Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A shocking dvelopment but a clear message to animal right activists

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    Not about drugs but

    I know that european legislation forbids the use of animals testing on cosmetic products. The law was implemented a few years ago, anyone knows if there were some yield/risk differences after this law?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Animal tests 'false reassurance'

    Animal tests on the kind of drug given to the six men ill in a London hospital may not be the best way of evaluating the effects in people, an expert warns.

    The drug they took stimulates a protein only found in humans.

    Dr David Glover, an expert in drug testing, said this meant animal tests of medicines of this sort might give falsely reassuring results.

    He said it might be better to look at innovative ways of testing small amounts of such drugs on people.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4817178.stm

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by phylay
    Amina: Hello
    Pandora: Hi
    Amina: How r you doing?
    Pandora: Fine and you?
    Amina : Khir mennek
    Pandora (sigh and frown)
    Amina : I am kidding, I am doing well thanx.
    Pandora : Who cares!
    Amina : Wateva.
    Pandora : true
    Very funny, very cute

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by pandora
    Tissue samples could never be a good alternative to in vivo studies
    There was a 10-year international study that proved that human cell culture tests are more accurate and yield more useful information about toxic mechanisms than traditional animal tests. I can't remember the source of the publication.


    I believe animal studies are not the best model (due to the difference that renders extrapolation hazardous), we need to find a better non-animal model that offers more security.

    I can think of preliminary microdosing studies (or 'phase 0' clinical trials), as well as the micro liver system being developed for in vivo studies (the same can be done for other test organs).



    [Edited by Amina-DZ on 17th March 2006 at 03:52]

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    First of all, the facts, which even toxicologists are aware of, are that about 90% of medicines found to be effective in animals fail in humans, animal studies cause harm to humans and are scientifically unjustifiable, and the aim is to find drugs effective in humans that are as safe as possible, we cannot guarantee a 100% safety level.

    I have worked in the medium for a big company I cannot name and I can tell you that from the perspective of satisfying the regulators, pragmatic selection of species will demonstrate whatever is required of a drug, whether it is favourable safety or efficacy. And companies are not required to submit all their animal data, but only that from any two species (one rodent and one higher mammal). They can always find an animal study to "prove" their claim. They can even do a new animal study which will come out the way they want by choosing the "right" animal model system. Basically animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons.

    If we consider drugs that failed in, injured or killed patients in clinical trials or as prescription medicines, there will be many examples: Vioxx, Cerestat, MaxiPost, Zendra, Lotrafiban, gavestinel, nimodipine, clomethiazole, etc. Thalidomide (which caused thousands of birth defects) was tested in many strains of rats, mice, rabbits, dogs, hamsters, primates, cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets and was considered safe. Ironically, thalidomide is the drug whose side effects made animal testing obligatory, but if it were assessed exclusively on its results in such tests it would still be passed today.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Sorry Pandora but the discussion was excessively serious esp. that I lack the data to understand everything


    Flora, anytime

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by phylay
    Amina: Hello
    Pandora: Hi
    Amina: How r you doing?
    Pandora: Fine and you?
    Amina : Khir mennek
    Pandora (sigh and frown)
    Amina : I am kidding, I am doing well thanx.
    Pandora : Who cares!
    Amina : Wateva.
    Pandora : true
    Dahaktni

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by phylay
    Amina: Hello
    Pandora: Hi
    Amina: How r you doing?
    Pandora: Fine and you?
    Amina : Khir mennek
    Pandora (sigh and frown)
    Amina : I am kidding, I am doing well thanx.
    Pandora : Who cares!
    Amina : Wateva.
    Pandora : true

    Very funny phylay. I failed to quote Amina and as I was very tired and did not want to write the whole thing again, I decided to shape it as a dialogue, that was the first thing that came to my mind

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Amina: Hello
    Pandora: Hi
    Amina: How r you doing?
    Pandora: Fine and you?
    Amina : Khir mennek
    Pandora (sigh and frown)
    Amina : I am kidding, I am doing well thanx.
    Pandora : Who cares!
    Amina : Wateva.
    Pandora : true

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Amina: I think it's quite the opposite. This drug showed very good results in pre-clinical (animal) trails, and showed to be a novel class of immunomodulatory antibody and has demonstrated the potential to be effective in the treatment of B-CLL if I remember correctly.

    Pandora: Yes it is humanised monoclonal antibody against CD28. However, I am not sure about the success of the animal trials. There has been a report of some undesirable side effects in monkeys. The dosage mighat not have been calculated correctly !

    Amina: Therefore the message we get from this unfortunate incident is that animal data was unpredictive of an appropriate human response, which goes against the claims of those who support animal work.

    Pandora: Imagine if we had no animal trials at all. How many humans should we sacrifice to test for the efficacy as well as the toxicity of a drug?

    Amina: There have always been problems with animal studies such as: the use of different animal species and/or strains, with a variety of metabolic pathways and drug metabolites, lead to variation in efficacy and toxicity; variability in the way animals are selected for study, methods of randomisation, choice of comparison therapy etc; the use of different models for inducing illness or injury with varying similarity to the human condition; and length of follow up before determination of disease outcome is variable and may not correspond to disease latency in humans!!

    Pandora: The MHRA said it had never seen a situation such as that seen at Northwick Park before.

    And Richard Ley, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), added: "This is an absolutely exceptional occurrence.

    "I cannot remember anything comparable."


    Amina: These and many others are the reason drugs need to go through 3 phases of clinical trials before being approved despite showing excellent results in pre-clinical studies!
    Pharmagene for example is a company founded in the UK by scientists frustrated by the way animal models sometimes failed to predict a drug's effect on humans. It carries out tests using only human tissue samples.

    Pandora: Tissue samples could never be a good alternative to in vivo studies

    What animal rights activists fail to understand is that:
    animals are hugely predictive of toxicity in humans and that there is no conceivable alternative - at present.

    [/B][/QUOTE]

    Pandora: True

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by pandora
    As to the mad animal rights activists, I think that is a strong message to them that animals have to be in the front line when a drug has to be tested.
    I think it's quite the opposite. This drug showed very good results in pre-clinical (animal) trails, and showed to be a novel class of immunomodulatory antibody and has demonstrated the potential to be effective in the treatment of B-CLL if I remember correctly.

    Therefore the message we get from this unfortunate incident is that animal data was unpredictive of an appropriate human response, which goes against the claims of those who support animal work.

    Could it be that animals would produce no side effects to a drug that puts human health at risk? It is hard to swallow. We are certainly different from other experimental animals in terms of embryogenesis but not in terms of sensitivity to drugs!!!
    There have always been problems with animal studies such as: the use of different animal species and/or strains, with a variety of metabolic pathways and drug metabolites, lead to variation in efficacy and toxicity; variability in the way animals are selected for study, methods of randomisation, choice of comparison therapy etc; the use of different models for inducing illness or injury with varying similarity to the human condition; and length of follow up before determination of disease outcome is variable and may not correspond to disease latency in humans!!

    These and many others are the reason drugs need to go through 3 phases of clinical trials before being approved despite showing excellent results in pre-clinical studies!

    And if the latter were to be true, which I very much doubt, what should the next measure be?
    Pharmagene for example is a company founded in the UK by scientists frustrated by the way animal models sometimes failed to predict a drug's effect on humans. It carries out tests using only human tissue samples.


    What animal rights activists fail to understand is that:
    animals are hugely predictive of toxicity in humans and that there is no conceivable alternative - at present.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Human drug testing has been done for a long time - and when it's done properly people are made aware of the risks before they sign on the dotted line. Sadly, in some cases it's the only way to be absolutely sure that a treatment is safe, before putting it out on the general market.

    Although that doesn't make this any less tragic, of course.



    V

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I don't see the relevance because the drugs had been tested before they were used on humans, so that almost certainly means they were tested on animals first and some drugs don't have the same reaction on animals to us, this is probably one of those drugs, this case doesn't make it a clear. One of the arguments of these people is that animals don't have the same physiology and therefore are not reliable to test things that are meant for us

    Leave a comment:


  • A shocking dvelopment but a clear message to animal right activists

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4811626.stm


    I don't know what has gone wrong???. Could it be that animals would produce no side effects to a drug that puts human health at risk? It is hard to swallow. We are certainly different from other experimental animals in terms of embryogenesis but not in terms of sensitivity to drugs!!! And if the latter were to be true, which I very much doubt, what should the next measure be? I have taken part in experiments before and suffered slightly as a result. I did not get paid because it was not money I was after but wanted to contribute to the understanding of a health problem! I feel sorry for the participants and hope that their conditions will improve soon. I am going to read more about it and hopefully things will start to get clearer…

    As to the mad animal rights activists, I think that is a strong message to them that animals have to be in the front line when a drug has to be tested. This trial was in phase 1 and thankfully only 6 people took part. Sometimes up to 30 people are recruited….

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X