugs that hit my windsheild on my car, there animals you see, irrelevent other multi-cellular organisms that consume food and oxygen that could go to a human, a human wich is what I am, wich is the only animal I care about, because I am an animal on a planet were there is a rather cut throught evolutionary process going on, and of wich I am the product of, no other animal on this planet gives a damn about any other animal exept can I eat it or will it try to eat me and we are no exeption. it's just that the type of animal I am happens to live in large groups controled by small numbers of members of that group, any way to convince a large segment of the population gets you power, there are many governments religons and cults organised around this concept, and there is also PETA.

[icespeed]

what bob just said. you guys think too science-fictiony, cryogenics has little if anything to do with it.

we had a lecturer mention the metabolism thing a few weeks back with kids who fall into freezing cold water. what happens is the gas carrying ability of the blood is hugely changed, combined with other reflexes, causing slow heart beat, slow respiration and reduced tissue metabolism. i don't know if it's possible that these processes can be entirely stopped- i don't know about the scientific credentials of the authors and all, so i can't say- but it's not a far leap that if cold water can cause such extreme reduction in body function yet the body can still later be revived with little harm, then those same functions can be totally stopped and reactivated. maybe.

sorry my english is a little dead today, i spent six hours on the train. good news is that they found my wallet though so i'm happy.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Yes they could. But did they? The article doesn´t mention that.
And what are the consequences of joining oxygen and saline solution? I´m no chemist, obviously. But i expect the oxygen to have an adverse effect on the saline solution.

Why? Salt is completely stable to oxidation. Your body uses haemoglobin for oxygen transport mainly because plasma can't disolve the amounts of oxygen needed IIRC. In this situation the bodies metabolism is slowed down a large amount and therefore simply oxygenating the solution before pumping it in might be enough.

Thing is that they might not even need to oxygenate the blood anyway. Bob is correct about the cases where sudden cooling prevent brain damage occuring. The reason this works is probably because the reaction that damages the brain requires the body to be at a reasonably warm temperature. Cool the body down and it proceeds much more slowly if at all.

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Even if you continuaslly pump the solution through the body, some cristals are bound to be left behind and start forming larger crystal clusters. What effect would that have?

Why are you making the assumption that when they say saline solution they mean something other than the standard isotonic saline solutions that are used to give drugs via an IV drip?

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
What i mean to say is, saline solution alone would not cut it. There must be something else that we don´t know about, some drug, or some other procedure that we as non-scientists don´t know about.
I would need to read more about this to make a closer acessment.

There may be more to it than simple saline but I wouldn't bet money on it.

Originally posted by icespeed
what bob just said. you guys think too science-fictiony, cryogenics has little if anything to do with it.

I simply mentioned cryogenics to give an example of how this would be used. Bobs example is better though

[Grug]

IMO the dog is a bloody champion. His name should be engraved on the moon.

Go Dogs!

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Raa


You contradict yourself.
What makes an animal 'lower'? Because they're less cute? Because they're not fuzzy? Because they've not been domesticated?

How can you consider all life sacred, and then call some species 'lower' and say they are acceptable to submit to testings?

Hello? You missed the " " part. Why do you think I put those anyway?

by kajorama
Then you need to sort your f**king priorities out.

Like I said I bet you won't be complaining if 20 years down the line this technique saves your son or daughter who was in a car crash.

Its very easy to condem other people to die because you want to prevent the use of animals in medical experiments but when it's your own flesh and blood I'd bet you'd be singing a completely different tune.

As I keep saying this is no more bizzare than the first heart transplants were. You want to say that those also shouldn't have been researched? Cause IIRC they tested those on dogs first too. Will you refuse to have a bypass or any other kind of surgery involving work on even trasplantation of blood vessels from your own body because of the number of man's best friends who died to perfect the procedure?

False reasoning. I can comment NOW becouse I'm now being more or less objective (not torn by my feelings). If someone I love was dying I wouldn't really be thingking perfectly straight..of course I would give everything to have them back.
In such situations, people are often ready to do ANYTHING.

and about refusing treatment that's allready been invented... Why? What's the point? It's allready there, and not using them won't change anything or bring back the animals that died during it's dvelopment.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by karajorma
I'm 100% behind the ban on cosmetic testing as it was completely unnecessary. I don't like animal testing at all in fact and I'm all for any laws that make sure the animals are treated with as much respect as possible but the fact is that unfortunately it's an necessary evil.

What a lot of the idiots who are against vivisection don't realise is that the drug companies would love to move away from animal testing.
 Animal testing is hugely expensive for one thing. It would be in the drug companies finacial interest to move away animal testing. The problem is that the body is like an incredibly complex chemical factory and there is no possible way to fully model that using cell cultures or any of the other claptrap that the animal lovers come out with.

Cell cultures can help but they can't replace proper animal testing. Sad but true.

Ture.. But let's allso not forget that in the end you DO HAVE TO TEST IT ON HUMANS ANYWAY.
Body build and metabolism of a rat or dog are different than humans. All th testing you do really only ammounts to the general direction, and in the end, some human must take the risk of trying the procedure medicine...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
False reasoning. I can comment NOW becouse I'm now being more or less objective (not torn by my feelings). If someone I love was dying I wouldn't really be thingking perfectly straight..of course I would give everything to have them back.
In such situations, people are often ready to do ANYTHING.

Or you could look at it as you realising you made a dreadful mistake only when your nose is ground up against the fact.
Some people only realise their mistake when it affects them personally. The fact that you'd be emotional in that situation doesn't mean that you were any more wrong when you made your so called objective choice.

 Fact is that no one I know has died from anything this technique could save them from. Doens't stop me from objectively supporting it.

Originally posted by TrashMan
and about refusing treatment that's allready been invented... Why? What's the point? It's allready there, and not using them won't change anything or bring back the animals that died during it's dvelopment.

It's called sticking up for your principles and it's something that most people who complain about vivisection find a completely confusing notion. What it means is that you say "I'm morally against the use of animals in testing drugs and therefore I will not use anything that is the product of something I feel so strongly against" as opposed to the usual stance of "I'm going to ***** and moan about cute animals dying and generally hold back medical progress but when I get sick you better give me all the f**king drugs you can cause I'm not willing to die for my principles but I feel that you should"

Seriously if you're really against the use of animals for medical testing make a promise to never use a single drug that was tested on animals after today. Otherwise quit trying to make everyone live by rules you're not even willing to live by yourself.
 And if this does end up becoming a technique that is used for tramua patients in the future remember to tell the ambulance crew that you'd rather risk bleeding to death in the ambulance rather that be saved by something that was once a bizarre experiment carried out on man's best friend.

Originally posted by TrashMan
Ture.. But let's allso not forget that in the end you DO HAVE TO TEST IT ON HUMANS ANYWAY.
Body build and metabolism of a rat or dog are different than humans. All th testing you do really only ammounts to the general direction, and in the end, some human must take the risk of trying the procedure medicine...

The words of someone who has only the vaguest knowledge of how drug design works. Do you have any idea how many drugs are abandoned at the animal testing stage due to unforseen side effects? Do you have any idea how many peoples lives are saved even when the drug is approved because the animal testing shows that the drug is incompatible with things like high blood pressure or some other condition?

Of course human testing is needed because animals aren't perfect models but your plan is analogous to boeing taking the blueprints of their jet and going straight to building full sized planes without any further testing. Why build models, after all they don't suffer the stresses of the real plane in exactly the same way.

The suggestion to put untested drugs directly from the cell culture studies into humans without any animal testing is just callous. It would cause a rise in drugs having teratogenic effects like thalidamide because you can't model the development of a feotus in a cell culture. So your wonderful method would result in more drugs on the market which have an unknown effect on unborn children. Or which cause heart attacks in people with high blood pressure. Or which work with normal people but kill you if you have a failing liver, or kidneys.

On top of that direct to human trials would mean longer drug development times because no company is stupid enough to start mass producing drugs that could have the above effects for fear of getting sued. Without animal tests and the disections that follow it would take decades before you could say with any kind of confidence that a drug might not cause long term liver damage or something of the sort.

Testing on humans first is stupidity of the highest order and is only ever suggested by people with no knowledge of how drug design works.

[Ford Prefect]

Hello? You missed the " " part. Why do you think I put those anyway?

Because you knew that you were acknowledging the validity of the term, but did not want to concede it, so you pulled a John Kerry and tried to meet everyone at the epicenter? Just a guess.

I'm all for animal testing. We have no treaties with animals, and they're not going to be offended if we use some of their individuals for medical research. (Even if they were, I think we know who would win that war. Heh heh.) Hell, drug companies test all their new products on the general public because the FDA is a lifeless puppet, but I don't hear people complain about that.