Alternatives to Animal testing.

Buffalo said:
Humans die daily!
Click to expand...
yes it's the fact of life. Animals die daily as well. Point is - unlike in old time... human growth greatly outnumbers the human deaths... all thanks go animal-tested medical advancement
 
Buffalo said:
We already are doing that. So when are we going to spend millions developing a cure for cancer in humans????
Click to expand...

i don't think you understand the science of cancer. You CANNOT cure cancer because the cancer has symbiotic relationship with healthy organs/cells/tissues. In order to kill cancer, you have to kill the healthy one... which is why there is chemotherapy and surgical removal of organ (such as mastectomy). Rest assured - they ARE spending millions to developing better techniques to remove cancer. Here's a latest news - Tiny Naked Astronauts

I cannot find this latest article online but it talks about that Water Bears. Swedish ecologist Jingemar Jonsson and his team are studying further to understand how the bears protect their cells from radiation damage because this could help scientists develop more-effective radiation therapy for cancer patients. Also - another research... they're studying if they can use nanorobots (based on nanotechnology) to destroy the cancer cells without destroying healthy cells.

Buffalo said:
Back to the history books for you. Rats weren't responsible for Black Death. Fleas were responsible.

This link tells us of three ways one catches Black Death (The Black Death, 1348) 1) Infected fleas who jumped from rats to humans. 2) breathing in what the infected person breathed out. 3) septicemic version which is blood-related although I am not sure how it occured.
Click to expand...
ok but who made it worse? fleas or rats?
 
Jiro said:
yes it's the fact of life. Animals die daily as well. Point is - unlike in old time... human growth greatly outnumbers the human deaths... all thanks go animal-tested medical advancement
Click to expand...


That is my point. Why don't the doctors test on humans, especially on late-stage disease? Suppose the real cure's symptom is burping but we miss that cure because we test that cure on mice. Mice can't burp and will die. (that is why the best way to kill mice is to put out fresh pop out for the mice in the evening - got it from reading Mother's Earth)
 
Buffalo said:
That is my point. Why don't the doctors test on humans, especially on late-stage disease? Suppose the real cure's symptom is burping but we miss that cure because we test that cure on mice. Mice can't burp and will die. (that is why the best way to kill mice is to put out fresh pop out for the mice in the evening - got it from reading Mother's Earth)
Click to expand...

and we do.... in other countries. In here, we do have clinical trial / experimental testing that is not formally approved by FDA but it is very complicated and highly regulated as it must strictly abide to medical ethic codes.
 
Buffalo said:
That is my point. Why don't the doctors test on humans, especially on late-stage disease? Suppose the real cure's symptom is burping but we miss that cure because we test that cure on mice. Mice can't burp and will die. (that is why the best way to kill mice is to put out fresh pop out for the mice in the evening - got it from reading Mother's Earth)
Click to expand...

we don't test on humans because it is unethical to do so.

furthermore, there are way too many legalities involved.
 
Buffalo said:
We already are doing that. So when are we going to spend millions developing a cure for cancer in humans????




Back to the history books for you. Rats weren't responsible for Black Death. Fleas were responsible.

This link tells us of three ways one catches Black Death (The Black Death, 1348) 1) Infected fleas who jumped from rats to humans. 2) breathing in what the infected person breathed out. 3) septicemic version which is blood-related although I am not sure how it occured.
Click to expand...

Thanks for speaking up for my furry friends. I'm sure they would appreciate it if they could read.
 
Hear Again said:
we don't test on humans because it is unethical to do so.

furthermore, there are way too many legalities involved.
Click to expand...

No, we do test on humans at some point. You don't get a drug given to humans directly from animal testing. After animal testing comes human testing. That's where sometimes things go really wrong.

Animal testing is also unethnical. It's only done to give people a false sense of security when the human stage is reached.
 
Computers verses animals.

Something to ponder due to the fact "humorously" saying they both get viruses :giggle:

But I do believe a living organism verses a living virus or cure responds better than a wired one.
 
Buffalo said:
Assuming??? Past century being 20th century. Take a gander at this link: Animal Testing Without Animals and this article was printed in April 1999. That means the machine is made in 20th century to study the cell behavior. They better use human cells (easily scrapped from skin). Dreama is not assuming at all.
Click to expand...

I find that link awesome, mostly because I went to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (GOOOOO RPI!!!) as my undergrad school!!! Seriously folks, I didn't say that there is NO existing technology that could replace animal testing. It's just not strong enough. Just because it exists doesn't mean it WORKS WELL. This is where people don't realize the difference. Solar power exists... but why don't we mainly use it? Because it actually doesn't work efficiently. Obviously, I'd be all for more studies towards finding ways to study human reactions to drugs without using animals. We just aren't at that point of technology ACCURATELY predicting the human cell behavior towards a new drug.

By the way, the study in the article you mentioned was more about for replacing animal testing in the COSMETICS industry. Cosmetics industry is less risky and more predictable than the drug industry where people can get killed instead of getting a little itchy rash from mascara.....
 
souggy said:
So... you're suggesting we should go back to testing on disabled children in mental institutes like they did in the '10s, '20s and '30s? Be careful here... Remember back then, you would have underwent the same fate as well.
Click to expand...

Animal testing has been around before then. It's been round for over 100 years and has been condemned for that length of time too.
Try reading "Heart and Science" by Wilkie collins. That was writen 120 years ago.

Besides, how do you know that they have stopped testing on disabled children? They haven't you know.
 
dreama said:
Animal testing has been around before then. It's been round for over 100 years and has been condemned for that length of time too.
Try reading "Heart and Science" by Wilkie collins. That was writen 120 years ago.

Besides, how do you know that they have stopped testing on disabled children? They haven't you know.
Click to expand...

True, but the difference is that parents consent to it nowadays. Testing on people in state institutes were ruled unethical in 1974 in the States; and in Canada around the same time. Back in the Depression-era, parents weren't informed about them.
 
souggy said:
Okay... sneaky. Didn't notice you edited your own post to modify it completely. Way to go to change it from human testing to computer testing right before I replied. It's one thing to add onto your own post, but it's another thing to omit something.
Click to expand...

No actuallly, I thought deafsceptic just wanted links but when I reread his post I realised he also wanted me to list other methods too so that's why I hadn't edited it. I've only just noticed either of your posts.

I never mentioned human testing since as you've already pointed out they already do that. My original post didn't mention any type of testing since I thought Deafsceptic just wanted links.
 
souggy said:
True, but the difference is that parents consent to it nowadays. Testing on people in state institutes were ruled unethical in 1974 in the States; and in Canada around the same time. Back in the Depression-era, parents weren't informed about them.
Click to expand...

They still aren't informed about the risks. Do you think that parents would send their blind kids to china for stem cell treatment if they believed there was a risk?

but these kids are being experimented on. Plus their was a thread here on All deaf asking about kids for trials on stem cells for hearing loss. These are tests on people because we actually don't know what this new method will work out.

It might cause cancer.

If Adults want to be tested on for things like stem cells then I've nothing against that as long as they are informed of the risks first.

but testing on animals or children is totally unethnical I think.
 
Right... however that parents are assuming the responsibly.

I am going to look at your computer model testing for a few minutes. It was brought up once in ZOOL241 when a student asked about the whole topic two years ago in university once, but it was discarded on the basis that computers couldn't accurately replicate the human body 100% yet.
 
Well, here I am with my question. You feel that computer simulation is the only way to go with medical research? What about when the simulation does not identify all possible issues; do we hold the software company liable? Most places are lawsuit-happy, with lawyers swarming around these types of issues. With health care costs already bloated by previous settlements, is that worth the risk, all in the name of mice? I have always felt that man was given gifts that include using methods to prolong life, even at the expense of other species. Sort of a "king of the mountain" thing. There may be testing that is not necessary; procedures that invoke anger. Most of the PETA people don't care. I assume you fall under that blanket. Watching people suffer because we need mice free is alarming to me.
 
saywhatkid said:
Well, here I am with my question. You feel that computer simulation is the only way to go with medical research? What about when the simulation does not identify all possible issues; do we hold the software company liable? Most places are lawsuit-happy, with lawyers swarming around these types of issues. With health care costs already bloated by previous settlements, is that worth the risk, all in the name of mice? I have always felt that man was given gifts that include using methods to prolong life, even at the expense of other species. Sort of a "king of the mountain" thing. There may be testing that is not necessary; procedures that invoke anger. Most of the PETA people don't care. I assume you fall under that blanket. Watching people suffer because we need mice free is alarming to me.
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
Back
Top