fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2750 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2750 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02. [WARNING for animal death]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #393.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Neither. Trials with consenting human participants (what do people think clinical trials are, seriously?), and testing using things like synthetic skin (for things like make-up), computer modelling, artificial organs (3D printing is coming along very nicely!), and stuff like that.

I'm completely against testing on non-consenting humans for all the reasons listed above, but I'm also completely against animal testing as well. On top of it being cruel and sadistic, it's also terrible science, since most animals used in testing have major physiological differences. For instance, cats? Either aspirin or paracetamol/acetominaphen, I don't remember which one, is lethal to them. If it had been tested on cats, it wouldn't have been approved, when it's fine for humans. The physiological differences affect drug interactions, healing time, and a host of other things - the ONLY way to develop medical science and medicine for humans properly and efficiently and safely is to make sure the tests are run ON HUMANS.

If it had been tested on cats, it wouldn't have been approved, when it's fine for humans

Are you implying that scientists pick a completely random animal to test random drugs on with no basis for it whatsoever, and if that animal happens to die or react badly, everyone throws up their hands and goes 'welp I guess this particular thing is poison forever for everything' and abandons it forever?

That's... not how it works at all...

I would accuse you of trolling but you sound genuinely not knowledgeable about how these things work.

No, I was NOT saying how that's how it works!

I was saying that the animals most frequently used for animal testing are not, in fact, humans. I was using cats as an EXAMPLE of something where something may produce a very different response in an animal being tested on rather than on human clinical trials.

Do you honestly think that mice and rats are going to respond to ANYTHING the same way as a human will? Seriously?

And see, here's the thing. There have been drugs that have been approved because they're non-harmful to animals but have SERIOUS side effects in humans. Look up Diethylstilbestrol - after extensive animal testing, it was declared safe as a synthetic estrogen in the belief that it would prevent miscarriage. Turns out, when given to humans? It CAUSES miscarriage and premature births, and for those who did survive, many ended up developing cancers (look up DES Daughters and DES Sons). Clearly, animal testing did fuck all here for safety, and yet it was approved SOLELY based on that. If they had done clinical trials with human volunteers who were aware of the risks, then it most likely would not have been approved. Or Isuprel! Originally used as an asthma medication, the dosage in the UK and Australia that was believed to be safe based on the amounts that were safe for animals ended up causing what's described as an epidemic of deaths. Again, animal testing said, "Hey, this is the safe dose", when it turns out that that's lethal for humans.

Humans and rats are not the same type of animal and are going to react extraordinarily differently to things and so animal testing is unnecessary, how is that so hard to comprehend?

But that's not how it works at all.

Seriously, I don't know where you're coming across. I totally agree animal testing would be bad if it's done the way you're describing, which is why no one does it the way you're describing. I mean, I'd assume if you're that keen on animal welfare you'd be familiar with principles like the Three Rs of testing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Rs_(animals) - which is basically standard practice and the ridiculous amounts of regulations and rules that make sure that the animals have a good standard of care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing Here is the wikipedia animal testing page. Is it super comprehensive? No, but it should be a good read, and the reality of testing is quite different from what you seem to assume it is. Also the stages of testing drugs isn't 'oh let's try it on an animal it doesn't work let's ditch it forever', there are a lot of phases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research) and human testing IS one of them, the reason human testing isn't the first phase is because we would probably kill a lot of humans if it WAS.

Plus it's not all giving them drugs, especially with recent developments a lot of animal research is on genetic manipulation and trying to do that on a small scale - think of it like prototyping or proof of concepts - if you're making a car you don't jump straight to road testing when you haven't even worked out the kinks of how the engine is made. Of COURSE road testing will happen eventually, but there are a lot of steps leading up to that. Like with drugs and medical treatments, human testing WILL always happen, but it's not an either or thing, with either humans or animals and no in between.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/october13/med-felsher-1013.html here's an interesting article anyway that gives an example of what I meant.

Yes, and wouldn't it be lovely if they actually did stick with the Three Rs. Alas, much like ~animal welfare~ in the meat industry, there will always be people who claim, "Oh, we're trying to be nice to the animals, but there's no other way!" while merrily going about their business.

I am well aware of that page and have read it in the past. And yes, I am also aware of the phases of clinical research, I was NOT saying to jump straight from isolating a drug to doing clinical trials, that's why I was suggesting other alternatives! There is a huge list of alternatives here, and no, they're not perfect yet and do not replace testing on a living human being, but you can learn a LOT from these kinds of tests before starting controlled clinical trials.

If non-animal testing is not yet up to scratch, then they should be prioritising finding a better alternative while phasing animal testing out. I'm not saying it should happen overnight, but there NEEDS to be a change in thought where people will actually realise, hey, you know what? We do not have the RIGHT to do this to living beings. Let's try to actually work out something that's going to be safer, more efficient, and less cruel for EVERYONE.

[ SECRET POST #2750 ]

Re: Secret 2 related

Re: Secret 2 related

Re: Secret 2 related

Re: Secret 2 related

Re: Secret 2 related