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> </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
"scientific" assertions. May I ask which =
published,=20
peer-reviewed studies are used to verify the assertion "no drug =
safety or=20
efficacy results can be reliably extrapolated from any species to any =
other=20
species"? I am presuming that they have conducted studies, in =
full=20
compliance with GLP regulations, that support their position, yes? =
One can=20
readily review these well published studies, yes?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You also state: "I suspect there are no such =
studies, and=20
I suspect this is because those antivivisectionists are absolutely =
right.=20
" What is the basis of your conclusion, pardon me, suspicion =
that=20
those antivivisectionists (which one's?) are right (absolutely or=20
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=20
suspect, again not firmly or absolutely believing, that the =
antivivsectionists=20
are right. 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> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Rest assured, no one will try to fob you off with =
talk of=20
"anatomical and physiological similarities". 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. =20
But alas, how to know if those new, and numerous, therapeutics are =
safe? =20
Oh well, just dose and watch...maybe the affliction will resolve, or =
perhaps the=20
person will expire. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Your position is one that is all too common. =
You=20
gleefully point towards what you perceive (after all you supplied no =
supporting=20
documentation, studies, etc.) to be a problem, yet shrink from the =
task of=20
proposing viable solutions or alternatives.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>May I ask? 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? Or do you prefer =
the trial=20
and error method with each product you choose to use, each medicine you =
may=20
take? What one do not know most certainly can hurt one. =
Perhaps you=20
subscribe to the Machiavellian theory, "That which does not destroy =
us,=20
serves only to make us stronger"?</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--
