IUBio

Calling all animal researchers & toxicologists - reliability question

Todd R. Noebel trnoebel at SWBELL.NET
Wed Mar 17 14:04:23 EST 1999


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE7075.B6B125E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Robin,

It would appear that you are aligning yourself with the =
anti-vivisectionists which you rely upon for your unassigned quotes and =
"scientific" assertions.  May I ask which  published, peer-reviewed =
studies are used to verify the assertion "no drug safety or efficacy =
results can be reliably extrapolated from any species to any other =
species"?  I am presuming that they have conducted studies, in full =
compliance with GLP regulations, that support their position, yes?  One =
can readily review these well published studies, yes?

You also state: "I suspect there are no such studies, and I suspect this =
is because those antivivisectionists are absolutely right. "  What is =
the basis of your conclusion, pardon me, suspicion that those =
antivivisectionists (which one's?) are right (absolutely or otherwise)?  =
In truth you make two assertions; 1. that you suspect, although not =
firmly or absolutely believe, that there are no studies and 2. you =
suspect, again not firmly or absolutely believing, that the =
antivivsectionists are right.  What research did you do to verify, =
support or eliminate your suspicion of the lack of studies? To cause you =
to concur with the anitvivisectionists?

Rest assured, no one will try to fob you off with talk of "anatomical =
and physiological similarities".  Although, disallowing for such =
similarities, by default, means that a new therapeutic must be developed =
for each individual alive for each specific malady, disease or trauma =
they might suffer which would benefit from medical intervention.  But =
alas, how to know if those new, and numerous, therapeutics are safe?  Oh =
well, just dose and watch...maybe the affliction will resolve, or =
perhaps the person will expire. =20

Your position is one that is all too common.  You gleefully point =
towards what you perceive (after all you supplied no supporting =
documentation, studies, etc.)  to be a problem, yet shrink from the task =
of proposing viable solutions or alternatives.

May I ask?  Do you use soaps? Cosmetics? Lotions? Hygiene products? =
Medicinal products of any kind? Do you like knowing what is, and is not, =
safe to use and under what circumstances?  Or do you prefer the trial =
and error method with each product you choose to use, each medicine you =
may take?  What one do not know most certainly can hurt one.  Perhaps =
you subscribe to the Machiavellian theory, "That which does not destroy =
us, serves only to make us stronger"?


T Noebel


------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE7075.B6B125E0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3612.1700"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Robin,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>It would appear that you are aligning yourself with =
the=20
anti-vivisectionists which you rely upon for your unassigned quotes and=20
&quot;scientific&quot; assertions.&nbsp; May I ask which&nbsp; =
published,=20
peer-reviewed studies are used to verify the assertion &quot;no drug =
safety or=20
efficacy results can be reliably extrapolated from any species to any =
other=20
species&quot;?&nbsp; I am presuming that they have conducted studies, in =
full=20
compliance with GLP regulations, that support their position, yes?&nbsp; =
One can=20
readily review these well published studies, yes?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You also state: &quot;I suspect there are no such =
studies, and=20
I suspect this is because those antivivisectionists are absolutely =
right.=20
&quot;&nbsp; What is the basis of your conclusion, pardon me, suspicion =
that=20
those antivivisectionists (which one's?) are right (absolutely or=20
otherwise)?&nbsp; In truth you make two assertions; 1. that you suspect, =

although not firmly or absolutely believe, that there are no studies and =
2. you=20
suspect, again not firmly or absolutely believing, that the =
antivivsectionists=20
are right.&nbsp; What research did you do to verify, support or =
eliminate your=20
suspicion of the lack of studies? To cause you to concur with the=20
anitvivisectionists?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Rest assured, no one will try to fob you off with =
talk of=20
&quot;anatomical and physiological similarities&quot;.&nbsp; Although,=20
disallowing for such similarities, by default, means that a new =
therapeutic must=20
be developed for each individual alive for each specific malady, disease =
or=20
trauma they might suffer which would benefit from medical =
intervention.&nbsp;=20
But alas, how to know if those new, and numerous, therapeutics are =
safe?&nbsp;=20
Oh well, just dose and watch...maybe the affliction will resolve, or =
perhaps the=20
person will expire.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Your position is one that is all too common.&nbsp; =
You=20
gleefully point towards what you perceive (after all you supplied no =
supporting=20
documentation, studies, etc.)&nbsp; to be a problem, yet shrink from the =
task of=20
proposing viable solutions or alternatives.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>May I ask?&nbsp; Do you use soaps? Cosmetics? =
Lotions? Hygiene=20
products? Medicinal products of any kind? Do you like knowing what is, =
and is=20
not, safe to use and under what circumstances?&nbsp; Or do you prefer =
the trial=20
and error method with each product you choose to use, each medicine you =
may=20
take?&nbsp; What one do not know most certainly can hurt one.&nbsp; =
Perhaps you=20
subscribe to the Machiavellian theory, &quot;That which does not destroy =
us,=20
serves only to make us stronger&quot;?</FONT><FONT =
size=3D2><BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>T =
Noebel<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BE7075.B6B125E0--




More information about the Toxicol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net