risk factor

Former Member

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4808836.stm

fit and healthy people doing this for two grand....worth the risk?...i don't think so personally,but then again if it wernt for people that do this would we progress fast enough in the battle against cancer?

Former Member

It has yet been declared whether the correct dosage had been given. However assuming it was, this does make you wonder about the point of animal testing.

When you consider that, in order to test on humans, there will have already been a number of animal tests which must have been successful. However, the first on humans is a "disaster", so what exactly was learned from testing on animals?

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

It has yet been declared whether the correct dosage had been given. However assuming it was, this does make you wonder about the point of animal testing.

When you consider that, in order to test on humans, there will have already been a number of animal tests which must have been successful. However, the first on humans is a "disaster", so what exactly was learned from testing on animals?

mmm,wonder if any animals died? surely this is a case of human error.they must have been confindent at the time that it wouldnt be life threatening.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

It has yet been declared whether the correct dosage had been given. However assuming it was, this does make you wonder about the point of animal testing.

When you consider that, in order to test on humans, there will have already been a number of animal tests which must have been successful. However, the first on humans is a "disaster", so what exactly was learned from testing on animals?

It still seems a pretty rare occurence - without animal testing it would become a lot more common.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

It still seems a pretty rare occurence - without animal testing it would become a lot more common.

Are you sure of that?

Animal testing shows what a drug will do to the animal in question. Whilst many physiologies are similar there are also massive differences - hence why Bird Flu does pass between humans - and you have to be certain that the result in the animal test would be replicated in humans.

What this test shows is that you cannot be certain, nor can you be sure that an adverse reaction in animal would be replicated in humans. Who knows if the big advance in cancer care is actually beng held back because a dog died?

Former Member

DEANO MAC wrote:

mmm,wonder if any animals died? surely this is a case of human error.they must have been confindent at the time that it wouldnt be life threatening.

It's highly unlikely that the drug would have reached the human testing stage if there were any doubts. An 'Independent Ethics Committee' oversees the approval or otherwise of each proposed drug trial. Obviously if there is even the slightest evidence that it could be harmful to people, then they wouldn't test it.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Are you sure of that?

Animal testing shows what a drug will do to the animal in question. Whilst many physiologies are similar there are also massive differences - hence why Bird Flu does pass between humans - and you have to be certain that the result in the animal test would be replicated in humans.

What this test shows is that you cannot be certain, nor can you be sure that an adverse reaction in animal would be replicated in humans. Who knows if the big advance in cancer care is actually beng held back because a dog died?

i get the impression that you are against animal testing. the idea of it isnt very nice,but where else do you start? i think it will always be a giant leap from animals to humans in this process of research.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Are you sure of that?

Animal testing shows what a drug will do to the animal in question. Whilst many physiologies are similar there are also massive differences - hence why Bird Flu does pass between humans - and you have to be certain that the result in the animal test would be replicated in humans.

What this test shows is that you cannot be certain, nor can you be sure that an adverse reaction in animal would be replicated in humans. Who knows if the big advance in cancer care is actually beng held back because a dog died?

They don't just randomly whack things into animals, even before testing it most scientists know the results they're going to get. The animal testing is to see if there are any unforseen side-effects within animals. If they're is they look at the drug again to see what caused this reaction. If they're is not they test on a small group of human volunteers, getting larger until theoretically they can say its absolutely safe (or at least its consequences are not as severe as what its trying to cure).

Now I'd agree animal testing isn't perfect, but I'm not sure of a better alternative...