|
Post by frankiegth on Mar 16, 2006 16:50:11 GMT
I'm aware of the "subnormal" and twins being "experimented" on in the Nazi regime. Which of course I don't condone.
Your last sentence: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
All I can say is IF everyone lived by those rules, as I suspect you do as well as I there would be no prisoners in the first place , be they child killers, rapists or council tax none payers.
|
|
|
Post by coops on Mar 17, 2006 22:08:31 GMT
I was staying of this subject but a thought struck me today, Ojive mentioned the amount of drugs that have failed to show symptoms in animals that have later proved harmful to humans, well I've done a bit of research, and these rare occasions are dwarfed by the vast amount of drugs that have been scrapped or modified after tests on animals have shown a potential problem.
If we ban drug testing on animals, just how many human deaths will be needed before drug testing is scrapped entirely, and how detrimental will that be to the future of medical science?
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on Mar 19, 2006 11:55:08 GMT
Not that rare, according to a scientist whose name I didn't hear, on radio 4: apparently, according to my anonymous source, MOST drugs tests on humans prove to have unwanted side effects after proving to be fine when used on animals, but then animals can't tell you if they've got a splitting headache or they feel lousy or psychotic, can they? It's a question of balancing the ill of the side effects against the efficaciousness to the patient.
Here are just three examples:
Strychnine is poisonous to humans. When it was developed, if it had been tested on monkeys it would have got the all clear for testing on humans as it has no effect on monkeys.
The antibiotic Penicillin has probably saved more lives than any other drug. If tested on guinea pigs it would have been abandoned as it kills them, even in minute doses.
35 people were killed by a new japanese drug (Ofren?) and 3500 left multiplely disabled after it proved OK in animal testing.
Nowhere have I suggested giving up drug testing, only that it should be species specific and I have also heard that modern supercomputers can be used to model effects on humans (and animals), it needs funding to enter the current knowledge base in order for it to be successful but pharmaceutical companies don't want to make that investment (sharing knowledge may affect the bottom line, they are legally obliged to maximise profits for their shareholders) and government has little interest in interfering in the pharmaceutical market, it no longer carries out original scientific research of its own in this area and is happy to turn a blind eye to scientists being bullied into doing big pharma's bidding, under reporting problems and losing research funds if they try to clarify the opaqueness in the business.
|
|
|
Post by akiewitton on Mar 19, 2006 13:36:59 GMT
I applied to do this in Manchester but only ever put myself in for one. I was a reserve which meant on the day they did all the medicals I was there incase someone failed. Spent 6 ours sat playing pool, watching TV and reading then they gave me my cheque for being a reserve. £135!!!!!!!!!!
Best days work I've ever done.
|
|