EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:27 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:47 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20581
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110608/full/news.2011.356.html

Researchers have produced the first mouse model with a functional immune system that is susceptible to infection by the hepatitis C virus — by getting it to express two human genes.


interesting read


Maybe they will be helpful in the next research since they would not have been available for the one being discussed.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:29 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


No, they did not use chimps, but you seem to be the only person without the sufficient number of brain cells to understand that was never stated. What you fail to comprehend is that clinical study on humans is the stage AFTER the testing on chimps was performed. You know, one of those tests outsourced that you wanted information on? Maybe I should follow your advise I just can't be bothered if you are incapable of following a topic.


Is that so?

"The investigators therefore tested rare human adenoviruses, against which most people would not have antibodies, but these proved to be "far less potent" than Ad5 as vaccine vectors. Next, they looked at more than 1000 chimpanzee adenovirus strains to determine if they would be neutralized by human antibodies and able to grow in human laboratory cell lines. The potency of chimpanzee adenovirus vectors varied widely in mice, and a subset were found to be safe and potent in Phase 1 human clinical trials."

http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/hepatiti ... ical-trial

:crazy:

You are a waste of time, you argue on something you haven't even fully read up on :-k


The use of chimps is very expensive so the testing of more than a thousand strains would have been done on mice just because it is more cost effective. That is not an indication of a complete timeline of the development and does not address why the same type viral study performed on chimps was published just a year before the clinical trial.

The chimp study was performed for a reason and such a specific study would not have been performed by any other research group by accident.


No connection between the two studies other than they studied the same subject. As you are well aware, different baddies from all over the world are in a "race" to develop these vaccines.

"A key feature of the study, is that the Oxford researchers, with colleagues from an Italian biotech company and the University of Birmingham in the UK, departed from a traditional approach and went in a new direction."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/239982.php

This was an European group doing their own studies.

"Another team in the US also looking to conduct a larger trial in an at-risk population to see if the vaccine can protect against HCV infection."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/239982.php

You have not provided a link between the two because there is no link, two different studies from two different groups..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:34 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110608/full/news.2011.356.html

Researchers have produced the first mouse model with a functional immune system that is susceptible to infection by the hepatitis C virus — by getting it to express two human genes.


interesting read


Maybe they will be helpful in the next research since they would not have been available for the one being discussed.



No need for either mice or chimps, not in the UK since they have tested the potency on mice and went to the human model in clinical trials. Chimps are not needed, science has moved on in this respect. Only people wanting to keep the chimp model going are them who still use them for testing, USA and Gabon...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:38 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
"The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopædia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals",[10] although dictionaries point out that the broader definition is "used only by people who are opposed to such work".[11] The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering, and death.[12] The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation".[13][14]
History"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Definitions


Wikipedia is such an unimpeachable source, but it does point out why you tried to use the term. Do you know what "pejoratively" means? That is why you used it.

Hint:

Definition of PEJORATIVE
: a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle : a pejorative word or phrase



Yes I do, do you know what occasionally means?
Do you know what broader definition means?
Literal even?

#-o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:50 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:

I mention research and you go off on vivisection, so either you were incapable of understanding what was being discussed or you were equating research with vivsection. In either case it is your error to fix.

viewtopic.php?p=184771#p184771


The link itself uses the term invasive.

"An invasive procedure is one which penetrates or breaks the skin or enters a body cavity. Examples of invasive procedures include those that involve perforation, an incision, a catheterization, or other entry into the body. Surgery is a typical medical invasive procedure. An open surgery means cutting skin and tissues so the surgeon has a direct access to the structures or organs involved. The structures and tissues involved can be seen and touched, and they are directly exposed to the air of the operating room. Examples of open surgery include the removal of organs, such as the gallbladder (though cholecsytectomy is now mostly done laproscopically) or kidney, and most types of cardiac surgery and neurosurgery. Open surgery involves large incisions, in which the tissues are exposed to the air."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_%28medical%29

vivisection..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:58 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20581
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:


No, they did not use chimps, but you seem to be the only person without the sufficient number of brain cells to understand that was never stated. What you fail to comprehend is that clinical study on humans is the stage AFTER the testing on chimps was performed. You know, one of those tests outsourced that you wanted information on? Maybe I should follow your advise I just can't be bothered if you are incapable of following a topic.


Is that so?

"The investigators therefore tested rare human adenoviruses, against which most people would not have antibodies, but these proved to be "far less potent" than Ad5 as vaccine vectors. Next, they looked at more than 1000 chimpanzee adenovirus strains to determine if they would be neutralized by human antibodies and able to grow in human laboratory cell lines. The potency of chimpanzee adenovirus vectors varied widely in mice, and a subset were found to be safe and potent in Phase 1 human clinical trials."

http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/hepatiti ... ical-trial

:crazy:

You are a waste of time, you argue on something you haven't even fully read up on :-k


The use of chimps is very expensive so the testing of more than a thousand strains would have been done on mice just because it is more cost effective. That is not an indication of a complete timeline of the development and does not address why the same type viral study performed on chimps was published just a year before the clinical trial.

The chimp study was performed for a reason and such a specific study would not have been performed by any other research group by accident.


tommee wrote:
No connection between the two studies other than they studied the same subject. As you are well aware, different baddies from all over the world are in a "race" to develop these vaccines.

"A key feature of the study, is that the Oxford researchers, with colleagues from an Italian biotech company and the University of Birmingham in the UK, departed from a traditional approach and went in a new direction."


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/239982.php


A new direction that just happened to be the SAME new direction of the research involving chimps? The odds of that happening are extraordinarily high.

Quote:
This was an European group doing their own studies.

"Another team in the US also looking to conduct a larger trial in an at-risk population to see if the vaccine can protect against HCV infection."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/239982.php


The European trial is connected to the others unless EVERYONE is departing "from a traditional approach and went in a new direction" together.

Quote:
You have not provided a link between the two because there is no link, two different studies from two different groups..


Two different PUBLICATIONS by two different groups on the SAME research and research that is a new and non-traditional direction which makes it very, very unlikely to not be connected.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:01 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20581
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110608/full/news.2011.356.html

Researchers have produced the first mouse model with a functional immune system that is susceptible to infection by the hepatitis C virus — by getting it to express two human genes.


interesting read


Maybe they will be helpful in the next research since they would not have been available for the one being discussed.



No need for either mice or chimps, not in the UK since they have tested the potency on mice and went to the human model in clinical trials.


Assuming the trials continue to prove postive, which is still an uncertainity.

Quote:
Chimps are not needed, science has moved on in this respect. Only people wanting to keep the chimp model going are them who still use them for testing, USA and Gabon...


For European contracts, but whay let the truth ruin a good spin.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:03 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20581
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

I mention research and you go off on vivisection, so either you were incapable of understanding what was being discussed or you were equating research with vivsection. In either case it is your error to fix.

viewtopic.php?p=184771#p184771


The link itself uses the term invasive.

"An invasive procedure is one which penetrates or breaks the skin or enters a body cavity. Examples of invasive procedures include those that involve perforation, an incision, a catheterization, or other entry into the body. Surgery is a typical medical invasive procedure. An open surgery means cutting skin and tissues so the surgeon has a direct access to the structures or organs involved. The structures and tissues involved can be seen and touched, and they are directly exposed to the air of the operating room. Examples of open surgery include the removal of organs, such as the gallbladder (though cholecsytectomy is now mostly done laproscopically) or kidney, and most types of cardiac surgery and neurosurgery. Open surgery involves large incisions, in which the tissues are exposed to the air."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_%28medical%29

vivisection..


Taking blood is invasive, but not vivisection. Giving an injection is invasive, but not vivisection. vivisection is invasive, but invasive is not vivisection. A simple logical fallacy on your part. Ignorance is offset by education.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:12 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20581
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
"The terms animal testing, animal experimentation, animal research, in vivo testing, and vivisection have similar denotations but different connotations. Literally, "vivisection" means the "cutting up" of a living animal, and historically referred only to experiments that involved the dissection of live animals. The term is occasionally used to refer pejoratively to any experiment using living animals; for example, the Encyclopædia Britannica defines "vivisection" as: "Operation on a living animal for experimental rather than healing purposes; more broadly, all experimentation on live animals",[10] although dictionaries point out that the broader definition is "used only by people who are opposed to such work".[11] The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering, and death.[12] The word "vivisection" is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term "animal experimentation".[13][14]
History"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Definitions


Wikipedia is such an unimpeachable source, but it does point out why you tried to use the term. Do you know what "pejoratively" means? That is why you used it.

Hint:

Definition of PEJORATIVE
: a word or phrase that has negative connotations or that is intended to disparage or belittle : a pejorative word or phrase



Yes I do, do you know what occasionally means?


Yes, it means something that does not happen all of the time. In this application it means that when someone like yourself uses it incorrectly, as opposed to when someone like myself uses it correctly, thus it is not always used in that fashion.

Quote:
Do you know what broader definition means?


Yes, an expanded definition from the scientific use, which is why it is not listed as such in the medical dictionaries.

Quote:
Literal even?


Yes, an exact meaning as opposed to the broader definition.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:51 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

I mention research and you go off on vivisection, so either you were incapable of understanding what was being discussed or you were equating research with vivsection. In either case it is your error to fix.

viewtopic.php?p=184771#p184771


The link itself uses the term invasive.

"An invasive procedure is one which penetrates or breaks the skin or enters a body cavity. Examples of invasive procedures include those that involve perforation, an incision, a catheterization, or other entry into the body. Surgery is a typical medical invasive procedure. An open surgery means cutting skin and tissues so the surgeon has a direct access to the structures or organs involved. The structures and tissues involved can be seen and touched, and they are directly exposed to the air of the operating room. Examples of open surgery include the removal of organs, such as the gallbladder (though cholecsytectomy is now mostly done laproscopically) or kidney, and most types of cardiac surgery and neurosurgery. Open surgery involves large incisions, in which the tissues are exposed to the air."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_%28medical%29

vivisection..


Taking blood is invasive, but not vivisection. Giving an injection is invasive, but not vivisection. vivisection is invasive, but invasive is not vivisection. A simple logical fallacy on your part. Ignorance is offset by education.


"Sharon Seltzer is one of the founders of the animal rescue group, Heaven Can Wait Animal Society, where they focus on aggressive spay/neuter programs and adoption of homeless pets. She and her husband share their home with three rescued dogs and three semi-feral cats."

The article author

:-k


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 5:13 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20581
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

I mention research and you go off on vivisection, so either you were incapable of understanding what was being discussed or you were equating research with vivsection. In either case it is your error to fix.

viewtopic.php?p=184771#p184771


The link itself uses the term invasive.

"An invasive procedure is one which penetrates or breaks the skin or enters a body cavity. Examples of invasive procedures include those that involve perforation, an incision, a catheterization, or other entry into the body. Surgery is a typical medical invasive procedure. An open surgery means cutting skin and tissues so the surgeon has a direct access to the structures or organs involved. The structures and tissues involved can be seen and touched, and they are directly exposed to the air of the operating room. Examples of open surgery include the removal of organs, such as the gallbladder (though cholecsytectomy is now mostly done laproscopically) or kidney, and most types of cardiac surgery and neurosurgery. Open surgery involves large incisions, in which the tissues are exposed to the air."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_%28medical%29

vivisection..


Taking blood is invasive, but not vivisection. Giving an injection is invasive, but not vivisection. vivisection is invasive, but invasive is not vivisection. A simple logical fallacy on your part. Ignorance is offset by education.


tommee wrote:
"Sharon Seltzer is one of the founders of the animal rescue group, Heaven Can Wait Animal Society, where they focus on aggressive spay/neuter programs and adoption of homeless pets. She and her husband share their home with three rescued dogs and three semi-feral cats."

The article author

:-k


That makes a difference how? Do you suppose they call spay/neuter vivisection because it is invasive? Do you suppose they call the vaccinations vivisection because it is invasive? I hope not, but again ignorance is cured by education.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:09 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:

That makes a difference how? Do you suppose they call spay/neuter vivisection because it is invasive? Do you suppose they call the vaccinations vivisection because it is invasive? I hope not, but again ignorance is cured by education.


I can safely say she was referring to vivisection when writing invasive. I suppose you would like a copy of the email?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:21 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Assuming the trials continue to prove postive, which is still an uncertainity.


No you are wrong again. UK scientists test the potency (safety) then test their vaccine in HUMAN subjects not chimps, so no need for modified mice..

Will be interesting to see what happens in the USA however.

Quote:
For European contracts, but whay let the truth ruin a good spin.


Well no, for every country except the USA because they are now they only country in the world that test on chimps, fact :lolno:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:38 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20581
Location: Southeastern US
tommee wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:

That makes a difference how? Do you suppose they call spay/neuter vivisection because it is invasive? Do you suppose they call the vaccinations vivisection because it is invasive? I hope not, but again ignorance is cured by education.


I can safely say she was referring to vivisection when writing invasive. I suppose you would like a copy of the email?


No, I don't need to know her level of ignorance/misrepresentation as it really does not matter.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:07 pm
Posts: 188
Wayne Stollings wrote:
A new direction that just happened to be the SAME new direction of the research involving chimps? The odds of that happening are extraordinarily high.


Are you for real?

"A key feature of the study, is that the Oxford researchers, with colleagues from an Italian biotech company and the University of Birmingham in the UK, departed from a traditional approach and went in a new direction.

The reason they went a different way is because of another feature of HCV: it is always changing its make up, in that respect it is similar to HIV. This makes it difficult to pick a target that will be there for some time and make an effective building block for a vaccine.

So the researchers turned to a new idea: they picked a target in the virus that is less likely to change: an internal part, rather than the more traditional approach of picking something on the surface of the virus. "

No collaboration, not even a mention in the study, unusual don't you think?


Quote:

The European trial is connected to the others unless EVERYONE is departing "from a traditional approach and went in a new direction" together.


Why is their study connected, funding, joint research? You would have though the Canadian researcher at least got a mention for a part in it, wouldn't you?

The studies are separate from each other, different groups of people in the race for the hep c vaccine. They aren't the only ones either.


Quote:
Two different PUBLICATIONS by two different groups on the SAME research and research that is a new and non-traditional direction which makes it very, very unlikely to not be connected.


Is that right? I would love to see you show the link.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group