Damn
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Not so - not at all. A few simple examples: Almonds can kill foxes, but are good for humans. Sheep can consume vast quantities of arsenic. Morphine, one of Man's favourite anasthetics, causes mania in cats and mice (favourite lab tetsing animals...) And the revered penicillin - saviour of millions of lives - will kill a guinea-pig (another favourite of the vivisectionists) stone cold dead.
That's why they test on many, many, many, many different types of animals. Beginning with the least cute and furry and progressing to the most cute and furry.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
On the grounds that I can't believe you are really stupid enough to believe there is any scientific validity in what you've just said, I can only assume that, like Kyle last night, you are just trying to wind me up. Just in case you really haven't thought it through (or really are that stupid!) just stop for a minute and think: what difference does it make how many millions of tests are done on how many different types of animals, if none of them is going to give you any reliable information? The point is that the effect of any drug on one type of animal will tell you nothing about how that same drug will affect another type of animal (including the human animal).
-
On the grounds that I can't believe you are really stupid enough to believe there is any scientific validity in what you've just said, I can only assume that, like Kyle last night, you are just trying to wind me up. Just in case you really haven't thought it through (or really are that stupid!) just stop for a minute and think: what difference does it make how many millions of tests are done on how many different types of animals, if none of them is going to give you any reliable information? The point is that the effect of any drug on one type of animal will tell you nothing about how that same drug will affect another type of animal (including the human animal).
Fred_Smith wrote:
Just in case you really haven't thought it through (or really are that stupid!) just stop for a minute and think: what difference does it make how many millions of tests are done on how many different types of animals, if none of them is going to give you any reliable information? The point is that the effect of any drug on one type of animal will tell you nothing about how that same drug will affect another type of animal (including the human animal).
My understanding is that animal testing progresses from simpler animals that may have chemistry dissimilar to that of humans (like rodents) and progresses up to animals that have more similar chemistry to humans (like chimps). Ultimately once adequate safety is demonstrated in those higher animals, testing begins with a limited number of human volunteers. Testing is then expanded until FDA approval comes in. I'm sure you could see the problems in testing experimental drugs on humans before conducting any animal testing...
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Just in case you really haven't thought it through (or really are that stupid!) just stop for a minute and think: what difference does it make how many millions of tests are done on how many different types of animals, if none of them is going to give you any reliable information? The point is that the effect of any drug on one type of animal will tell you nothing about how that same drug will affect another type of animal (including the human animal).
My understanding is that animal testing progresses from simpler animals that may have chemistry dissimilar to that of humans (like rodents) and progresses up to animals that have more similar chemistry to humans (like chimps). Ultimately once adequate safety is demonstrated in those higher animals, testing begins with a limited number of human volunteers. Testing is then expanded until FDA approval comes in. I'm sure you could see the problems in testing experimental drugs on humans before conducting any animal testing...
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
No, Red, it doesn't work like that. Drugs are tested on whatever snimals they decide to use, or are available. Most are not tested on higher primates. And besides, even with chimps - just because a chimp has a similar physiology to man, in many ways, testing drugs on them still does not tell you anything useful about how they will react in man. Believe me, it is a totally bogus science. D yoursaelf a favour, and get hold of Hans Ruesch's book - it may be 30 years olds but it is still relevant. There is plenty of more contemporary writings too if you want, but his book is so well-writtem, so readable, and well annotated with full references to his sources.
-
No, Red, it doesn't work like that. Drugs are tested on whatever snimals they decide to use, or are available. Most are not tested on higher primates. And besides, even with chimps - just because a chimp has a similar physiology to man, in many ways, testing drugs on them still does not tell you anything useful about how they will react in man. Believe me, it is a totally bogus science. D yoursaelf a favour, and get hold of Hans Ruesch's book - it may be 30 years olds but it is still relevant. There is plenty of more contemporary writings too if you want, but his book is so well-writtem, so readable, and well annotated with full references to his sources.
Fred_Smith wrote:
No, Red, it doesn't work like that. Drugs are tested on whatever snimals they decide to use, or are available. Most are not tested on higher primates. And besides, even with chimps - just because a chimp has a similar physiology to man, in many ways, testing drugs on them still does not tell you anything useful about how they will react in man.
It doesn't tell you 100%, but it certainly says a lot. But as I said, they don't strictly test on animals. They progress onto human volunteers once their safety has been reasonably proven, and those human tests need to demonstrate a certain amount of efficacy and safety prior to approval. And I think I'll pass on the old race car driver's book.
Anybody rape your wife yet? -IAmChrisMcCall
-
Red Stateler wrote:
3 jobs in two months?
No. Waffle House for 5 months, Nazi Whore House for 2 months.
Red Stateler wrote:
So now you're unemployed and spending your "free time" doing drugs? Yeah...You're a winner.
Its my free time. I'll spend it however I want because I'm free to do so (regardless of what the laws mights say).
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
No. Waffle House for 5 months, Nazi Whore House for 2 months.
Why should be believe anything you say? You've obviously fried too many brain cells to keep track of your lies. I'm surprised you can keep track of your user names and passwords. :doh:
Compassionate Conservatism is an Oxymoron. Bush is just a Moron.
-
I Have No Username wrote:
I think people like 73Zepplin know that, they just get some twisted sense of power out of doing it.
:zzz: I am a p h y s i c i s t not a b i o l o g i s t . I know that is hard for you to understand given your (dramatically low) level of reading comprehension and the fact that they both end in "ist", but that is the case, nonetheless.
Don't cry, I was just trolling Fred_Smith. Looks like you are the one with the reading problems if you thought I was being serious.
-
Don't cry, I was just trolling Fred_Smith. Looks like you are the one with the reading problems if you thought I was being serious.
Demon Possessed wrote:
Don't cry,
:(( :zzz:
-
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
No. Waffle House for 5 months, Nazi Whore House for 2 months.
Why should be believe anything you say? You've obviously fried too many brain cells to keep track of your lies. I'm surprised you can keep track of your user names and passwords. :doh:
Compassionate Conservatism is an Oxymoron. Bush is just a Moron.
Tim Craig wrote:
Why should be believe anything you say?
Duhh should be bbb beliebe.
-
CataclysmicQuantums wrote:
Phh, this is ridiculous, Its like I'm arguing with a bunch of 3rd graders.
Yeah, this coming from a guy who drinks cough syrup to get high. :rolleyes: Do you know how pathetic that sounds? Why don't you stick it on your resume seeing as you're so proud of it: Hobbies: Drinking cough syrup to expand the horizons of my consciousness. Oooooo, you'd be a shoe-in!
73Zeppelin wrote:
Yeah, this coming from a guy who drinks cough syrup to get high. Do you know how pathetic that sounds?
It doesn't matter if I get high or not, I'll take LSD and mushrooms if I want to. Your view on psychoactives is the same view that the fucking government and elementary schools teach you. Your full of propaganda.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
Don't cry,
:(( :zzz:
Feeling sleepy? Nighty night little zepplin.