Says Ido Hadi, the owner of the blog "Ethology” who wanted to deal with pseudo-scientific arguments on the website of the Israeli Association Against Animal Experiments. The article was first published on his blog
Less than a year ago I posted Incisive article who criticized and pierced her version of "The Israeli Association for Animal Experiments” (hereafter “the Society”) for the history of insulin isolation. Since that post I have had very little respect for the association. Recently, I remembered it again, after entering into several discussions on Facebook with opponents of animal experiments. For a while I refrained from commenting on her Facebook group, but never relented. On the morning of the Fourth of July, American Independence Day, I encountered in the next post In her Facebook group:
Shiitake mushrooms cured mice, completely, of cancer (1)!
For a long time I want to see the result of an experiment on animals, the test of time. For example: in 1970, at the National Cancer Research Center in Tokyo, mice were treated with a concentrate of shiitake mushrooms, against sarcoma type cancer, which they suddenly developed (not to mention they were infected on purpose, which already undermines all the results of the experiment(2)). In the initial dose we gave them, 6 out of ten mice recovered. When they raised the dose a little, the mice got 100 percent recovery!
do you understand Already in 1970, a natural cure for cancer was found, with 100 percent success. in mice.
These experiments on mice demonstrate, according to the association, the ineffectiveness of animal experiments as a research method, because they did not yield a cure for cancer. They claim that they were carried out "just". Beautiful. Happy and satisfied with the excuse to avoid studying for the tests, I began the task of fact-checking. From past experience, I assumed that there is a very small chance that this is an actual claim. Most likely, as I expected, these were claims taken straight from the fairy tales, from the deeds of Snow White and the Seven Mice. Therefore, I made a strategic decision in advance to estimate the time it took me to locate and read the sources on the subject and determine if the association's description is true or false.
I started by reading the source from which the association took the Description of the experiment in mice. He was a starting point, a place to move on from. According to what is written there, I located the The original study And I read it. As expected, the association described the experiment very poorly. It is clear from the study itself that it was nothing more than a very preliminary study designed to find out if the substance isolated by the researchers, lentinan, has any anti-cancer activity. It is difficult to describe what the researchers measured as "recovery" from cancer, as the association did. The researchers killed the mice and weighed their tumor in order to gauge the regression of the cancerous tumor caused by the lentinan. Even if we assume that "recovery" means complete regression of the tumor, in none of the experiments described in the study was there a complete regression in 100 percent of the mice. From all this it is clear that the association described this experiment in an amateurish way while inflating the results.
I couldn't stop at this point. I wanted to know if the isolated substance, lentinan, had reached the stage where it was successfully tested on people with cancer. A quick search of scientific databases revealed to me that this is indeed the case. I located a literature review of studies carried out in humans that concluded unequivocally (free translation) that
Adding lentinan to standard chemotherapy has a significant survival advantage over chemotherapy alone for patients with recurrent/unresectable advanced gastric cancer. Let's hope that these results will lead to a wide acceptance of immuno-chemotherapy as a treatment for bowel cancer.
Not only did the association describe the mouse experiment carelessly, but the substance isolated in this experiment has therapeutic importance. It seems that her case failed more than the case against Ehud Olmert. It took me only one hour to locate the sources of information, read them and conclude that the shiitake mushroom argument is nothing more than a bulshitaki argument. Maybe it's good in soup, but bad as a science. My response on the association page was gentle and nice, not like my expression here. I saw no reason to arouse negative feelings. I thought it would be better to keep the discussion to myself. I noted the time it took me to complete each step of the testing process, in order to emphasize that it is not a lot of work for those who are willing to do it.
This is not the end of the reservoir of regret. Oh no. A few days later, on the ninth of July, The association cracked In a new argument dance to the sounds of the contemporary hit on Channel 24, "Give me a bolshitaki":
A small touch in the world of the pharmaceutical companies, the companies behind so many experiments on animals, the companies that claim that with great regret they have to harm animals, but the supreme goal is to save human lives.
Avastin is a drug that was originally developed for colon cancer and cost $20 per mg. Over time, Avastin was also tried as a medicine to treat an eye disease, called AMD. The problem was that at the time of the discovery, Genentech, the manufacturer of the drug, was working on developing an almost identical drug, but at a price up to a hundred times more expensive than Avastin, called Lucentis. Despite the fact that at this point, Genentech already knew about Austin's success, it still chose to conduct experiments on monkeys and mice. I mean, the clinical trials and research, the data, everything was there, and effective for humans, but it didn't satisfy society. Ophthalmologists who understood the absurdity, continued to give AMD patients the cheap Avastin, but encountered a tough fight from the drug manufacturer. The manufacturing company fought with all its might (1) with the main claim being that not enough experiments and studies were carried out to confirm the use of Austin/Lucentis for human use. In a study (2) which tried to check which medicine was preferable between the two, it was discovered that there is no difference between them. Just more animal experiments, just more cruelty, all to fill more pockets. And one more small thing, to finish: there are no animal models of AMD in nature (3), meaning that animals do not develop this disease naturally, and any treatment that is tried on them, will treat the symptom, but not the source.
So what did we have? Unnecessary experiments on animals? was greed? was. Mocking Resh? was Remember this story too, the next time you hear the heartbreaking story about "life saving drugs".(4)
This is a wonderful act of industrial greed combined with heartfelt concern for the bank account of AMD patients. The relevance of these sentiments to animal experiments is not clear to me. Crimson Sources The first that the association gives its claims do not mention animal experiments at all. Maybe they have something about animal experiments if the reader engages in creative reading, an artistic activity in which he sails on the wings of imagination and reads in the text what he wants instead of what is written in it. the source the third, which is supposed to support the claim that there are no animal models of AMD in nature, does say so. Don't be so surprised. It is still not relevant. A moment later he notes some results from experiments on model animals that mimic various elements of the disease, making it clear that AMD can still be studied in animals.
So, we came to the unsurprising, but outrageous, conclusion that the association did not provide proper evidence for its claims. As is my custom in the sanctuary, I did not stop here. I dipped my toes in scientific databases, in order to learn about the differences between the two drugs, Lucentis and Avastin. I wanted to understand if there was any reason to retest Lucentis on animals and humans. If Lucentis and Avastin are so similar, there is no reason to experiment. If they are significantly different, we have to check that the new drug is safe. I guess you already know the answer.
in this review article I discovered that these two drugs, Avastin and Lucentis, were designed for completely different needs. Avastin was designed to be injected into a vein, not into the eye, while Lucentis was specifically designed to be injected into the eye. Most importantly, I discovered that Lucentis was designed by extensive genetic engineering of several proteins, which included, among other things, joining together pieces of proteins from two different sources. This means that in the absence of a proper test there may be unwanted results from the use of this medicine. From what I have read, I have no doubt that a test of the efficacy and safety of Lucentis is required on its own. Avastin's safety and efficacy data cannot be relied upon. Not surprisingly, testing them on animals as well as humans showed that there are differences between them. For example, Lucentis is able to penetrate deeper than Avastin into the tissues of the eye. Therefore, here too, the association's case seems weak. I explained my case in another comment on the Facebook page. The whole process from checking the facts to publishing the response took less than an hour. In this case, too, I made sure that my response on the association's page was objective and non-aggressive, and here too I reported the time it took me to complete the various steps in checking the facts.
I am not a doctor, but a student of life sciences. I did not do a thesis or a doctorate on the issues raised by the association, so I was, and still am, completely open to the possibility that I was wrong and said nonsense. The association didn't even bother trying to show it. Over time I realized that the last thing I would get from her was a factual reference to my review. In the Avastin/Lucentis post, the association did not respond to my words at all. In the bolshitaki post, the association's helper on Facebook was mostly very nice. About as nice as a broken record. He repetitiously recited the claim that experiments on animals were of no use and only harmed the progress of medicine. He often tried to change the topic of conversation to other arguments, no less fascinating and no more relevant than being a scratched disc. Attempts to change the subject I refused with the greatest amount of politeness I could muster and insisted that the association respond directly to my criticism. At some point the association even showed flashes of talent in psychological diagnosis via the Internet that would not have embarrassed Freud himself. Despite her reactions, I believe that I would not have been belligerent and that I behaved politely, even though I believe that respectful treatment is the last thing the association is entitled to.
I will run the clock forward a little, to 9 o'clock in the evening, yesterday. I went to the association's Facebook page to check what's new. There was a lot new. The association blocked me and even deleted all my comments and those of other participants in the Bullshitaki discussion and the Avastin/Lucentis discussion. Beauty, I thought, Luckily I was prepared in advance and saved Photography screen. Besides me, some of the other commenters were blocked in these two discussions. The common denominator of all of them is an expression of opposition to the association's form of discussion and the poor fact-checking it demonstrated. Ironically, at least two of the banned are entitled to the title of "activists for animals" whose main sin is an unwillingness to swallow and digest the souffle of nonsense that the association feeds its readers. Some of the blocks I can somehow justify, because the blockers expressed themselves in a rant. I don't find any justification for my blocking. It looks like an attempt to silence criticism and nothing else.
From this sequence of events it is clear that the "Israeli Association Against Animal Experimentation" relies on faulty fact-checking and the silencing of criticism against it. She is not interested in a substantive discussion of the issues she raises, even though she creates a false representation of "scientific" that has every reason to be exposed. I do not believe that this is a deliberate deception of her readers because I have no evidence of this. My minimalist interpretation of my interaction with them is that this is an organization where science is not valued enough to bother studying it and shallow recitations are considered matter-of-fact and even scientific responses to criticism. I did not expect to be able to convince them of their error, but I certainly expected some kind of substantive discussion that would probably end with "we will agree to disagree". The responses I received from the association exceeded my worst expectations and included psychological analysis, irrelevant responses and worst of all, censorship.
This post is a warning sign for people who are interested in reliable information about animal testing. It is better for you to look for information in other sources, not at the Association Against Animal Testing. I call on animal rights activists to join those of you who have already denounced the actions of this association. Many animal rights activists I know are scientifically oriented. They don't want the association with science denial. The "Israeli Association Against Animal Experimentation" gives pro-animal activism a bad name and makes them and you look like hopeless skeptics who deny established science. Oppose her use of such arguments. No need for pseudoscientific arguments. Instead, encourage the use of moral arguments. They don't smell like bullshit.
26 תגובות
To all those who argue about the fanaticism of activists against experiments in the BAH, remember that fanaticism is a subjective culture-dependent term and also opponents of slavery were once considered fanatics and you could also throw all the psychoanalysis in the shekel on them.
If it were human trials, would you still maintain the same level of unreserved support?
Animals are indeed not human, but they are also not an object whose pain and feelings can be ignored.
Would you be willing to intentionally give your pets cancer?
It is quite clear that many commenters here do not have a shred of empathy for the suffering of these conscious beings (just read a drop of the cynicism and ranting and bang your head against the wall...)
Do you have empathy for humans? How would you feel and act if you were born into a world that experimented on humans? This is not such a fictional scenario. And it's not that different from our situation if you consider the amounts of BH that are undergoing experiments...
Is every cosmetic experiment or out of "scientific curiosity" important enough to torture another creature?
These are serious and deep questions, the frivolity and cynicism really disgusts me...
The article excites and entertains the reader, but is lacking in factuality,
Ido Hadi Why do you think this is so relevant? Why did you argue with someone on the association's Facebook?
These are private people and not every comment they threw on the spot (even if it was from the association's username which you didn't mention happened and therefore it didn't even happen..) represents the official opinion of the association as an organization whose "opinion" is a synthesis of the different opinions of the many people in her…
The implication is unfounded. (recurring motive?)
(Of course, even from the official opinion of the association, one should not project onto other arguments against one or another experiments in the BH, and each argument should be debated objectively and separately)
The commenter point zero wrote here that in his opinion experiments on monkeys should be banned, I agree but tell me - are 1,000 mice worth more or less than one monkey? And rabbits? Or maybe 100, or 10,000?
There is clearly a very wide gray area here…
Of course, there are also arguments against experiments in the BEH that I think are unfounded, but this is a natural result of the fact that this is a debate in which hundreds of thousands of people participate at least on each side, and perhaps you can even say that there is some normal distribution of the "level of arguments" of the 2 sides...
I'm not part of the association and I'm not that active (even though I was twice in a demonstration in front of the Mazor farm that exports monkeys for experiments).. and in my day-to-day life I'm generally a student (but not for life sciences, mathematics) and to a certain extent I understand Ido's place as a student that the people he takes from As an authority on information, science and truth are his biology teachers who themselves are engaged in one level or another of experiments and their approach does influence the shaping of his worldview in the fields in which they are perceived to be experts. This is predictable psychology.
But I don't like doing psychoanalysis as a tool to weaken other opinions.
Those who are really interested in opinions, articles, references to studies, etc. are invited to look at the reading materials on the website "Behind the Laboratory Doors" and the multitude of websites against vivisection and in favor of human rights (just google "animal experiments" of course...)
In my opinion, anyone who wants to form an opinion on the subject must watch for themselves the segments from the various (and different) experiments and tortures.
In any case, in the age of information where every organization or movement has a web page with a multitude of arguments and articles, Ido chooses to refer to one short and not the most relevant discussion on Facebook and receives an entire article in the "Hidan"...
That's basically the only thing I wanted to comment on, but it's hard not to "get carried away" when it comes to a topic with a lot of emotional charge for anyone who has empathy and respect for the life around them.
R.H. Just so you know that experiments on apes are illegal in Israel (I don't know about other countries).
The problem with computer models is not only that information is needed because it is a reduction of what is required, today we are not close to scratching the development of computer models that replace animal experiments because it is such a complicated system that surprises every time.
Regarding general substitutes for experiments in the stock market, this is something that is very necessary, and laboratories were desperate for an effective substitute, and this is because one thing they forgot to say here is that experiments on animals are extremely expensive compared to almost any other method that can be thought of, and therefore whoever succeeds in developing all kinds of methods that will replace animals Haim will earn huge amounts of money, and therefore many laboratories are currently working on finding an alternative.
Regarding perfect animal models, there really isn't a perfect model because they are not human, but there is no such thing as a model that doesn't work. I will give a specific example, which is experiments on monkeys for the study of Parkinson's disease. Monkeys do not show phenotypes of the disease, but the research is based on a complete protein system that exists in both humans and monkeys and the research is molecular, so animals can be used as a model even though they do not show the symptoms of the disease. A difference between a human disease and a mouse for example that does not show symptoms can be one protein that does not interfere with studying the protein system that is expressed in humans.
Regarding drugs that are toxic to animals but not humans, as soon as a researcher arrives at the development of a drug that he wants to start trying on animals, he probably won't give up if the drug is toxic on the first animal, there is a hierarchy of using animals and you must always start experiments on the lowest possible animal (Of course it's fine that committees of humans determined) and therefore you can't start straight from a monkey (you really have to justify it) but start with a mouse and therefore if it's toxic then you can go up in the animal hierarchy to a non-toxic level.
@Maya:
Apologies for the late response.
It is not clear to me why the poultry matter in the insulin case is a matter of luck. If they do not develop any symptoms of the disease when their pancreas is removed, it is conceivable that there is no reason to use them as a model. There is no luck here. This is a fully informed choice based on a rational criterion. Regarding the paracetamol, I don't know what they would have done if it had been bred to be toxic to dogs and cats in the pre-clinical phase, because I haven't tested the issue at all. You need to know what the tools were that the researchers used, why they used them rather than dogs and cats, and there are other questions that must be answered before I can give an effective answer to this.
I also don't know how animals are a good model for systemic responses. I think many other scientists know this, so they are used much like physicists use mathematical modeling. The initial mathematical model includes within it what the physicist believes is happening in the physical system he is investigating. From it, predictions are produced that are tested in reality, and if they do not fit, the model is edited or replaced. The mathematical model is refined over time, as our understanding of the physical system being studied improves by tweaking the mathematical model.
A similar thing is done with animals. They are a model of human systemic responses in the same sense that the mathematical model serves as a model of the behavior of a physical system. The initial model includes what the researchers believe the disease includes and the results obtained in it are actually predictions that are tested on humans, often by indirect means. When inconsistencies are found, it can be said that a specific model for a specific investigated system has been disproved, and it must be corrected or replaced according to the new findings.
I think that such a method is used by most researchers who use animals and it is the one that succeeds in turning animals into a successful research tool in the same way that mathematics is an excellent research tool for a physicist. From this it is understandable why there are more mathematical models and model animals that have failed. This is a successful research method *because* it uses a failed model as data. (Don't get confused: the physics analogy is only meant to explain the concept, and I am in no way claiming that the use of these two tools is the same).
None of this answers your concern that drugs that failed in animals may not have been approved for use in humans even though they would not be toxic to us. I don't think there is a way to answer that. This is a completely legitimate concern. I hope like you that better preclinical toxicity and effectiveness tests will be developed than animal experiments. Assig saying that basic scientific research, the study of mechanisms and the study of systemic responses, I doubt there will ever be a substitute for animal research, but I'd love to be fooled.
Regarding the substitutes you mentioned: I, like you, am not an expert in these things either. From what I have read on the subject, my opinion about them is close enough to that of R.H. In short, they ask me questions that R.H. has already asked.
Max Power,
Fanaticism exists on both sides and this only leads to more fanaticism.
Would you hand your pet over to an experimental lab?
Not for experiments aimed at developing life-saving drugs - but for the purpose of testing the toxicity of shampoo? To test an anti-baldness ointment? For testing a weight loss drug?
There is also a middle way.
To all the fanatics who are against animal experiments, give up the drugs invented as a result of these experiments, hypocrites...
point zero,
I agree with every word. I would also add most of the "psychological" experiments such as the effect of anxiety or stress on various systems. On the other hand, I don't see how it is possible to study cancer or other diseases without models in the BH. I wish there was an alternative method.
R.H.,
Congratulations, finally a balanced and clear voice in the tumult of the fanatical voices (and I mean the *supporters* of animal experiments). Most of them have simply turned the claims in favor of the experiments into a new religion and are engaged in crucifying anyone who tries to point to a more inclusive and less extreme picture.
There is no doubt that animal experiments are an imperfect model. There are many examples of this, which is why we need closer supervision, we need to collect data and develop alternatives at the same time, and we also need to ban experiments in the medical field for any need that is not aimed at saving lives (cosmetics, for example).
Ido,
Get positive reinforcement for the post and the blog that I just discovered and loved. I very much agree with what you wrote. It always bothered me that precisely the biologists, a significant number of whom, including myself, came to the profession out of love for nature and animals, precisely are presented as sadistic killers of the .
Maya,
You are talking about computer models. But how can you create models without data? And how will the data arrive? If not from experiments? After all, completely theoretical models that do not rely on anything are worth as garlic skins. Moreover, how can the computer models be tested and validated without "wet" trials?
It is clear that animal models are not perfect, as in the paracetamol example you brought. However, if we do not want to do experiments on humans, we have no choice but to deal with models that are not perfect. I also agree that there needs to be close and strict supervision of the experiments that will prohibit unnecessary experiments or those that cause suffering beyond any measure or need. In addition, I would ban experiments on apes for the same reason we ban experiments on humans.
Do you go to a religious website to convince them of the flying spaghetti monster? Or trying to reply in the "freedom" forum? These are ineffective actions.
"You're preaching to the choir" You're trying to convince the convinced people here who are advocating academic transparency anyway in... what actually? That the convinced of the other side don't let logic confuse them? When the end justifies the means you fight windmills (insert more clichés here)
@The Other Me:
Indeed, we will agree to disagree.
@athology:
Of course, systemic research is problematic. The problem is that using animals does not solve its problematic. I will give two examples, one of which I read at your place: in the article on the development of insulin it was stated that chickens without a pancreas do not get diabetes. You said that the research was done on dogs that have the problem. That's true, but in the end it's a lot about luck. How could you know in advance that birds are a bad model? Another example: for dogs and cats paracetamol is poison. For humans we know what he does. What would have happened if dogs and cats were actually used during the development of paracetamol? What would have happened is that they would have seen that it was toxic, the drug would not have gone to the next stage and we would all have a headache now (that is, it is likely that they would have developed some other drug that might have been better or maybe less good). In any case, there is no doubt that animals are the absolute systemic image we have, I'm just not sure how good it is. And much worse in my view than the fact that there are drugs that go through the animal phase and do not go through the human phase is the possibility (which I do not know how likely it is because it has not been tested) that there are drugs that do not go through the animal phase and could have gone through the human phase, they were rejected because they were not Rightly so in the preliminary stage of the animals which, as mentioned, simulates only partially. What do I offer, you ask, it is difficult for me to offer, I admit, both because I am not an expert on the subject and because it is a problematic subject. Nowadays, there are computer models that model the system, but they are of course problematic because we don't know enough (on the other hand, this is exactly the reason why animal experiments are problematic). I think that a combination of tissue embroidery (which is increasing in frequency) with the computer models can lead to some result that I have no ability to compare with the result given by animal experiments. In the end, if you are developing a drug for humans there is no substitute for human trials, nothing will help, there is no system that imitates us perfectly.
Regarding more basic research, there is no doubt, if you want to understand the anatomy and physiology of a dog, you have to study a dog, but the results you get will be relevant to the dog, and then the question arises whether any natural scientific curiosity (and I accept that it is a natural scientific curiosity) is worth the moral price you are obliged to pay .
Ido,
Regarding the cynicism - I apologize if you were offended. In my opinion, those who put their fingers in the fire should know how to bear the heat. And cynicism is the least evil. And besides, this is a practice you also use, right?
Here is a quote:
"It seems that her case failed more than the case against Ehud Olmert. It took me only one hour to locate the sources of information, read them and conclude that the shiitake mushroom argument is nothing more than a bulshitaki argument. Maybe it's good in soup, but bad as a science. My response on the association's page was gentle and nice, unlike my expression here."
I also answered all your arguments. You are the one who reads selectively and also selectively chooses what to refer to my words. From the short and unproductive discussion between us I can only advise you - Tol Cora is out of your sight.
But really, we'll agree to disagree. As I wrote, it's a waste of time for both of us.
@The Other Me:
I replied to your comment about the selective reading. I don't see a real response in her.
The "integrity to fix"? fix what? That's the question you didn't answer in your comment on my website. You quoted a nice quote from my words and claimed that I corrected it. However, I did not fix it at all. I remain of the exact same opinion, that I must track down Reiter's sources, otherwise I will not attempt to review his claims. The only difference is that you brought up the idea of contacting him by email. This is the only correction made, and it is not a correction of what I said at all, but of my method of obtaining his sources.
As for the slime: "Only Ido knows how to write an in-depth study"... there is no doubt that this is a positive response. /sarcasm/ Thanks for the compliment about the integrity, but it feels like a drop in the ocean.
I have lost interest in this discussion. Anyone who wants to, is welcome to read the exchange between us on my website. As far as I'm concerned, we'll agree to disagree.
Ido,
Is saying that someone has "integrity to fix" called mudslinging?
This is really new to me.
I answered you in the blog, also about the claims about selective reading.
http://athologica.com/?p=1811#comment-7548
I certainly have an interest in a factual discussion, but it is very difficult to conduct such a discussion when you are accused of things you did not do. (Below - slander or selective reading)
I agree with the article and with an open mind that often reveals rational and refreshing thinking. And he adds: The purpose of the aforementioned association, as well as many others, is: to finance the mechanism of those who sit at the head of it, all they care about is the exploitation of innocence, the feelings of a registrar, and mercy to magnify the donations and fill the coffers as much as possible in order to pay themselves salaries.
As the saying goes: "Look for the money"
@thinking open:
I agree with a lot of what you wrote, and disagree with some other things, but I will mention only the main one: I don't think these activists can be called religious. Religion does not have a monopoly on bullshit. It is possible to make a mistake even without connection to the kippah and God. To say that they are like religious and to give all kinds of quasi-religious psychological interpretations for what they do seems to me to be a kind of easy way out. From my acquaintance with some activists who spread complete nonsense, I don't think this is a satisfactory description of them. Maybe it's a semantic dispute, but at least it gave me a chance to clarify my opinion on the subject.
@Maya:
It wasn't that long. I speak from memory: the article on shiitake from the 70s was 4 pages; I didn't read the review article on Lantinan in PDF, so I don't know how many pages it was, but it wasn't very long; The article about Lucentis and Avastin is not that long either. Maybe the difference between us is that I haven't read other sources that it sounds like you have read. Anyway, to the point: I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to study systemic responses without having to do animal experiments at some point. Examining such reactions is essential for the study of diseases (and also for basic scientific research which is no less important). Do you have a solution for this? How will they carry out such research without animals?
@The Other Me:
Maybe it was a mistake on my part to think you were interested in a substantive discussion, as your attempt to smear me here shows. Maybe I gave you more credit than you deserve. A person who is interested in a substantive discussion does not bash in such an unfair way. This is in addition to your trending reading and writing that I mentioned in my last response to you on my site. Please have a fair discussion or don't have it at all. Don't worry, I'm not implying that I will block you on my site. I will simply stop responding to you, because such a discussion does not advance either side anywhere.
D.B.
Cheap and familiar demagoguery. See my response to Ido at least he has the integrity to correct.
http://athologica.com/?p=1811&cpage=1#comment-7546
Well, you wasted half a working day for me in which I read the article and all kinds of links that came out of it (witness, I was sublime when I understood how you did the things you describe in an hour). If so, I'm a vegetarian and really morally opposed to animal testing regardless of whether it works or not, but that's, as you point out, a debate for another time. In addition, I have a doctorate in natural sciences, so I have great faith in science and that it ultimately works, on the other hand, it also allows me to know the shortcomings and problems in scientific research. Also, I hereby declare myself as a lazy person who preaches to others not to listen to what they are told and check for themselves but I am too lazy to do so. In any case, in response to what is happening here and the other discussions I read, what I wanted to say is that I will believe the story as you tell it (I have no experience with the Society Against Animal Experimentation) and I will agree that the story is extremely problematic and completely misses the mark. My problem, as a person who opposes animal experiments, is that I see that people are not at all interested in the moral issue (that is, every such debate ends in disagreements or a big fight) and the only thing that can convince them is the scientific element. Of course, it is not legitimate to distort facts on this issue, but the real problem is that there simply aren't enough facts. In order to know how much animal experiments help, you either need to take a particular disease or a particular problem and run two studies at the same time, one with experiments and one without, and see who arrives at a more effective and faster drug. This has never been done (as far as I know and as I said I'm lazy). To say that animal studies did not contribute to the development of the pharmaceutical market as it is known today is of course nonsense, but the fact is that we really have no idea how much they contributed and we really have no idea what they caused to be missed along the way. Of course, this can be said about any scientific procedure, but not every such procedure is accompanied by so many ethical considerations and disagreements.
Regardless of what I've said so far, it was a very interesting way to avoid half a day of work. Thanks.
The Other Me: I read your reference and a discussion you had. I don't understand why you are so upset, Ido's claims are completely legitimate and not to address claims that come without substantiation is like me now I will demand you to believe me that there are leprechauns and unicorns in the world but I will not provide you with any basis to lean on.
The truth is that I didn't go that deep and I only rely on what you wrote in the discussion (which I currently said not to do but for the purpose of this discussion is not necessary) I really don't understand what is wrong with the comments.
If there is something I missed, please update, if not, then it seems to me that you are simply getting angry because you don't have a more appropriate answer to the arguments he put forward
Indeed - only Ido knows how to write in-depth research.
http://athologica.com/?p=1811&cpage=1#comment-7538
There are endless ways to treat cancer.
One of them was developed by Dr. Wilhelm Reich, and like the other researchers who cured cancer of course he was imprisoned and murdered
For an open mind
Would you be willing to deny your child a life-saving drug developed from human trials?
open minded
I agree with your opinion above.
However, if you are open-minded, then it is hypocritical of you to say: "There is no other way."
(Wasn't the 'barm' funny? Does anyone still write that?)
Ido, it's a waste of your time. This is another religion that was invented out of a need to provide an answer to the boring and empty lives of people who are just clowns who refuse to think rationally so that the "noble goal of life" they chose for themselves will not be taken away from them. You can find exactly the same type of behavior and distortion of facts and scientific sources on the websites of the anti-vaccines or anti-milk.
All of the above and other kinds of things are not looking for logic or a real explanation. They are just trying to cover themselves with the appearance of such an explanation in order to resemble something serious and grounded.
The subject of animal experiments is indeed an important subject in which care must be taken to prevent unnecessary suffering and death. If this topic is important to you, I am sure you will find people who will identify with your feelings and thoughts on the subject even among the rational people who avoid hysterical screaming. Many of these are students and faculty members in the fields of medicine and biology - those who are actually engaged in practical experiments. The same is true in the pharmaceutical and medical device industry.
In most cases you will be able to find adherence to experimental methods and avoiding causing suffering.
Yes, the screaming types you encountered would be willing to leave sick children and not perform animal experiments. The main reason is that their identification with animals is greater than their identification with humans. (This is called an emotional disorder bordering on sociopathy, but that's for another time)
The problem with these clowns is that their claims penetrate the public discourse. In order to stop this, there is no point in putting effort into trying to convince them. It is advisable to try to convince the general public against their claims and present them as they are.
If you get into an argument with one of them in a public forum, there is a very simple way to portray him as a deranged sociopath: ask him if he would be willing to withhold a life-saving drug from his children if it was developed or developed in animal experiments.
Yes, a counter witch hunt should be carried out against them. There is no other way.
I'm already tired of repeated mistakes in all the websites in Israel that repeatedly interpret studies (under the assumption that the study is viable or not speculatively concluded) in a wrong way that disparages the studies and the public that needs them. I agree with the recommendation and even expand on it: check for yourself what you read, especially articles that claim to be based on scientific studies (starting with chemistry studies and ending with nutritional studies).