Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (106244)	6/18/2005 6:00:40 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I look around on SI and see Bushies and Chimp quite often. I take those posters with a grain of salt and quit reading. Just dumb jerks. Same back when Clinton was President. The President is the President.

To: Grainne who wrote (106244)	6/18/2005 6:24:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I have already said that I don't think animal testing is a perfect process. The examples Dr. Greek cites are principally of the imperfections. But that still doesn't address the question. As an analogy, the fact that crash testing automobiles doesn't find some defects, and that you can cite certain vehicle defects which got into production despite crash testing, doesn't mean that crash testing doesn't overall save lives. At least Dr. Greek does say "Drugs would be just as safe and probably safer than they now are if the animal testing phase was eliminated." It takes some courage to make that claim outright. But his arguments don't seem to back up that as a factual statement. If non-animal testing drug development can in fact produce safer drugs than animal testing, the FDA and drug companies will certainly migrate to this new approach. I notice from his website that the officers of his nonprofit organization are only two -- himself and a PhD (not MD), and his advisory board is only three people -- his wife and two MDs, neither active in research. And he is also the President of the apparently separate European and Japanese organizations -- he apparently hasn't been able to recruit either a European or a Japanese representative to head those organizations. If his work were truly credible, frankly I would expect a much more significant group of board and advisory board members. None of this, of course, proves that his work will not eventually be provied credible. There are scientific advances that start out with only a few true believers. But whether our country (and Europe and Japan) we should change our whole approach to medical research is, in my opinion, not yet shown to be in the best interests of the people of America or the world. I admire your tenacity in trying to find support for your position, but objectively it just isn't there.