i started thinking about it when researching birth control, specifically, non hormonal birth control and also neem oil (for the hubby) and everything i read said, "in rats, these methods were effective 100% of the time).
so i did some further reading, because i decided to go with a non-hormonal from India (centchroman) and basically, the John's Hopkins article said, "was tested as rigorously as hormonal birth control since the 60's" and both were originally tested on rats.
by the fda's own stats, 92% of meds tested safe/ successful in animals fail human trials. of the remaining 8% that go onto market, half are withdrawn because of bad side effects in humans- think VIOXX.
with all the genetic, physiological, etc differences between animals and humans, testing on animals is NOT reliable. very small DNA differences can translate into significant expressed differences, which obviously impacts how drugs and diseases act between species.
there are better ways that killing and torturing animals for UNRELIABLE data.
yeah, not being tortured and murdered by humans couldn't possible improve the wellbeing of animals.
things are changing, research improves, as non-animal methods are used more, they'll be cheaper. as consumers, we can encourage the use of non-animal methods and spare animals from suffering. we have NO right to test on animals.
I can't believe how many people don't understand that. Even two humans from the same family will have different reactions to drugs. I was on medication a while back that make me break out in spots (like measles) and lose about 14 kilos in the space of six weeks. My sister was on the same medication and had no reaction at all. That sums it up, IMO. If two people who are that closely related can have such different reactions tot he same medication, what the hell do they think they'll get from testing drugs on a different species?
I believe that, for a long time, animal testing was the only viable option that was taught/spoken of by researchers. It's not so much they were "fooled" as it is a matter of "this is how it's always been done" and resistance to change on the part of government agencies, etc. It is generally recognized by research scientists that in-vivo animal trials are flawed and it is not at all a perfect way to know how human trials will go. It's hard to extrapolate across species, for one
( ... )
Yes, I think they have. I also think that it has to do with politics. If you hadn't noticed, the entire pharmacuedical community is run on pure politics. You know how many times I've gone to the doctors and they prescribed me something that I didn't really need for something that could have been prevented by giving up dairy? (I have an allergy to casein and when I had chronic ear infections and asthma growing up - my doctor never suggested I give up dairy - he handed me antibiotics and inhalers). The entire business is illogical.
Ryan posted a pretty good quote about this once. "We claim to test on animals because of how similar we are, yet we justify it because of how different they are."
not even individual humans are the same! My dad took a statin that worked well on other people but he almost died from it. So it just goes to show how western medications are dangerous - even if they've been tested on humans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-chaitowitz/an-animal-advocate-explai_b_171845.html
is written by my late co-worker.
medicine has come along DESPITE animal testing. it's time to change.
Reply
i started thinking about it when researching birth control, specifically, non hormonal birth control and also neem oil (for the hubby) and everything i read said, "in rats, these methods were effective 100% of the time).
so i did some further reading, because i decided to go with a non-hormonal from India (centchroman) and basically, the John's Hopkins article said, "was tested as rigorously as hormonal birth control since the 60's" and both were originally tested on rats.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
by the fda's own stats, 92% of meds tested safe/ successful in animals fail human trials. of the remaining 8% that go onto market, half are withdrawn because of bad side effects in humans- think VIOXX.
with all the genetic, physiological, etc differences between animals and humans, testing on animals is NOT reliable. very small DNA differences can translate into significant expressed differences, which obviously impacts how drugs and diseases act between species.
there are better ways that killing and torturing animals for UNRELIABLE data.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
computer models
epidemiological studies
testing on human cell cultures
etc etc etc
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
things are changing, research improves, as non-animal methods are used more, they'll be cheaper. as consumers, we can encourage the use of non-animal methods and spare animals from suffering. we have NO right to test on animals.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
It was better than that, but you get the point.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment