knifegill;4652151; said:
Yes, I've challenged your thinking. No need for insults.
Challenge no. Insults were not given. Though if you saw them perhaps you need to step out of a debate
Chimps are not that much like humans. Because they aren't humans. It's actually rather simple.
Its not simple at all. The genetic lineup of a chimp is nearly a 100% match to humans. That closeness allows one to see blood and tissue reactions, brain transformations, ect. Since chimps can be taught to talk as well we gleen a lot of information from them about how drugs affect them. Do some reading or research on this before you try to talk about it as if you know something...
So you spent tons of taxpayer money to genetically modify mice to affect their lungs. And then you want to pretend they are anything like humans. That's just perfect. I'm sure the money wasted on altering mice wasn't missed at all by the education system which could have taught a few hundred thousand people how to completely avoid asthma instead of popping a pill.
Who said anythign about tax payer money? Only tax payer money involved in most drugs is the funding that goes towards the FDA to monitor and oversee drug trials, ensure drug eddectivness, and watch for any and all attempts by a drug manufactorer to slip an unsafe drug through. They also do followups on drugs that been out for a while to ensure they are still safe when new information comes out. So not sure where your arguement here is going since tax payer money is not involved. Again you should actually do some research before you try to debate someone. It really is getting kinda sad reading this...
You're trying to justify these huge expenses and ridiculous comparisons as part of the machine that cranks out random pills to mask the symptoms of an undereducated and restless society. People need to be taught to avoid ailments instead of seeking out a corporately manufactured band-aid that only masks the symptoms.
While I do not disagree that one should seek chicken noodle soup and a day in bed to soothe the common cold, items like Asthma, Chrons disease, HIV/AIDs, cancer, sickle cell disease, arthritis, ect are not treated as such and need direct contact with the biological makeup of that person. As for drugs like Viagra....well I am not all for them either (yet since I am still young enough to not need them) BUT those drugs are money makers for the company to have funds to reinvest in other drugs that do have actual value. These are companies investing millions upon millions into each drug they try and most fail. The few money makers that have go towards funding their other drugs. Could the process be refined to not cost as much? Sure but then again these are also people taking stabs into the dark for the right cell structure and such to combat a disease. I do find it humorous that you chose to use undereducated in this portion of your reply when you yourself took no effort to research.
Animal suffering aside, the data gathered aren't reliably applicable to human subjects. Nobody should volunteer to be tested because most of these drugs in testing are not necessary in the first place.
Do you know what drugs are in testing? Doubtful..... All data gathered from the animals are directly applicable to humans. Believe it or not but an animal has lungs, a mouth, brain, ect. are viable tools for testing what happens to these. Mice and rats are used to see if the new drug attacks another portion of the body or even attempts to go after the disease. No one is saying that the testing on the lower mammals is a direct correlation to that of humans but it is the first step in stepping up to human trials. I shoudl also note that before animals tests are done massive amounts of tests are done on cells and such via test tube to test the drugs so most have an idea of what happens to the animals before it even gets there. Animal testing is no where near what most videos from the 70s make it out to be. The FDA has cracked down on a LOT of testing procedures. Though please if you would like to sign yourself up for the clinical trial portion be my guest. I am going to assume that you are perfectly healthy and have no need for drugs. I would like to see you turn down a drug when you or a loved one needs it to survive because it was tested on animals.
And I know how you guys formulate these compounds. You take an existing substance and start systematically altering small components of it in sequence, like the counter on a dial. Then you randomly feed these new isotopes to creatures one by one until you notice that they has some effect. Instead of choosing diseases to cure, you're looking for the next pill to sell no matter what it might do to us over time. It's a blind and greedy system. I'm sorry you can't see that, but it's true.
This is kind of correct but in a way also totally wrong. The FDA will not allow one to prod in the dark with animals. You have to submit tons of test data on a drug and its exact intention before you are cleared for most animal testing. The amount of money to get to that step is also cost prohibitive of prodding around.
Now that said a lot of times in the testing phase of a drug especially in the human trials where the person might have a second ailment we sometimes see a beneficial result to the other ailment while on the one drug. Seeing this they will attempt to tweak the drug to also cure the second ailment in the future but that requires all new testing from square one.
Is the drug industry a greedy system? Sure. What industry isn't??? Is it blind? Far from it. Without the advancements of science many people you know would not be here today or would be living rather painful and short lives.
Remember Vioxx? It started causing heart attacks left and right and what did the drug company do? They tested more monkeys. For what? They already knew it didn't kill monkeys. But they wanted some kind of proof that there was a margin of safety for the drug. Instead of admitting that the drug was killing people, they did their best to quiet the news of it and instead yelled out loud about the fact that it didn't kill monkeys. How much sense does this make? Can you justify this in any way?
The issue with Vioxx is two fold and is the reason for the long list of side effects on a drug. Vioxx was a breakdown in the FDA and Merck. The FDA looked the other way in some of the early test results showing signs of heart stress in animals and Merck was skilled enough to make them overlook. It was a total breakdown on the drug testing system on both the corporation as well as the government oversite system. Vioxx was being rushed out by Merck since Embrel had failed and they saw the soaring profits of Remicade. They ran to retest on monkeys after trying to recreate the other issues in the people having heart trouble. They did not just blindly test on monkeys. Again you need to look up the genetics of chimps and humans. There is a SERIOUS difference between monkeys and a chimp when it comes to the relationships with humans...
I can not justify the actions of the company as it put a serious black spot on the industry. You will hear about these from time to time. Though one also has to remember that there is an inherent risk in taking any drug as each and every human might have another condition not completly known to them. We are not carbon copies and all the drug companies can do is get somethign that works as intended for about 80% of the population. This is why it is sooo important to research a drug before you take it, talk to your doctor about it, and be prepared to stop the instant an issue arises.
So again......Do some reading and research before blindly spouting off. Outside of vioxx nothing in your arguement was even close to a leg to stand on. If you attempt to debate someone as you are it is wise to come with some data and facts to back up your opinion and not merely opinion and conjecture. You are already on the internet.....use it
