It is a tangent to Covid so I thought a new thread more appropriate. In theory I guess we are all against testing on animals but this is now a moral dilemma in real time so is it OK ? If it is not OK should the testing be done on human volunteers instead ? How would they be chosen ? Thoughts ?
Covid vaccine testing on animals
- Thread starter wacko
- Start date
I am assuming that you are talking of challenge testing? Field trials in humans have been going on for months, something like 20 under way currently.
Testing in animals PROVES nothing about anything in humans.
Volunteers, as simple as that, exactly the same as ever. If you DO mean challenge testing, which is what has made the news today, 100% scrupulous health check first as although young people are exceedingly resilient in the main, if they have an unknown medical condition...not good.
Testing in animals PROVES nothing about anything in humans.
Volunteers, as simple as that, exactly the same as ever. If you DO mean challenge testing, which is what has made the news today, 100% scrupulous health check first as although young people are exceedingly resilient in the main, if they have an unknown medical condition...not good.
For what? The law REQUIRES animal testing for medicines, and much besides, anyway. There is no legal way around animal testing at the current time.
Testing in animals, any species, PROVES nothing about anything in humans.
They would have to be chosen from a group of people that didn’t mind dying as part of the mandatory toxicity testing......
I would suggest that the human testing is efficacy testing. Many thousands of people have already been inoculated across the world. The problem is that where the vaccines can easily be tested for efficacy, there are diminishing levels of infection, so getting meaningful results is difficult. Hence the letter to (WHO????) from many and varied authorities, asking for challenge testing to be sanctioned.
What is it that it is said about (very) little knowledge?
No need to get shouty. So why is it done ? My question is less about the law, and more about where people stand on the issue and why. It was prompted by seeing someone with a 'Against Animal Testing' carrybag today.
I have googled 'challenge testing': it seems to be about cosmetics/food.
Challenge testing is about challenging the treatment - you challenge an inoculated person by deliberate, controlled exposure to the virus.
People can stand wherever they like on animal testing, it matters not at all. It is a legal requirement before use on humans.
There has been masses of work done looking at testing on human cell cultures, but that comes up against metabolites and the like that would be produced in a whole human rather than if testing something in a culture of, for instance, human liver cells.
People can stand wherever they like on animal testing, it matters not at all. It is a legal requirement before use on humans.
There has been masses of work done looking at testing on human cell cultures, but that comes up against metabolites and the like that would be produced in a whole human rather than if testing something in a culture of, for instance, human liver cells.
If the cap fits
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think in this case, it fits you rather better, Vinny.
You had better re-read and re-write the OP then as you are now asking something completely different and the OP implies that animal testing has not/will not be done and that testing in humans hasn't either, which is certainly not the case on either count.
There is no moral dilemma, real time or otherwise, that point passed long ago. Testing IS being done in humans, many, many thousands of humans. They weren't chosen either, only the Nazis and like-minded creatures used that method, except in the sense of placebo controlled trials.
I refer to thread title and my closing comment, post #6.
Seeker_UK
Feelin' nearly faded as my jeans
Animal testing for Covid-19 began in the UK in Feb:
https://mrc.ukri.org/research/resea...-of-animal-research-in-the-covid-19-response/
https://mrc.ukri.org/research/resea...-of-animal-research-in-the-covid-19-response/
If people recall, the Oxford/Zeneca vaccine team were hoping for preliminary results in June...………….
News today is that at least 2 vaccines produce anti-body reactions, but that means not much as unless that reaction persists for at least months, the vaccine is impracticable (i.e. all but useless).
Why? Because you do not like the accurate answers to you own questions?
News today is that at least 2 vaccines produce anti-body reactions, but that means not much as unless that reaction persists for at least months, the vaccine is impracticable (i.e. all but useless).
Why? Because you do not like the accurate answers to you own questions?
JensenHealey
pfm Member
Lets go back to the start.
There is no moral dilemma with respect to Covid, no more than any dilemmas with respect to all drug development.
Most people want to minimise/reduce/eliminate animal testing. Not so hard to achieve for cosmetics,
Vaccines and other drugs are required by law everywhere to be tested for safety, using animals, before human testing can start. This is for basic safety and not efficacy. You cannot get around this. If you can then there is a fortune waiting to be made and few would object. Yes, we know animal testing is not perfect - but it is the best available so far. Perhaps one day AI models of human biological processes will be smart enough to reduce animal testing needs.
Safety testing is not allowed on humans - even volunteers. I know it did not bother Mengeles, but that is an outlier position.
Efficacy testing is allowed on volunteers and is being done right now on several vaccines. There appears to be some promise - or at least not a flat failure.
So the 'ban testing on animals' argument only really applies to the cosmetics industry ?
But medical animal testing facilities have also been (in some cases literally) attacked: is that very much a minority view ?
There is an entirely valid argument, IMO, that the world needs no more, novel, entirely cosmetic ingredients. So why keep testing new ones, which has to include animal testing? Personally, I would include most, but not all, food ingredients in that as well.
Anyone against animal testing, across the board, has two options, albeit needing a law change - get humans to do it, or abandon medical/health developments and do away with novel medical treatments/medicines.
It also has to be said that animal testing does not guarantee safety - legions of novel drugs pass animal testing but eventually fail use in humans for myriad reasons, including safety - they regularly make the news, usually very sadly for those affected.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
I think the minority view is the one that considers violence an acceptable tactic in its objectives. The problem with the radical end of the animal rights movement is that it alienates the public from the wider issue.
But yes, let's ban animal testing for frivolous things like cosmetics, and do it now. The harder discussion is around animal testing for important medical interventions, drugs, vaccines, etc.