Cyprus-Forum.com

[devil]

Oh, come orff it! The thalidomide problem was 50 years ago and had nothing whatsoever to do with the test-animal species. It is a teratogen in all mammalian species, including those used for drug testing. At that time, no one even thought about testing for teratogenic or mutagenic effects. We know a lot more about testing than we did 50 years ago. And it's stupid to say that histologic tests 50-odd years ago would have prevented the thalidomide tragedy. We had not developed the culture media necessary to keep cells viable. And shall I let you into a little secret? Mammals are always used to determine mutagenesis and teratogenesis because in vitro testing is simply not possible to term; the undesirable effects are possible at any stage of pregnancy. Please get your facts right, instead of trying to pretend you know what you are talking about, derived from myths propagated by extreme activists, as ignorant as anyone.

I am aware of what you are talking. It may surprise you to know I took a course in industrial toxicology and epidemiology at the University of Neuchâtel, so I know more than a little of the subject. I know that the metabolism between species is not the same and I also know that the computer modelling can, to a large extent, predict the differences between them. This is why, for example, the results from rats can be extrapolated to humans with roughly 90% accuracy, sufficient for judging the initial posology (OK, there was one recent boo-boo!). I have been closely involved in the toxicology of n-propyl bromide, an intermediate used in the pharma industry, notably in the synthesis of sedatives (my interest was not in the pharma application of the molecule, though). It was found to have some interesting neuropathogenic transdermal effects, found because of cutaneous tests on mice. A few cases on humans have been recorded but insufficient in number to be statistically valid for an epidemiological study. Our knowledge of the problem is derived from the animal studies, allowing us to determine ways to avoid sequelae when the substance is used industrially. Strong safety recommendations have therefore been issued. This would not have been possible without animal testing, sad though it is, but it has saved probably hundreds of people from severe neuropathy of the members, in severe cases leading to partial permanent paralysis.

[phoenix]

Oh, come orff it! The thalidomide problem was 50 years ago and had nothing whatsoever to do with the test-animal species. It is a teratogen in all mammalian species, including those used for drug testing. At that time, no one even thought about testing for teratogenic or mutagenic effects.

You are contradicting yourself a bit here.

Even 50 years ago they thought to do tests in a number of species.
Thalidomide was tested in mice at 50 X the dose later administered to people and it still did not induce the sedative effects it had in Humans. This goes back to my point that different chemicals behave in different ways in different species. One physician did in fact notice it had mutagenic/neurological effects which is why it was not cleared for use in the States.
Toxicological tests were all the rage in the 50s because of the emergence of chemical warfare (even earlier since Mustard Gas was used in WW I)

We know a lot more about testing than we did 50 years ago. And it's stupid to say that histologic tests 50-odd years ago would have prevented the thalidomide tragedy.

I never disputed that we know a lot more about histological tests today than we did in the 50s. It's precisely because we know so MUCH now that we can abandon animal tests altogether.

We had not developed the culture media necessary to keep cells viable.

HeLa cells which I used routinely were isolated from a patient with cervical cancer in 1951 and have been kept alive in culture media since then . . so you are entirely wrong on this point.

And shall I let you into a little secret? Mammals are always used to determine mutagenesis and teratogenesis because in vitro testing is simply not possible to term; the undesirable effects are possible at any stage of pregnancy. Please get your facts right, instead of trying to pretend you know what you are talking about, derived from myths propagated by extreme activists, as ignorant as anyone.

So far I don't think you are doing too well on the accuracy of your remarks. Your secrets had better remain that way as you would be laughed out of any modern day lab.
We have a number of isolated Human genes where mutagenic / teratogenic effect can be precisely measured and their effects on translated proteins immediately seen. These are the most powerful in vitro tests that you seem oblivious to... Once you have the gene why go back to the animal or even the wrong animal? Genomic techniques supersede all the animal tests you can think of. Because the genome is the "TARGET" for the mutagens.

I am aware of what you are talking. It may surprise you to know I took a course in industrial toxicology and epidemiology at the University of Neuchâtel, so I know more than a little of the subject.

I know of these "courses" that we offer to pharmaceutical companies. They are to "train" (brainwash) their technicians to carry out experiments according to the company ethos.

And I hold no sway by qualifications as a substitute for reasoned argument.

I know that the metabolism between species is not the same and I also know that the computer modelling can, to a large extent, predict the differences between them. This is why, for example, the results from rats can be extrapolated to humans with roughly 90% accuracy, sufficient for judging the initial posology (OK, there was one recent boo-boo!).

My ten year old knows metabolism is different according to species. The computer modelling is useless across species. I think you are getting mixed up with the computer modelling used alongside the in vitro assessments on genes (Pharmagene Labs use these) and even then they would not hazard a gung-ho figure for every drug such as you've put forward.

I have been closely involved in the toxicology of n-propyl bromide, an intermediate used in the pharma industry, notably in the synthesis of sedatives (my interest was not in the pharma application of the molecule, though). It was found to have some interesting neuropathogenic transdermal effects, found because of cutaneous tests on mice. A few cases on humans have been recorded but insufficient in number to be statistically valid for an epidemiological study. Our knowledge of the problem is derived from the animal studies, allowing us to determine ways to avoid sequelae when the substance is used industrially. Strong safety recommendations have therefore been issued. This would not have been possible without animal testing, sad though it is, but it has saved probably hundreds of people from severe neuropathy of the members, in severe cases leading to partial permanent paralysis.

Sounds like you have not been following the Health and Safety guidelines for this solvent yourself. Again you spout a lot of rubbish. Any bacteriological test like the "Ames" test developed in the 70's and using bacteria on a Petri dish would have told you about the dangers of this chemical. Sounds like your company wastes a lot of the shareholders money if they are testing n-propyl bromide on animals. What a needlessly stupid approach.
Kuhn ("Scientific Revolutions") postulated that new approaches cannot be instigated in the sciences until the holders of the beliefs die out . . . but I think I can make you abandon vivisection for a kinder more moral, more ethical approach whilst you are still (long may it last) around. . .

[devil]

It is useless arguing with you because you obviously know nothing about tox testing and you just get into deeper water with each statement. You obviously are concerned only with genetic disorders. Acute tox testing has nothing to do with carcino-, muta- or teratogenicity. Of course, nPB was tested with the Ames test and various other in vitro tests. As a matter of fact, one of the tests did show probability for a genetic modif (don't have the details offhand) which was later proved false with animal testing! And the neuropathy I mentioned could not possibly have been detected in vitro. I can assure you that very large sums of money have been spent on testing this substance (and is still being spent) using every means at our disposal, using computer modelling, in vitro tests and using various species of animals, as well as studying anecdotal reports on humans. This has been done mostly by universities and government labs in various countries (USA, Japan, China, France etc.) over the past 11 years. OSHA have not yet published regulations but the US EPA SNAP recommendations give guidelines on what applications it can be used for and exposure levels. My involvement is that I was co-chair of a United Nations Environment Programme Working Group on the substance, the toxicology/epidemiology of which was one aspect. The WG had 15 members from a dozen countries, including some renowned toxicologists.

By coincidence, the BBC gave a reportage last night about Duchene Muscular Dystrophy and a new treatment that is just heading into human trials. You can read all about it here.

The hope is it could slow, or even halt the progression of muscle wasting, and give some patients the chance of living into old age.

Animal trials of the drug have proved highly successful.

If it works in humans, patients would need regular infusions of the drug.

It's been tested successfully in mice but these will be the first tests in humans

With your philosophy, you would condemn this 16-yo kid to die within about 4 years. Now he has a hope that may mean he could reach old age (subject to positive results, of course), thanks to rodent tests. And don't say that this could have been done without them, because you know as well as I do that degenerative diseases cannot be tested without the time to study the degeneration in living creatures. With my philosophy, it is possible that another disease may have its effects reduced so that victims can live a normal life, subject to early diagnosis. Denying such research is a callous indifference to human rights.

[miltiades]

Would people think twice about supporting Cancer RESEARCH charities, please.

They waste an awful lot of money on UNNECESSARY cruel animal experiments . . .

They are usually flooded with money and have very few proper ideas of what valid research to do . . so they fund lots of interesting but extremely CRUEL vivisection experiments with applicabilities that are under serious scrutiny.

Best to give to ones that spend directly on sufferers.

Phoenix , you often express " immature " views but none more so than your comments on cancer research.It is obvious that you are totally clueless as to what goes on behind the scenes hence your dismissal of cancer research.
May I also say that your warnings to people to be careful about supporting cancer research are not only irresponsible but bloody stupid too. Stay out of something that you know sweet fa about.

[zan]

Would people think twice about supporting Cancer RESEARCH charities, please.

They waste an awful lot of money on UNNECESSARY cruel animal experiments . . .

They are usually flooded with money and have very few proper ideas of what valid research to do . . so they fund lots of interesting but extremely CRUEL vivisection experiments with applicabilities that are under serious scrutiny.

Best to give to ones that spend directly on sufferers.

Phoenix , you often express " immature " views but none more so than your comments on cancer research.It is obvious that you are totally clueless as to what goes on behind the scenes hence your dismissal of cancer research.
May I also say that your warnings to people to be careful about supporting cancer research are not only irresponsible but bloody stupid too. Stay out of something that you know sweet fa about.

Sorry Nikitas But Miltiades is spot on with this one. That is a totally irrisponsible thing to say and totally childish in conception. Thousands of scientists around the world that are doing magnificent things and finding ways that cure or make life easier for sufferers and you dismiss them as lab sadists.Very irrisponsible in deed.


Miltiades.
My sister came back from Cyprus yesterday and brought me my certificate for the donation I made. It has your name on it and am proud to have been part of this with you. She also brought back an armful of the colourful wooden Tulips that they give donors. They could not speak more highly of you. Thank you for all you have done and are doing.

[phoenix]

Would people think twice about supporting Cancer RESEARCH charities, please.

They waste an awful lot of money on UNNECESSARY cruel animal experiments . . .

They are usually flooded with money and have very few proper ideas of what valid research to do . . so they fund lots of interesting but extremely CRUEL vivisection experiments with applicabilities that are under serious scrutiny.

Best to give to ones that spend directly on sufferers.

Phoenix , you often express " immature " views but none more so than your comments on cancer research.It is obvious that you are totally clueless as to what goes on behind the scenes hence your dismissal of cancer research.
May I also say that your warnings to people to be careful about supporting cancer research are not only irresponsible but bloody stupid too. Stay out of something that you know sweet fa about.

Miltiades
You have jumped to conclusions again. Please either take the time to check what I fully endorse or refrain from thinking you understand me.
I defined the reasons why cancer research is wrong . . . but fully accept the help sufferers are in need of. I have already corresponded with Cancer Tulip and their work is PURELY with the sufferers . . . which is something I fully endorse. They do not fund research using animals.
What I find heartbreaking is that I know the Cancer Research trusts use this EMOTIVE subject to con people into huge donations that they cannot substantiate in terms of expenditure towards meaningful research and hence carry out a lot of unnecessary cruel costly animal experiments to justify themselves.
When I have been entertained by these charities I have been treated like a Queen with free lunches in marbled halls etc . . . something that is alien in the rest of scientific research.

I will respond to devil after I return from the museum . . so you may wish to be enlightened by that later.

[zan]

Would people think twice about supporting Cancer RESEARCH charities, please.

They waste an awful lot of money on UNNECESSARY cruel animal experiments . . .

They are usually flooded with money and have very few proper ideas of what valid research to do . . so they fund lots of interesting but extremely CRUEL vivisection experiments with applicabilities that are under serious scrutiny.

Best to give to ones that spend directly on sufferers.

Phoenix , you often express " immature " views but none more so than your comments on cancer research.It is obvious that you are totally clueless as to what goes on behind the scenes hence your dismissal of cancer research.
May I also say that your warnings to people to be careful about supporting cancer research are not only irresponsible but bloody stupid too. Stay out of something that you know sweet fa about.

Miltiades
You have jumped to conclusions again. Please either take the time to check what I fully endorse or refrain from thinking you understand me.
I defined the reasons why cancer research is wrong . . . but fully accept the help sufferers are in need of. I have already corresponded with Cancer Tulip and their work is PURELY with the sufferers . . . which is something I fully endorse. They do not fund research using animals.
What I find heartbreaking is that I know the Cancer Research trusts use this EMOTIVE subject to con people into huge donations that they cannot substantiate in terms of expenditure towards meaningful research and hence carry out a lot of unnecessary cruel costly animal experiments to justify themselves.
When I have been entertained by these charities I have been treated like a Queen with free lunches in marbled halls etc . . . something that is alien in the rest of scientific research.

I will respond to devil after I return from the museum . . so you may wish to be enlightened by that later.

I meant Pheonix on my post and not Nikitas....sorry.....


Give us some examples Pheonix???

[devil]

I defined the reasons why cancer research is wrong . . . but fully accept the help sufferers are in need of.

And how can sufferers get help when you deny them new drugs? There is NOTHING wrong with cancer research. The ISREC site I cited proves that and their accounts are 100% transparent as they are funded largely by the Swiss Confederation.

What I find heartbreaking is that I know the Cancer Research trusts use this EMOTIVE subject to con people into huge donations that they cannot substantiate in terms of expenditure towards meaningful research and hence carry out a lot of unnecessary cruel costly animal experiments to justify themselves.

This utter BOLLOCKS and you know that. You cannot give a gram of substantiation of your assertions. And if there is anyone who relies on EMOTION for their ridiculous propaganda, it is the animal rights activists, protecting their furry, cuddly, bunnies

When I have been entertained by these charities I have been treated like a Queen with free lunches in marbled halls etc . . . something that is alien in the rest of scientific research.

.

Yes, you are perfectly right, animal rights activists will treat you to magnificent meals etc. because they have the money from fools like you: you will never have such treatment at ISREC or any other similar institute that is not 100% industry funded. As it happens, I've eaten at ISREC, a very ordinary lunch in the canteen, that I paid for myself! They did offer me coffee, though.

I will respond to devil after I return from the museum . . so you may wish to be enlightened by that later.

Don't bother. You have damned yourself by your own emotive propaganda, engendered by ignorance about the subject and the fact that on each point I've raised, you have either ignored it or gone off at a tangent. I rest my case.

[phoenix]

Would people think twice about supporting Cancer RESEARCH charities, please.

They waste an awful lot of money on UNNECESSARY cruel animal experiments . . .

They are usually flooded with money and have very few proper ideas of what valid research to do . . so they fund lots of interesting but extremely CRUEL vivisection experiments with applicabilities that are under serious scrutiny.

Best to give to ones that spend directly on sufferers.

Phoenix , you often express " immature " views but none more so than your comments on cancer research.It is obvious that you are totally clueless as to what goes on behind the scenes hence your dismissal of cancer research.
May I also say that your warnings to people to be careful about supporting cancer research are not only irresponsible but bloody stupid too. Stay out of something that you know sweet fa about.

Miltiades
You have jumped to conclusions again. Please either take the time to check what I fully endorse or refrain from thinking you understand me.
I defined the reasons why cancer research is wrong . . . but fully accept the help sufferers are in need of. I have already corresponded with Cancer Tulip and their work is PURELY with the sufferers . . . which is something I fully endorse. They do not fund research using animals.
What I find heartbreaking is that I know the Cancer Research trusts use this EMOTIVE subject to con people into huge donations that they cannot substantiate in terms of expenditure towards meaningful research and hence carry out a lot of unnecessary cruel costly animal experiments to justify themselves.
When I have been entertained by these charities I have been treated like a Queen with free lunches in marbled halls etc . . . something that is alien in the rest of scientific research.

I will respond to devil after I return from the museum . . so you may wish to be enlightened by that later.

I meant Pheonix on my post and not Nikitas....sorry.....

Give us some examples Pheonix???

Zan . . . it's very easy to throw criticism at newer ideas and brand them radical and unacceptable. People are naturally defensive as exhibited by devil and Miltiades.

The crux of the matter is not that we should give up looking for new anti-cancer drugs . . . or any medicines at that.

BUT . . . we now have a whole barrage of methods for testing these drugs that are not only more morally acceptable, but are IN FACT far more accurate in providing useful data to make the drugs safer.

It's frustrating when people like the above two continuously provide obstacles to this new and better form of testing because the more companies that adopt these methods the more rapidly we well generate yet more safer, kinder test protocols.

Currently tissue culture is used extensively. This provides the type of cells that the drugs target and then you can analyse the direct effect on the DNA and proteins in the specific cells.

Genomic assessments are done widely especially since we have a number of isolated Human genes that can be tested. When you have the gene of interest from the correct species . . . it is madness to then go back to completely different species.

When computer simulations of molecular-drug structures are used in conjunction with the above . . . we have an even more powerful test system.

Bacteria are used widely in the Biotechnology industry to generate a number of therapeutic drugs . . . even plants are used for this.

Finally even if it was not morally wrong to use animals . . . the main reason to abandon using other species would be the high probability of erroneous information that they generate which when extrapolated to Humans has caused a HUGE number of disasters.

[phoenix]

I defined the reasons why cancer research is wrong . . . but fully accept the help sufferers are in need of.

And how can sufferers get help when you deny them new drugs? There is NOTHING wrong with cancer research. The ISREC site I cited proves that and their accounts are 100% transparent as they are funded largely by the Swiss Confederation.

I am not proposing abandoning the search for new drugs. I am only explaining to you why we need better methods of testing their effectiveness because using animals is outdated, morally wrong and unreliable.
Pharmaceutical companies are notorious for their cover-ups and you must be the only person I know who thinks otherwise.

What I find heartbreaking is that I know the Cancer Research trusts use this EMOTIVE subject to con people into huge donations that they cannot substantiate in terms of expenditure towards meaningful research and hence carry out a lot of unnecessary cruel costly animal experiments to justify themselves.

This utter BOLLOCKS and you know that. You cannot give a gram of substantiation of your assertions. And if there is anyone who relies on EMOTION for their ridiculous propaganda, it is the animal rights activists, protecting their furry, cuddly, bunnies

I did voluntary work for a major charity and we were trained to use emotive pressure to get people to make donations. This is common practice. It was not an animal rights charity but one that helps people. . .

When I have been entertained by these charities I have been treated like a Queen with free lunches in marbled halls etc . . . something that is alien in the rest of scientific research.

.

Yes, you are perfectly right, animal rights activists will treat you to magnificent meals etc. because they have the money from fools like you: you will never have such treatment at ISREC or any other similar institute that is not 100% industry funded. As it happens, I've eaten at ISREC, a very ordinary lunch in the canteen, that I paid for myself! They did offer me coffee, though.

You deliberately chose to change what I said. It was a CANCER RESEARCH TRUST (a major one in London) which let me into the secret that they had more money than they knew what to do with . . . I have never been entertained by animal rights activists. They in fact have very little resources thanks to people like you.

I will respond to devil after I return from the museum . . so you may wish to be enlightened by that later.

Don't bother. You have damned yourself by your own emotive propaganda, engendered by ignorance about the subject and the fact that on each point I've raised, you have either ignored it or gone off at a tangent. I rest my case.

In fact you are the one that has provided insubstantial evidence for your claims and have failed to acknowledge the corrections I provided for you.

Sorry you can't escape from my clutches so easily now. Unless you accept that animal experiments are morally wrong and unnecessary.

Devil, you said you are an ex-supplier to the pharma industry and you know for a fact they don't do animal experiments unnecessarily. Well they are not in the habit of telling their SUPPLIERS anything so you only know what they want you to know.

Did you supply them with the animals by any chance . . . ?

You claimed we did not have the necessary histological media for non- animal experiments in the 50s. . . I gave you the example of HeLa cells which proved we did.

I pointed out the Ames test as the alternative to the animal experiments you boasted were done to test n-propyl bromide . . and then you decided that yes that was done . . In that case you would not have needed to do the animal tests. So make up your mind!

You claimed the thalidomide disaster had nothing to do with the test species. I provided the evidence of the test done with 50 X the Human dosage on mice which still did not reveal the disastrous consequences. Proving using the wrong species caused the problem. You STILL have not provided a counterclaim to this. . . because there isn't one. You DO know animal experiments produce artifacts.

The Muscular Dystrophy research did use animals. . . BUT again they were unnecessary and it does not matter what the pharma industry says because as we have established they have a number of reasons for continuing to use animals.

The reality is that we can generate these results faster if all the companies adopt non-animal experiments. It is a matter of time before the generation that steadfastly holds on to these outdated ideas is converted, proof being that more and more forward thinking research labs and pharma companies ARE moving towards non-animal experiments.

So you are losing devil.