[synergy]

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,,1972659,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrigh...972659,00.html</a><br><br><br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block"><br>
The real value of animal experiments is questioned today by a team of senior scientists who found that many are flawed and do not predict how well a prototype medicine will work in humans.<br><br>
The new paper, published by the British Medical Journal, is likely to be seized on by the animal rights lobby as substantiation for their case to stop all experiments. Their case was bolstered by the disaster of the Northwick Park clinical trial, where a drug that had been safe in animals had catastrophic side-effects in the human volunteers.<br></div>
</div>
<br>

 

[poppyseed]

Well what a surprise!!!<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wall.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":wall:">

 

[GhostUser]

I could of told them that..

 

[Calhoun07]

<img alt="" src="http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7048/forumpicwellduhxn2.jpg" style="border:0px solid;">

 

[Indian Summer]

That's interesting. So if they are bad scientists too, as the article implies, why should we believe them when then say animal tests are necessary?<br><br><br><br>
Also, I wonder how many drugs are discarded because they conclude from the animal tests that the drug doesn't work, but in reality the drug would actually have worked on humans, just not the type of animals used in the tests.<br><br><br><br>
So we have:<br><br>
1) A drug that works on animals might not work on humans.<br><br>
2) A drug that doesn't work on animals might work on humans.<br><br><br><br>
Given 1) and 2), the scientific value of animal tests is questionable at best.