Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mbrinkm
12:04 PM on 07/13/2011
I can't believe the ignorance of people on here saying that animal testing isn't necessary. Model organisms are one of the most significant advances in medical research. Mice and other models (nematodes, drosophila, yeast) have allowed the characterization of genes, pathway mapping, disease interactions, and countless other advances.

Is this ideal? No of course not. But humans are an even worse subjects (and certain things are simply impossible to do in human subjects, like gene knockouts). Human populations are not as genetically homogenous and human lifestyles and environments are even less homogenous.

To deny model organism research would be to deny the advancement of medical science for all but the most life-threatening diseases where a dangerous therapy gamble is the only recourse
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
12:17 PM on 07/13/2011
I can't believe the ignorant people here trying to justify animal abuse.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mbrinkm
02:05 PM on 07/13/2011
I assume you forgo modern medicine then? It's easy for you to call it animal abuse as if we are using animals because...I don't know, maybe you think we like it or something? You don't have an alternative other than "just test everything on humans" (which is absolutely not feasible in almost every case).

The next time you or someone you know receives a treatment or takes their medication, I hope you realize that that advancement very likely would not have happened without model organisms
photo
rpeterson2205
Half troll, half realist, all asshole.
12:35 PM on 07/13/2011
Yeah it was really tough for me to get over animal testing in my field. It's totally necessary, but it's something I would never feel right about doing personally. Some people have no problem with making animals suffer for our benefit, though, which is fortunate.
photo
MIKEBC
Old school Roosevelt democrat
11:53 AM on 07/13/2011
Good news but I'm sure the anti-progress conservatives will find something they don't like about it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emerging pattern
11:56 AM on 07/13/2011
LOL If you want to politicize it, it's more probable that the "ends justify the means" GOP/neocons are likely to applaud ithis.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
12:55 PM on 07/13/2011
I'll bet if Obama said something positive about it, the neocons would immediately oppose it.
12:22 PM on 07/13/2011
Yeah... the most enthusiastic animal rights activists tend to be right-wingers...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emerging pattern
02:04 PM on 07/13/2011
Really?... please post your source for that 'factoid'. Thanks!
11:38 AM on 07/13/2011
A good way to advance medical testing is to stop testing on animals and start testing on humans. We have thousands of criminals on dealth row awaiting execution who could be good test subjects. Offer to pay their victims restitution in the victims name or if there is no restitution to be paid the money would go to the prisoner's family
photo
Sacchinftw
Isn't it sad...?
11:41 AM on 07/13/2011
We'll get right on that as soon as we toss out this entire human rights thing.

And what's with using sterile needles for lethal injection...?
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
12:22 PM on 07/13/2011
What about animal rights?
12:39 PM on 07/13/2011
Even criminals have rights... We even have it within our constitution "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
11:59 PM on 07/13/2011
I think Stacy Peterson's family would disagree with you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emerging pattern
11:35 AM on 07/13/2011
(continued...)
Drugs passed as safe for human consumptio­n by animal testing
Reserpine (anti-hypertensive) – increased risks of cancer of the brain, pancreas, uterus, ovaries, skin and women’s breasts.
Methotrexate (leukemia) – caused intestinal hemorrhage, severe anemia and tumors.
Urethane (leukemia) – caused cancer of liver, lungs and bone marrow.
Mitotane (leukemia) – caused kidney damage.
Cyclophosphamide (cancer) – caused liver and lung damage.
Isoniazid (tuberculosis) – caused liver destruction.

Kanamycin (tuberculosis) – caused deafness and kidney destruction.
Chloromycetin (typhoid) – caused leukemia, cardiovascular collapse and death.
Phenolphthalein (laxative) – caused kidney damage, delirium and death.
Clioquinol (diarrhea) – caused blindness, paralysis and death.
DES (prevent miscarriage) – caused birth defects and cancer.
Debendox (nausea) – caused birth defects.
Accutane (acne) – caused deafness and kidney destruction
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
11:44 AM on 07/13/2011
All those drugs should have been tested on humans since they were meant for humans. Animal abuse in any form is still animal abuse no matter how you try and justify it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emerging pattern
11:49 AM on 07/13/2011
It's puzzling that you would have read my posts as support for vivsection when in fact they're the diametric opposite.
12:49 PM on 07/13/2011
Well this isn't scientific at all. With what consistency were these effects observed? Everything has side effects. Heck, coffee is a low-rate possible carcinogen.

People are complex machines, which is why so much studying goes into simpler, different versions of those machines first. No drug is without side effects, but perhaps the truly bad stuff will only happen to one of every million users. People who take these drugs are informed of these risks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emerging pattern
01:34 PM on 07/13/2011
"Well this isn't scientific at all."
Odd remark, considering it's documented fact.

"Everything has side effects. Heck, coffee is a low-rate possible carcinogen­."
That rationalization is dangerous when daling with potent pharmeceuticals.

"People are complex machines"
All species are -- each in unique ways. Precisely why animal testing for human drugs is flawed, at best.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emerging pattern
11:35 AM on 07/13/2011
The fact is that drugs _are_ effectively tested on humans anyway (often without the indivifduals' knowledge), after the animal testing.

The following are some of the pharmeceuticals that were found to be safe for human consumption with animal testing. It is doubtful whether Ms. Chen's little twist would have had a significant effect.
Drugs passed as safe for human consumption by animal testing
Eraldin (for heart disease) – Corneal damage including blindness.
Paracetamol (painkiller) – 1,500 people had to be hospitalized in Great Britain in 1971.
Orabilex – caused kidney damages with fatal outcome.
MEL/29 (anti-hypertensive) – caused cataracts.
Methaqualone (hypnotic) – caused severe psychic disturbances leading to at least 366 deaths, mainly through murder or suicide.
Thalidomide (tranquillizer) – caused 10,000 malformed children.
Isoproterenol (asthma) – caused 3,500 deaths in the sixties.
Stilboestrol (prostate cancer) – caused cancer in young women.
Trilergan (anti-allergic) – caused viral hepatitis.
Flamamil (rheumatism) – caused loss of consciousness.
Phenformin (diabetes) – caused 1,000 deaths annually until withdrawn.
Atromid S (cholesterol) – caused deaths from cancer, liver, gallbladder and intestinal disease.
Valium (tranquillizer) – addictive in moderate doses.
Preludin & Maxiton (diet pills) – caused serious damage to the heart and the nervous system.
Nembutal (insomnia) – caused insomnia.
Pronap & Plaxin (tranquillizer) – killed many babies.
Phenacetin (painkiller) – caused severe damages to kidneys and red blood corpuscles.
Amydopyrine (painkiller) – caused blood disease.
Marzine (nausea) – damaged children.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=False_animal_test_results_%26_damages_caused
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
01:47 PM on 07/13/2011
Not quite clear what your point is here.

So, because some drugs that have been approved have toxic effects in humans, animal testing doesn't eliminate drugs that would have even worse potential effects? Is that what you are attempting to say.

The fact is that many more drugs are eliminated from potentially being tested in humans because they fail toxicology studies in animals. Animals studies are also predictive of potential toxicities in humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11029269

"These survey results support the value of in vivo toxicology studies to predict for many significant HTs (human toxicity) associated with pharmaceuticals and have helped to identify HT categories that may benefit from improved methods."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
p456
PeacefulWarrior
11:28 AM on 07/13/2011
We really need to focus on moving the country forward instead of poking the GOPTKLANBAGGERS with drugs.
11:20 AM on 07/13/2011
humanized rats to enter gop primaries.
photo
LivelyLexie
Don't panic.
11:19 AM on 07/13/2011
I know animal testing is a 'necessary evil', but I can't look at that picture (yes, I know it's from flickr, not an actual test mouse) and not feel sick at the thought of it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
12:51 PM on 07/13/2011
You're right. Key word...necessary. It would be fantastic if one day it wasn't necessary.
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
01:54 PM on 07/13/2011
It isn't necessary.
There are many methods for testing medical science that doesn't involve the abuse of animals.

In vitro research or test tube research on living tissue has been instrumental for many of the great discoveries. Though human tissue has not always been employed; it could have been, because it has always been in ample supply. Blood, tissue and organ cultures are ideal test-beds for the efficacy and toxicity of medications.

Epidemiology is the study of populations of humans to determine factors that could account for the prevalence of the disease among them, or for their disease immunity.

Bacteria, viruses, and fungi reveal basic cell properties.

Autopsy and cadavers are used for clarifying disease and teaching operating techniques such as fracture fixation, spine stabilization, ligament reconstruction, and other procedures.

Physical models can be made for studying the wear on joints and other physiology.

Genetic research has elucidated many genes that are responsible for specific diseases. Since physicians can now ascertain their patients' predisposition to certain diseases, they can monitor them more carefully as well as suggest optimal nutrition, lifestyle and medications.

Clinical research on patients shows how humans respond to different treatments and determine whether or not one treatment is superior to another. We can attribute our fundamental knowledge of disease and hospital care to clinical research.
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
01:55 PM on 07/13/2011
(continued from previous post)

Post-marketing drug surveillance (PMDS) is the reporting process whereby every effect and side effect of a new medication are reported to a monitoring agency, eg., the FDA. (Despite its obvious benefits, post-marketing drug surveillance is presently practiced erratically as reporting methods are neither easy nor required.)

Mathematical and computer modeling is a complex research method that employs mathematics to simulate living systems and chemical reactions.

Technology is largely responsible for the high standard of care we receive today. MRI scanners, CAT scanners, PET scanners, X-rays, ultrasound, blood gas analysis machines, blood chemistry analysis machines, pulmonary artery catheters....the list is long.

Specialization also saves countless lives. For example, the field of pathology allowed better understanding of diseases. Specialization of medical care into disciplines such as cardiology, oncology, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, infectious diseases etc. allows physicians to increase and share their understanding of one field. Specialized areas of care in the hospital, like the neonatal intensive care unit (ICU), cardiac ICU, and surgical ICU, improve patient care. Nurses, specially trained for the operating room or the ICU better administer to patients
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ddanimal
11:12 AM on 07/13/2011
Wow, there is lots of ignorance about the role of animal testing in medical research. Unless you want medical research to be enormously impaired and slowed, you must accept animal testing. there is not substitute, at least not yet. Perhaps one day testing can be performed with tissue cultures (research on this is proceeding), but the science is not there yet.

Animal testing is necessary for discovering the causes and treatment of essentially every disease, injury and health condition-autism, cancer, heart disease, infectious diseases, new antibiotics and on and on.

it sucks that animals have to suffer, but without animal testing, we would still be living with 1950s-or worse-medicine.
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
11:17 AM on 07/13/2011
Animals are animals and humans are humans. If you want to know how something affects a human you test a human, not an animal. If you want to know how something affects an animal you test an animal, not a human.
You don't see scientists testing humans to see how certain drugs affect animals do you?

Although some advances in science can be attributed to testing animals the majority of testing can be and should be done on humans. Isn't it time that science catch up with the rest of the world and stop the animal cruelty?
photo
Sacchinftw
Isn't it sad...?
11:34 AM on 07/13/2011
If your logic worked, then we would have never made a vaccine for Smallpox.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toxico
Dedicated Permie
11:45 AM on 07/13/2011
That's not how it works dear, look up the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. That forever changed how clinical trials are conducted on humans. It's a progression. You start in the petri dish ( cell culture), if your results are good you move onto rodents, mammals and possibly even primates before anything is tested on humans. You are so wrong in your second paragraph. Most of genetics discoveries are made with fruit flies and mice. I could go on but consider cost of upkeep, shorter life span, etc. It's expensive enough just using rodents.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NunyaBus99
11:06 AM on 07/13/2011
Just want to pose a question to those against this. How should new drugs be tested? Is the humane thing to do is test them on Humans? If not, then how? Without testing on something that is similar enough for the testing to be accurate are you all saying that new cures should stop being sought after?

I respect how you feel on the subject but what alternative is there that doesn't require testing?
photo
IrieMoon
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
11:21 AM on 07/13/2011
Yes the humane thing to do is to test on humans.
Testing on animals is animal cruelty and should not be allowed. We as a society do not allow animal abusers to continue their abuse so why allow scientists to continue animal abuse?
photo
Sacchinftw
Isn't it sad...?
11:37 AM on 07/13/2011
Because scientists can derive cures for all of society with their "animal abuse" while animal abusers do it only for their personal sadistic glee.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NunyaBus99
11:47 AM on 07/13/2011
I am actually fine with people volunteering for testing and being compensated for it. Personally feel it should be tested on child molesters and violent criminals. But that's just me. Others we will disagree. As for animal testing, I am against it for non essentials like cosmetics, hair sprays and stuff like that. But unless, they allow full testing on Humans without animal trials first, I do not see a reasonable option that will allow testing. Hopefully science will catch up so we won't have to test on animals period.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ddanimal
10:55 AM on 07/13/2011
If this works its fantastic. medical research very much needs new ways to test liver function in the presence of drugs and vitamins.
photo
SmotPoker
Now with 100% less beard.
10:55 AM on 07/13/2011
Rise of The Planet of The Mice! Forget about the robots, humanized mice can be our new overlords.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul108
10:48 AM on 07/13/2011
When will they figure out a way to humanize the researchers?
photo
Sacchinftw
Isn't it sad...?
11:38 AM on 07/13/2011
Once you manage to get society to stop using all products of animal testing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toxico
Dedicated Permie
11:48 AM on 07/13/2011
That's a tall order! LOL
photo
freddsky
As Seen On T̶V̶
10:45 AM on 07/13/2011
Whoever humanized this mouse: Callista Gingrich would desperately like to speak to you!
10:43 AM on 07/13/2011
Forget the drug testing, maybe we can "humanize" some humans!