Animal related topics > Animal Research
Animal rights activists: Even death doesn't sway them
doglady:
I apologise for not having had time to read this.
This woman is the gformer communications director for PCRM so it should be interesting.
Why I Take Animal-Tested Drugs
Simon Chaitowitz
Posted March 4, 2009 | 01:51 PM (EST)
One of my doctors has told me to get my affairs in order, which is why I'm writing this column. I want to explain why someone who takes so many animal-tested drugs is opposed to animal research.
I have full-blown leukemia and the chemotherapy I'm taking doesn't seem to be working all that well. And even if it does kick into high gear soon, it's not a cure, only a brief delay of the disease's progression. One way or another, my odds aren't good.
Still, I keep popping pills each morning and night, sitting for many hours each week with an IV in my arm, dealing with all the side-effects of treatment, hoping for a miracle. Some people may call me a hypocrite -- to take advantage of the benefits of animal research. Let me explain.
The truth is that I don't feel I've ultimately benefited from our healthcare system, despite some truly exceptional care and many amazingly compassionate practitioners. Just the opposite.
I first developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in 2004 from the chemo I was prescribed for breast cancer. In 2006, I underwent a stem cell transplant, which gave me two years of remission (albeit with many horrible side effects). This past July, I relapsed -- this time with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). My prognosis is grim.
Throughout the past six years, I have felt terribly guilty about the drugs and procedures I've undergone because I know that so many animals have suffered in their development. I know about these conditions because of my former job -- working for a nonprofit that promotes alternatives to animal research. I know about the conditions from talking with former animal researchers and others who have witnessed the cruelty. In fact, one man I know from an Internet support group remembers hearing lab dogs yelping in pain at the hospital where we both had our transplants.
The truth -- mostly hidden from public view -- is that animal research is horribly cruel. Despite what the research community claims, federal regulations are extremely weak and poorly enforced, and some species -- mice, for example -- are completely excluded from any protection. Many investigations have shown just how bad conditions are.
But as someone who recently signed up for hospice, I have another major problem with animal research. I wonder if science would have found a cure for my leukemia by now if they weren't sidetracked by misleading animal tests. I wonder if the chemo that I took for breast cancer would have been safer it hadn't been tested in species that are so unlike our own.
The truth is that using animals to develop and test drugs is a system that doesn't work very well. It's an old paradigm, one that is fortunately beginning to change, however slowly. A growing number of scientists are developing some exciting (and more effective) non-animal alternatives. These changes have been inspired partly by concern over animal cruelty but also because animal research and testing have so often failed us. Some government agencies are even starting to call for more alternatives.
More than 90 percent of all new drugs which proved effective in animals end up not working for humans. It's because animals -- however similar they are to us -- have different physiological systems. What works in a mouse usually doesn't work in a human.
History is filled with stories of drugs that didn't work in animals -- Aspirin, for example -- that ended up working in humans. And the obituary pages are filled with stories of people who died from drugs that looked safe in animals. The painkiller Vioxx, for example, tested safe in mice and five other species but ended up killing many thousands of Americans.
If you wonder how I can justify taking the drugs, the truth is that like all living beings ("lab animals" included) I desperately want to live. And because of government regulations, I don't have a choice.
The current drug approval system doesn't yet acknowledge the superiority of human-focused, nonanimal research methods (such as microdosing) and all pharmaceutical companies must use animals to get their drugs approved. Hopefully, this situation will soon change. A coalition of animal protection groups and physicians has petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to accept the results of alternative tests, when available.
If the chemo drugs I'm trying now don't work, I do have one last option. I could try a Phase One trial. That's when a drug looks promising in animals and is first tested in humans. My doctor started to tell me why so many participants die in Phase One trials -- but it turned out I already knew the answer. Drugs that work in animals, he explained, usually don't work in humans.
General Logic:
Hypocrisy.
That is all I am reading in that.
xgsft:
No kidding. It may as well have been "Blah, blah, blah I take drugs that came from animal research but I am not a hyprocrite because I am taking them, blah, blah, blah."
I seriously wish there was some way to force their vegan ways on them when it came to medical advances and treatments.
ellie mae:
what was all that crap about her not having a choice? you bet your ass she has a choice. she could say "no thankyou, i've had enough, check please" and go home, and cease to be a fucking hypocrite by taking the animal tested meds she so desperately opposes. i garauntee you that no one is holding her down and forcing them down her throat or into her iv.
Pollock:
--- Quote from: doglady on March 12, 2009, 09:20 am ---
Some people may call me a hypocrite -- to take advantage of the benefits of animal research. Let me explain.
The truth is that I don't feel I've ultimately benefited from our healthcare system, despite some truly exceptional care and many amazingly compassionate practitioners. Just the opposite.
I first developed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in 2004 from the chemo I was prescribed for breast cancer. In 2006, I underwent a stem cell transplant, which gave me two years of remission (albeit with many horrible side effects). This past July, I relapsed -- this time with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). My prognosis is grim.
--- End quote ---
Nature's a bitch - take it up with her. Being sick isn't like going to a country club retreat - it hurts - talk to Lance Armstrong if you want to know about pain - he's VERY grateful for his opportunity to continue to live. I bet the remission would have been worse without the drugs you were using. Define ultimate benefit - you're alive to spew your tripe, so clearly you've benefited. In most circumstances, you'd be dead by now.
--- Quote from: doglady on March 12, 2009, 09:20 am ---
Throughout the past six years, I have felt terribly guilty about the drugs and procedures I've undergone ...
--- End quote ---
Good - you should. It's like protesting against people who eat cake and then hiding the fact that you eat cake. You are morally corrupt - you're just too stupid to notice.
--- Quote from: doglady on March 12, 2009, 09:20 am ---
But as someone who recently signed up for hospice, I have another major problem with animal research. I wonder if science would have found a cure for my leukemia by now if they weren't sidetracked by misleading animal tests. I wonder if the chemo that I took for breast cancer would have been safer it hadn't been tested in species that are so unlike our own.
--- End quote ---
This only shows your ignorance on this topic for all those to see. GREAT JOB!!!
--- Quote from: doglady on March 12, 2009, 09:20 am ---
The truth is that using animals to develop and test drugs is a system that doesn't work very well. It's an old paradigm, one that is fortunately beginning to change, however slowly. A growing number of scientists are developing some exciting (and more effective) non-animal alternatives. These changes have been inspired partly by concern over animal cruelty but also because animal research and testing have so often failed us. Some government agencies are even starting to call for more alternatives.
More than 90 percent of all new drugs which proved effective in animals end up not working for humans. It's because animals -- however similar they are to us -- have different physiological systems. What works in a mouse usually doesn't work in a human.
--- End quote ---
1. I'd like to see these exciting and (and more effective) non-animal alternatives - as of yet they do not exist, no matter how much you claim they do.
2. Govts have been calling for alternatives for years.
3. Show me the 90% number - my $$ says it's a manipulation of data to fit your personal opinion.
4. Ever heard of a non-responder? Drugs don't even work 100% of the time in humans when they work, so small scale clinical trials IN HUMANS may not even give you a good idea of how well it will work in humans - Go figure.
--- Quote from: doglady on March 12, 2009, 09:20 am ---
History is filled with stories of drugs that didn't work in animals -- Aspirin, for example -- that ended up working in humans. And the obituary pages are filled with stories of people who died from drugs that looked safe in animals. The painkiller Vioxx, for example, tested safe in mice and five other species but ended up killing many thousands of Americans.
If you wonder how I can justify taking the drugs, the truth is that like all living beings ("lab animals" included) I desperately want to live. And because of government regulations, I don't have a choice.
--- End quote ---
The aspirin story has been dealt with - are you really that much a fool?
Vioxx is ESTIMATED to have killed thousands - I don't believe there are thousands of death certificates floating around with the cause of VIOXX being noted on them. It was an estimate based on frequency of heart attacks and other events.
You are not allowed to refuse treatment? Wow, never heard of the govt FORCING you to take drugs. You live in a very strange place.
quote author=doglady link=topic=39222.msg597190#msg597190 date=1236864046]
The current drug approval system doesn't yet acknowledge the superiority of human-focused, nonanimal research methods (such as microdosing) and all pharmaceutical companies must use animals to get their drugs approved. Hopefully, this situation will soon change. A coalition of animal protection groups and physicians has petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to accept the results of alternative tests, when available.
If the chemo drugs I'm trying now don't work, I do have one last option. I could try a Phase One trial. That's when a drug looks promising in animals and is first tested in humans. My doctor started to tell me why so many participants die in Phase One trials -- but it turned out I already knew the answer. Drugs that work in animals, he explained, usually don't work in humans.
[/quote]
You clearly don't understand microdosing very well.
As well, the system should only change once the alternative has been thoroughly tested to show that it is equal/superior. If we ever get to that point, I expect to have a good laugh - the new methods are unlikely to be any more predictive of human responsiveness or safety - gonna really piss off you AR lot when you realize it's not any more better.
Finally, your doctor gave you bad advice.
*edited for spelling errors
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version