JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"SteveB" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote

How long ago did you start paying even a little attention to the
antics of chemical companies?
Long enough ago to understand how it works, Joe. Long enough to see
how DDT went out after being touted as a world saving chemical.
Long enough to see thalidomide come and go. Long enough to see
hundreds of thalidomides come and go. Long enough to understand
that money powers the world and people lubricate the wheels. Long
enough to lose my Pollyanna attitude from childhood and learn to
live in the real world.

And you?

Steve

About the same, which is how I learned that the testing procedures
are too lightweight to produce the information we need.

In your newspaper, have you ever seen ads looking for volunteers for
drug trials? Take a certain type of drug, study the results. That
sort of thing.
And your point is? Most people are so stupid that they will test
ILLEGAL drugs for free. I guess they have to use humans now because
PETA and PAWS won't let them use animals any more.

Steve
Just so I understand what you're saying, you think pharmaceutical
companies pay for human drug trials because they get flak for using
animals?
Could be we may come to it, it seems...

You're saying those same companies shouldn't do clinical trials so folks
like you can say no new drugs can be introduced because they haven't
been prove to be safe for human use?

Can't have it both ways it seems to me...

--

You never saw me say they shouldn't do clinical trials. I asked if you'd
seen ads looking for humans who wanted to participate. I needed to
establish that you knew of the concept of clinical trials. (There are
clueless people, so I had to ask first).

Some of these trials show that a drug works much differently with humans
than with animals. Could this be a reason for testing on humans? After
all, we know that dogs and rats metabolize certain things differently
than humans.
It's almost impossible to tell what you do intend to say, Joe...

In general, instead of making a point, you raise rhetorical questions and
hyperbole and....oh, to heck with it...

For many purposes, hogs are about as close clinically to peoples at it
gets...


If you'd simply answered the initial question about ads, there would've been
less clutter, and this would've been easier.

In what way "easier"? Yes, I have seen ads for clinical trials. So what?

I notice that you didn't address anything in the paragraph beginning with
"Some of these trials.." Is that because you need to believe the trials
exist because of animal rights issues?

No, that's not what I said although it is much more difficult to perform
useful animal trials and much research is delayed or not undertaken
because of overzealous AR advocates. I did make a semi-tongue-in-cheek
remark that it just might come to that, however...

However, in actuality I didn't respond because the point is so obvious
as to be Homer's "DOH!" and seemed unworthy of any response...

And, no, I'm not responding to this thread further...

--