104 replies to this topic

[Fruit Pie Jones]

A. J. Raffles, on May 20 2006, 08:22 AM, said:

They're hardly the only ones, though. There are lots of large companies that prefer their customers to think of their products as individual brands. For example, there is a large company (Masterfoods, I think) that produces pet food as well as food for humans. Naturally, they don't want to advertise that ("This bar of chocolate was brought to you by the makers of Kit-e-Kat!!").

Indeed.  Brand loyalty also comes into play.  When a large company buys a smaller but well-established company, it's common for the large company to continue selling the small company's products under the small company's name so as not to lose the established customer base.  People are simply more comfortable buying things with which they are familiar.

[A. J. Raffles]

Here we go: this is the article I meant. A good rational argument without having to resort to that bunnykiller-imagery.

[taikara]

A. J. Raffles, on May 22 2006, 06:16 PM, said:

Here we go: this is the article I meant. A good rational argument without having to resort to that bunnykiller-imagery.

See, now that makes a ton more sense. Don't  test on animals because they're different from humans, and you might miss out on a possible medical discovery.

I still wouldn't say testing on animals is "torture," though, any more than I would say testing on humans is torture, anyway. There's just no real way to know what sort of effects a drug or a product may have - and it's less controversial to test on animals (whether animal rights activists believe it or not - and yes, I know the argument that animals can't choose, but hey, they don't choose to become someone's dinner or shoes, and I don't see that stopping any time soon), though the results may or may not coincide with human testing.

[Tom Henrik]

Now there's an article one can read in peace and make up a mind about the issue!

No propaganda. Just pure facts.

[Juni Ori]

Tom Henrik, on May 22 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

Now there's an article one can read in peace and make up a mind about the issue!

No propaganda. Just pure facts.

link said:

All of our current drugs and treatments were discovered through astute observation of patients, pioneering self-experimentation, ingenuity and advances in technology.

Propaganda, not fact. I can't list here and now examples, as I don't remember and I don't have the time dig facts up.

link said:

This issue must be judged on facts. Take drug testing: the evidence to date shows that animal tests predict fewer side-effects than a coin toss. This is why nine out of 10 drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials; injuring and sometimes killing the volunteers.

Fact, but written in a way that it makes it look like injuries (and apparently deaths too, which of I've never heard of...) are far more common than they truly are and thus a big problem. Without animal testing those drugs would had required far more risky human testing...

link said:

Side effects of prescription medicines - all tested for safety on animals before they can be administered to humans - are now the fourth biggest killer in the western world.

WTF??? Facts my a$$!!!

Truth to be still said, there is an important point, which we must not forget: we do the final testing in the end.

link said:

Reactions differ between sexes, ages and ethnic groups, which is why clinical trials should be more representative of the general population.

Isn't this more racistic than scientific? Far closer truth would be saying "between sexes, ages and bacterial base"!!!

And modern medication is far more sophisticated and unpredictable to expect high percentage successes! I wonder what is this writer's alternative to animal testing... Or did I miss something?

[Tom Henrik]

Actually, it isn't racistic at all. There are biologically differences between a white man and a black man. Skin for example. One skincream for me, wouldn't have the same effect on an African or Asian person otherwise identical to me.

[A. J. Raffles]

Look, I never said this was the last word on the matter. But it's a text which has a rational way of arguing and which was written by someone who's actually a scientist. She ought to know what she's talking about.

As for the 'racism' thing, if it's actually true, why would it be racist?

[Tom Henrik]

Racist would be to say "Reactions differ between sexes, ages and between civilized man and the blacks, which is why clinical trials should be more representative of the white population."

Now that's a racist statement.

Edit:
Actually, calling different ethnic groups for "bacterial bases" is very likely to be taken the wrong way, if you use it against the wrong crowd

[Juni Ori]

Okay, perhaps I was partially wrong, but I did not speak of the same issue! Bacterial base has strong influence on immunity system - not the ethnicity! True that some drugs may have some surprising influences on different races, but I don't believe that is very big problem yet. Perhaps when the drugs get even more complicated and sophisticated.

AJ, my reply was more towards Tom's post. But to be honest, everyone can claim anything and in my book vague expression of

link said:

As a geneticist who has worked in pharmaceutical development

doesn't convince me yet.

[A. J. Raffles]

What do you mean by 'vague expression'? Were you expecting the names of companies and a detailed job description? If she is a geneticist (and we don't really have any reason to doubt that), she'll actually have had to do tests on animals, which is probably more than most of us could claim. So why wouldn't she have an informed opinion on the matter? No-one's asking you to agree with her, and I don't think I share her views either, but I think you can't just dismiss them the way you would dismiss the views of someone who sets fire to buildings, calls all researchers "murderers" and spends most of his free time chanting slogans and waving around a bunch of horrific-looking pictures...

[Juni Ori]

I was just pointing out, that she may or may not have objective knowledge of the issues. But her statement doesn't convince me, though I know I shouldn't be doubting her either. Anyways, she doesn't give options and that made me wondering what is she aiming at?

[A. J. Raffles]

Well, what do you think she's aiming at? She's an animal rights activist.

[Juni Ori]

She's aiming at ending animal testing, obviously. But I made that mistake that she may be ready to sacrifice millions of human lives for the cause... Stupid me! Or better said: Sometimes I can't think stupidly enough!

[A. J. Raffles]

But isn't her point that it won't be necessary to sacrifice millions of people? (Or rather, not any more than she claims are being sacrificed anyway).
To be quite honest, I do think she is overdramatising the whole side-effects thing a bit (after all, the great majority of side-effects are not life-threatening things but banal stuff like dizziness or constipation), but that might just be because the article was written shortly after a couple of volunteers testing a new drug almost died at a London hospital. Supposedly, that drug had not caused any side-effects when it was tested on monkeys (although I think later reports suggested that the test results had been misread). She was probably hoping to take advantage of the public shock that case caused, because she thought it would feed into her argument that the results of animal testing weren't reliable. I suppose it was a bit of a cheap shot, really.
Still, even though that article fails to convince me, it's one of the most rationally conducted arguments against animal testing which I've seen in a while, and that in itself made it worth reading, I think. I'm more or less used to animal rights activists' being people shouting slogans and threatening to harm anyone who's only loosely affiliated with my university, just because the university decided to go ahead to build a lab which was originally meant to be much earlier. You can't argue with people like that.

[Juni Ori]

First of all, yes, it is refreshingly well argumented, but that only tells about the overall level of debate on anti-animal testing group.

I'm not sure about her point, as her article doesn't lead into saving human lives. And those side-effects are problem, but she should pull her head out of bushes and realize, that developing new drugs is day by day harder and harder, as it is getting - repeating myself here - more complicated and sophisticated. People taking those drugs under developement take conscious risk, some desperate enough to get cured. Some drugs aren't as vital, but their developement and finishing easens up peoples' lives, which can seduce people volunteer for humanitarian reasons.

Still I admit there are problems and misuse in testing humans. But the problem isn't in animal testing. It is in informing people about the risks! And usually for easy money.

And I totally agree, those brainless slogan-shouters are totally impossible to argue with.