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.