I'll sign but only if: You can assure me that all one million people will be happy we will never be able to cure a number of serious diseases, not just in humans but also in animals, including newly emerging disases and epidemics.
No species is a good model for another species. You'll find more and more scientists confirming you that, including researchers members of associations like PCRM (US) and Antidote Europe (France).
No, you will find those with an agenda making such statements.
If you're really interested in that topic, and not commenting on this topic just to criticize a very good European Initiative, you can for example read an explanation here: http://antidote-europe.org/en/why-animals-are-not-good-models-for-the-study-of-human-disease/
You can also find interviews of researchers opposed to animal testing on the Antidote Europe website.
The problem is the bias in the misleading statements which are not based in scientific reality.
People ARE guinea pigs in the actual system, since after products were tested on species which don't have the same reaction to the same substances, they're sold to us, and therefore tested on us... Look at medicines like Distilbene, Vioxx, Staltor, Acomplia, recently Mediator, which are responsible of numerous deaths and serious wounds. And that's just the most well-known ones...
If you were actually educated on the subject, you should know that ALL of these products were tested on human subjects in clinical trials BEFORE they were put on the market. Are you now going to tell us that testing medicines on humans is not acceptable? The logical disconnect is huge and shows either a significant lack on knowledge or a willful misrepresentation in the attempt to support a belief.
companies look after their profits and shareholders so they will use any cheaper validated and legally approved method
Not really, no. Chemical companies are much more interested in selling a lot of products
than in reducing their R&D costs, it's way more profitable for them. If they find a new substance (or more often change a very little bit an existing one), and realize that it's toxic on an animal, they just have to test it on another species or lineage which doesn't react to it, and they're good.
How do you reach that conclusion? The leap seems almost superhuman. Why would a company want to place a product on the market they believe may result in not only no return on the investment, but also added legal liabilities for damages?
I don't know the exact number but a scientist recently told me there's more than 200 lineages of mice and more than 200 of rats, with very different reactions to drugs and diseases. How convenient.
I suspect it was a "scientist" who had an agenda like has been espressed with the misinformation on drug testing here.
Antidote Europe's scientists recently conducted a study on human cells proving that this method is very reliable. 28 chemical substances were tested, all of them already known or "suspected"
to be toxic for human health. The test method is called STP, for Scientific Toxicology Program. Here's the conclusion of the study:
As imperfect as it is, STP has already proven much more reliable that animal-based toxicology and should replace it at once. Carcinogenicity tests, which take several months and yield unreliable results in rodents, can be performed in a few days with STP, in conjunction with other tests (neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, acute toxicity, etc.). STP has the advantage of dealing with human genes, thus allowing the identification of sensitive individuals or groups of individuals to a particular substance, based on our knowledge of human polymorphism, unique to humans and not predictable through animal-based toxicology.More information and detailed results of the study here: http://antidote-europe.org/en/campaigns/28-chemicals/
Another leap of faith? A single study and it should be used as the basis of toxilogical studies in the future? I wonder if the promoters will volunteer themsleves and their families as secondary testers? Maybe it will not be like the cold fusion single experiment ......
Wayne Stollings wrote:
It does show which nations have the larger percentages of gullible citizens
Very constructive comment, thank you.
Since the actual information on how drugs are tested is ignored and misrepresented, it is more constructive than most of the rest of supporting posts in the thread.
You are welcome.