Thank you so much for once again writing an article about something I might not entirely agree with but that comes from a perspective I can appreciate.
Much experimentation will by the nature of experimentation fail, so the 90% fail rate is not all that surprising or shocking, and given the limits of computer simulation, I'm not entirely sure I'd be down with taking a drug because it did well in a simulated organ. We have enough trouble with people manipulating studies with easily verifiable and quantifiable outcomes, like animal or human, in which X did well but Y didn't. I can't imagine relying on Pfizer's digital kidney, or even the CDC's digital kidney, to demonstrate that a particular drug does it no harm. It's what it does in a real body that matters. Computers simulations are vulnerable to coding "errors."
But having said that, I am equally as suspicious of people who can so easily torment animals. Given the well established relationship between a child's tendency to abuse animals and violence toward other humans later in life, this explains a lot about Fauci for me. I don't think he actually sees humanity, other than perhaps a select few humans, as anything other than animals to be experimented on for his own curiosity and glory. So in that respect, I think I have more understanding of the man, so thank you.
I have read articles making the same points you do, but I'm not convinced that ending animal testing is viable. But I am firmly in the camp that it should be rare and those wanting to do it should demonstrate a high level of need, a high degree of certainty that the experiments will be a success (so we're not throwing away beagles like they're nothing but cheap broken beakers), and a set of standards to mitigate the suffering of the animals involved.
I worked in an animal lab for about six years, a term I heard many times was "test tubes with tails" and you're right to be suspicious of people that can torment animals and I wouldn't trust a lot of what they publish as well. You'd be surprised how easy it is to manipulate results with animal models, at least a digital model doesn't suffer so someone can get another grant.
Would love to chat by phone, too if you're up for it. Working on another piece on the topic and it'd be great to hear more about your experience. You can email me at lwoodhouse@gmail.com.
Once as a technical writer I was working for a major "crop protection" company and was in a room listening to a discussion of a new transgenic BT corn product to be submitted to FDA. There were regulatory affairs people, entomologists, molecular biologists, and mathematicians. (Bet you never knew anyone spent their entire life studying the reproductive habits of corn rootworms.) The regulatory people said, Agency wants these genetic traits to last ten years. The mathematicians said, No problem, we can make the model say they'll last for 20 years. Scientists whispered to each other, Our competitor's product is already failing after three years.
God told us He put everything on this Earth that we needed - and He did. Alzheimers medication comes from snowdrops; aspirin from the bark of the willow tree. We didn't look hard enough. Fauci and all those who caused such needless suffering to animals should rot in hell for what they did, including those "scientists" who could have ended animal experimentation with this so-called "new" technology because they have had it for DECADES.
They are torturing animals for their profit not for our benefit. Most of the drugs they manufacture have side effects worse than the disease. It's all about money and they use AAALAC for cover, nothing else matters to them they are all monsters.
Animal experimentation is barbaric and unnecessary. It's a means for money and grants to make these Frankenstein monsters to get richer. I hope Fauci and others that tortured and killed animals suffer like these poor innocent animals. Killing of the unborn is horrific. I never realized i have lived in a World full of Monsters.
Excellent article Mr. Woodhouse! I'm so glad I'm able to find great journalism on Substack. I'm a huge softie when it comes to animals so I'm certainly biased. But perhaps it's time (much like Muller with the "Russian Collusion") to stop deifing people like this as not just good people but saints.
I just read it. I wish more intelligent people, especially scientists could simply focus on following the science instead on pushing "The Science". When officials do this people go off the deep end because they have no idea who to trust. As for Ivermectin, or hydroxychloriquine (sorry if my spellig is wrong) maybe it's just me but it feels like many "journalists" are gleefully reporting on, in their opinion, rubes and idiots, and it feels like they are more intelligent than us lowly pesants. Same goes with the vaccine. Love it, or are nervous about it, rest assured that asking questions or posting something on Twitter that's vax skeptical and you will be mocked. Thank goodness people like you are willing to stand up when our great American institutions are committing acts that may be legal but certainly aren't ethical!
There is NO justification for any animal testing whatsoever. MEDICINE comes from nature. There is no NEED to test drugs and procedures on animals. We've removed ourselves from nature and our natural medicines.
We poison and pollute ourselves with the "food" we eat and our toxic lifestyles.
Subjecting animals to abuses to promote an industry (whose prime motive IS profit) that merely seeks to replicate what already exists in nature to cure ailments we inflict on ourselves is insanity.
Innocent beings do not deserve to be tortured and murdered for the sake of humanity's bad life choices.
I can understand the requirement to test on animals, but the experimentation should be for some benefit. I don't see how destroying a monkey's brain and inducing more terror is "beneficial" - nor do I see any benefit to dogs being eaten alive by bugs, infecting an animal with anthrax to test an already approved vaccine, nor any of the rest of the experiments listed here. None of these is of any possible beneficial effect except to someone looking to cause incomprehensible pain and suffering to both animals and humans. They should have to justify their request for funds and submit the intent of doing such experiments. These are horrific and caused incredible suffering for the animals involved.
What I don't understand is why they have this available to them, but they didn't do testing on animals with the COVID vaccines and people are now paying the price with horrific adverse events. They encourage pregnant women to get them when they cause miscarriages, and nursing mothers' infants die after mothers get the vaccine. It makes no sense they did no reproductive tests. So, running experiments for seemingly no benefit to mankind, and failure to run experiments with the COVID vaccines that would have been beneficial. Time to do away with Fauci's organization. Time to do away with the CDC and FDA - both of which have been seriously wrong in the past and have become political nightmares controlling our lives. Fauci should be in jail.
Hi, long time (10y) lab researcher here. One major omission from this article, which only cites hyperbolic sources, is the existence of IACUC. At major institutions in the USA, meaning anyone who matters, there is a review board run by IACUC which reviews all experimental protocols involving animal research. Every experiment is scrutinized and pressure is put upon researchers to NOT use animal models. Animal experiments are expensive, require tons of infrastructure, and are generally a pain the ass compared to in vitro studies. Note, the board is staffed by biomedical ethicists, professors, and students, so everyone get a view into what is being done, and to be sure it cannot be done another way. This means your animal protocol involving rats, gets sent to in vitro because someone else used a new model to understand that system that maybe you didn't see or know about.
The level of detail in these protocols is very high, and at non shitty institutions are followed closely. To the point that, you will administer Tylenol to your rats after surgery, and give them heating pads to help them recover. It is necessary, some people think it's silly, but that's the work. The violations that I have seen are often from non-US researchers that come from places that don't have the same set of rules. A lab at U Penn I know got busted for storing their animals IN THE FREEZER for weeks because their Chinese researcher was too lazy to take them to incinerator. IACUC found out, lab nearly got completely shut down. They were put on a performance improvement where every other day an IACUC member would come down to check their logs and verify every step of their protocol involving animals. In my experience, this is a good system.
Not to take away from the articles truth, which is that animal experimentation is alive and well in the US. The origin story you want to read is the monkey and helmets experiment at Penn, which is what sparked the creation of IACUC and an attempt to make animal experimentation more humane. The grislier stuff is done in other countries, entirely on purpose, and without oversight.
If you think we don't need animal experimentation, you need to check your notes. Much of the work on modern medicines is a result of animal experimentation, one way or another. The safety and efficacy of modern medicine relies on this model. It's not perfect, and there are problems. Also, there are people working on better simulations and better models every year and things are improving. If we could do things without it, we would. In other countries, it's often because it is cheaper or they do not have the sophisticated setups we do in more developed places.
The best story on the need for animal based research is horseshoe crab blood. Horseshoe crabs have an immune system that is exceptionally sensitive to bacteria. So sensitive, we cannot manufacture something that works as well. It is used to quality control drugs and vaccines, so that we don't inject things tainted with bacteria. Of course, in medicine we don't want this! It's expensive, and a huge process. It has served for decades to keep injectables safe.
Personally, it is no one's favorite in the lab, but if you're in the business, it's part of the job and it is not taken lightly. Of course, my experience is not universal and it is an ethical issue in science.
Oh, I'll drop you a line via email. I hope this info is valuable and sheds some light both to dispel extreme beliefs, and give insight to research as it stands in the US.
They pass bills in your country to force a poisonous serum covid 19 Vax into humans and you can't stop cruelty to animals. Psychopaths who will one stand before a living God and you will have to give an account of what you did in those labs to all the animals. I pray you repent before it is too late.
You will note that massive amount of progress have been made in improving ethical experimentation in this country. Like I have stated, there are few alternatives, and these are so far the best we have done. The alternative would be rolling the dice, and whatever the consequences that occur, occur. Experimental design is massively better, ethicists are involved, and at major institutions there are controls. You may disagree, but I am telling you directly what the status quo is. Personally attacking me will change nothing, I hope you realize that.
- 100% of treatments for strokes and sepsis developed in animals have failed humans
- More than 99% of Alzheimer's disease treatments developed have failed in humans
- Only 3.4% of oncology drugs test on animals succeed in humans
- There's no vaccine for HIV despite injecting monkeys with it for more than 40 years
- There is still no cure for cancer in most cancers despite of using animals in testings for more than 50 years
How can ANYONE ever condone pouring acid on a monkeys brain and then tormenting them to see how scared they get? Also, a 90% failure rate for torturing animals is not ok. We can do better. We have the ability to do that now.
PETA is unfortunately not a great source of information. They clearly have an axe to grind, and I wouldn't trust those numbers. What is considered a "success in oncology drugs"? HIV work is hard, I did not directly work on this, but I can tell you that last I heard (8y ago?) the going is slow.
"No cure for cancer in most cancers" is very obtuse, and despite is not the right word, but because of. Every cancer treatment you can think of has 100% been tested on an animal model before given to people. For a quick review peek this list of 250y in changes in our understanding of cancer: https://www.cancer.gov/research/progress/250-years-milestones
You can clearly see a progression from empirical studies, to chemical solutions, to genetic based solutions as we understand how these things work better. It is safe to say they are a result of animal models, both on the basic science level (my field) and more translational medicines.
I have worked in the cancer research field. The reasons for cancer are many, some genetic, some environmental. The state of the art, genetic testing and research has produced individualized treatment. Certain cancers respond to certain treatments. At Penn, they are using CAR-T cell treatments which are as specialized as you can get, since they are using the patients OWN cancer "signature" to setup antibodies to treat it. The generic version would be monoclonal antibodies, a well known by the public technology. These are a massive win, and is a direct result of using animal models.
As for primate research, I have not worked on things related to that. What I can tell you is that the "NHP recycling program"'s intention is to reduce the number of monkeys they use for experiments. Primate research, as I understand, is the most expensive and most disliked form of animal research. Many labs refuse to do work with them, but certain fields it is considered the only way. (Neuro/behavioral/psych is often the one.) I can't speak to that, to me it is not the best.
My overall point is that we are a far cry from rabbits with lipstick of the 70s, and much of that is due to people like the commenters here voicing their concerns and that is great. We cannot ignore the progress and benefits of animal models. Please remember that the people doing research are people as well, and we have just as many concerns and feelings as you do regarding animal welfare at least in the US. I cannot say the same in other countries. In my experience, we'd rather not if there was an alternative.
My only ask, which is not to change your mind about animal research, is that you cite high quality examples from journals. We are in an age of high quality information regarding original sources, and if nothing else please do that. Your interpretation is yours as well, but be sure to read up and understand how institutions evolved from the cigarette smoking maniacs that did the helmet experiments at Penn to where we are now.
Full force.... Throwing a dog into its cage while bleeding from 60 different infected wounds, after being eaten alive for 30 days from 300,000 flies let loose in a small kennel with caged beagles wearing plastic cones on their heads and no antiseptic or any treatment at all is not experimenting. Its torture on purpose. Holding them up by one leg while they take their last breath and letting them fall into a trash can is not experiment. Thats torture on purpose.
Animal rights advocates do themselves no favors by constantly reciting these talking points that animal experimentation has no value and everything can be done with in vitro experimentation or computer modeling. Try gathering any useful information in immunology or neuroscience with just in vitro experiments and modeling. Any sane biomedical researcher will laugh you out of the room if you try to make the case to them. Most animal experiments fail, because most experiments fail. That's just the nature of scientific enterprise.
Instead of focusing on areas where headway can be made on protecting animals from needless suffering, blithely claiming that we can do away with it while only citing blanket opponents of animal experimentation and the most extreme instances (the vast majority of research is done on small rodents) does a massive disservice to your readership. The only way to justify not doing animal experiments before human trials is if you think human and animal life is entirely equivalent. If you do, fine, but that's not the view of the vast majority of Americans.
Between this and the Weinstein-informed vaccine skepticism, I've pretty much given up hope of anything scientifically literate produced in this space.
We're just in fundamental disagreement, then. Feel free to dispute what I've reported with contrary evidence. I'm open-minded to it. Just declaring that it's ridiculous isn't worth much to me.
And by the way, I've said from the beginning I have no idea if Weinstein is right or not (it was always beside the point), and lately have been coming to the conclusion that he's wrong. When I've discussed Weinstein it's been in the context of objecting to censorship, not in standing by his conclusions.
i saw the one video - i am still in shock, but God does not sleep. those images were horrible. the staff treated those babies with terrible roughness, and NO they were not sedated, they were struggling crying trying to get out, thrown into bare cages with no bedding or padding just metal cages, with their iv still attatched, one doggie was thrown blimp and full of blood into dustbin like he was trash.... no i am sorry i cannot understand this.
We should make Fauci undergo all the experiments he has forced on other animals. Is Fauci even a human being. I would like to strangle him myself. He is such a disgusting thing. You talk about satanic, that’s his middle name.
Interesting, "Under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials." Did this apply to the COVID "vaccine"? Funny how they bend the rules.
Thank you so much for once again writing an article about something I might not entirely agree with but that comes from a perspective I can appreciate.
Much experimentation will by the nature of experimentation fail, so the 90% fail rate is not all that surprising or shocking, and given the limits of computer simulation, I'm not entirely sure I'd be down with taking a drug because it did well in a simulated organ. We have enough trouble with people manipulating studies with easily verifiable and quantifiable outcomes, like animal or human, in which X did well but Y didn't. I can't imagine relying on Pfizer's digital kidney, or even the CDC's digital kidney, to demonstrate that a particular drug does it no harm. It's what it does in a real body that matters. Computers simulations are vulnerable to coding "errors."
But having said that, I am equally as suspicious of people who can so easily torment animals. Given the well established relationship between a child's tendency to abuse animals and violence toward other humans later in life, this explains a lot about Fauci for me. I don't think he actually sees humanity, other than perhaps a select few humans, as anything other than animals to be experimented on for his own curiosity and glory. So in that respect, I think I have more understanding of the man, so thank you.
I have read articles making the same points you do, but I'm not convinced that ending animal testing is viable. But I am firmly in the camp that it should be rare and those wanting to do it should demonstrate a high level of need, a high degree of certainty that the experiments will be a success (so we're not throwing away beagles like they're nothing but cheap broken beakers), and a set of standards to mitigate the suffering of the animals involved.
I worked in an animal lab for about six years, a term I heard many times was "test tubes with tails" and you're right to be suspicious of people that can torment animals and I wouldn't trust a lot of what they publish as well. You'd be surprised how easy it is to manipulate results with animal models, at least a digital model doesn't suffer so someone can get another grant.
Can I screenshot this and tweet it?
sure
Would love to chat by phone, too if you're up for it. Working on another piece on the topic and it'd be great to hear more about your experience. You can email me at lwoodhouse@gmail.com.
Once as a technical writer I was working for a major "crop protection" company and was in a room listening to a discussion of a new transgenic BT corn product to be submitted to FDA. There were regulatory affairs people, entomologists, molecular biologists, and mathematicians. (Bet you never knew anyone spent their entire life studying the reproductive habits of corn rootworms.) The regulatory people said, Agency wants these genetic traits to last ten years. The mathematicians said, No problem, we can make the model say they'll last for 20 years. Scientists whispered to each other, Our competitor's product is already failing after three years.
Models are BS and can say anything they want.
I did not mean FDA -- I meant EPA. (I also worked as a technical writer in biopharma.)
Dang i wish i could express myself 1/3 as well as you thanks for your post Feel free to add me to your acct if you wish
God told us He put everything on this Earth that we needed - and He did. Alzheimers medication comes from snowdrops; aspirin from the bark of the willow tree. We didn't look hard enough. Fauci and all those who caused such needless suffering to animals should rot in hell for what they did, including those "scientists" who could have ended animal experimentation with this so-called "new" technology because they have had it for DECADES.
They are torturing animals for their profit not for our benefit. Most of the drugs they manufacture have side effects worse than the disease. It's all about money and they use AAALAC for cover, nothing else matters to them they are all monsters.
Animal experimentation is barbaric and unnecessary. It's a means for money and grants to make these Frankenstein monsters to get richer. I hope Fauci and others that tortured and killed animals suffer like these poor innocent animals. Killing of the unborn is horrific. I never realized i have lived in a World full of Monsters.
That was a rather ignorant comment. Even aspirin didn't go on the market without first being subject to animal experimentation.
Excellent article Mr. Woodhouse! I'm so glad I'm able to find great journalism on Substack. I'm a huge softie when it comes to animals so I'm certainly biased. But perhaps it's time (much like Muller with the "Russian Collusion") to stop deifing people like this as not just good people but saints.
I wrote once about exactly this: https://leightonwoodhouse.substack.com/p/the-new-clerisy
I just read it. I wish more intelligent people, especially scientists could simply focus on following the science instead on pushing "The Science". When officials do this people go off the deep end because they have no idea who to trust. As for Ivermectin, or hydroxychloriquine (sorry if my spellig is wrong) maybe it's just me but it feels like many "journalists" are gleefully reporting on, in their opinion, rubes and idiots, and it feels like they are more intelligent than us lowly pesants. Same goes with the vaccine. Love it, or are nervous about it, rest assured that asking questions or posting something on Twitter that's vax skeptical and you will be mocked. Thank goodness people like you are willing to stand up when our great American institutions are committing acts that may be legal but certainly aren't ethical!
There is NO justification for any animal testing whatsoever. MEDICINE comes from nature. There is no NEED to test drugs and procedures on animals. We've removed ourselves from nature and our natural medicines.
We poison and pollute ourselves with the "food" we eat and our toxic lifestyles.
Subjecting animals to abuses to promote an industry (whose prime motive IS profit) that merely seeks to replicate what already exists in nature to cure ailments we inflict on ourselves is insanity.
Innocent beings do not deserve to be tortured and murdered for the sake of humanity's bad life choices.
I can understand the requirement to test on animals, but the experimentation should be for some benefit. I don't see how destroying a monkey's brain and inducing more terror is "beneficial" - nor do I see any benefit to dogs being eaten alive by bugs, infecting an animal with anthrax to test an already approved vaccine, nor any of the rest of the experiments listed here. None of these is of any possible beneficial effect except to someone looking to cause incomprehensible pain and suffering to both animals and humans. They should have to justify their request for funds and submit the intent of doing such experiments. These are horrific and caused incredible suffering for the animals involved.
What I don't understand is why they have this available to them, but they didn't do testing on animals with the COVID vaccines and people are now paying the price with horrific adverse events. They encourage pregnant women to get them when they cause miscarriages, and nursing mothers' infants die after mothers get the vaccine. It makes no sense they did no reproductive tests. So, running experiments for seemingly no benefit to mankind, and failure to run experiments with the COVID vaccines that would have been beneficial. Time to do away with Fauci's organization. Time to do away with the CDC and FDA - both of which have been seriously wrong in the past and have become political nightmares controlling our lives. Fauci should be in jail.
Hi, long time (10y) lab researcher here. One major omission from this article, which only cites hyperbolic sources, is the existence of IACUC. At major institutions in the USA, meaning anyone who matters, there is a review board run by IACUC which reviews all experimental protocols involving animal research. Every experiment is scrutinized and pressure is put upon researchers to NOT use animal models. Animal experiments are expensive, require tons of infrastructure, and are generally a pain the ass compared to in vitro studies. Note, the board is staffed by biomedical ethicists, professors, and students, so everyone get a view into what is being done, and to be sure it cannot be done another way. This means your animal protocol involving rats, gets sent to in vitro because someone else used a new model to understand that system that maybe you didn't see or know about.
The level of detail in these protocols is very high, and at non shitty institutions are followed closely. To the point that, you will administer Tylenol to your rats after surgery, and give them heating pads to help them recover. It is necessary, some people think it's silly, but that's the work. The violations that I have seen are often from non-US researchers that come from places that don't have the same set of rules. A lab at U Penn I know got busted for storing their animals IN THE FREEZER for weeks because their Chinese researcher was too lazy to take them to incinerator. IACUC found out, lab nearly got completely shut down. They were put on a performance improvement where every other day an IACUC member would come down to check their logs and verify every step of their protocol involving animals. In my experience, this is a good system.
Not to take away from the articles truth, which is that animal experimentation is alive and well in the US. The origin story you want to read is the monkey and helmets experiment at Penn, which is what sparked the creation of IACUC and an attempt to make animal experimentation more humane. The grislier stuff is done in other countries, entirely on purpose, and without oversight.
If you think we don't need animal experimentation, you need to check your notes. Much of the work on modern medicines is a result of animal experimentation, one way or another. The safety and efficacy of modern medicine relies on this model. It's not perfect, and there are problems. Also, there are people working on better simulations and better models every year and things are improving. If we could do things without it, we would. In other countries, it's often because it is cheaper or they do not have the sophisticated setups we do in more developed places.
The best story on the need for animal based research is horseshoe crab blood. Horseshoe crabs have an immune system that is exceptionally sensitive to bacteria. So sensitive, we cannot manufacture something that works as well. It is used to quality control drugs and vaccines, so that we don't inject things tainted with bacteria. Of course, in medicine we don't want this! It's expensive, and a huge process. It has served for decades to keep injectables safe.
Personally, it is no one's favorite in the lab, but if you're in the business, it's part of the job and it is not taken lightly. Of course, my experience is not universal and it is an ethical issue in science.
Would you be up for a phone call? I'll be writing more on this subject and would be happy to include your perspective.
Oh, I'll drop you a line via email. I hope this info is valuable and sheds some light both to dispel extreme beliefs, and give insight to research as it stands in the US.
They pass bills in your country to force a poisonous serum covid 19 Vax into humans and you can't stop cruelty to animals. Psychopaths who will one stand before a living God and you will have to give an account of what you did in those labs to all the animals. I pray you repent before it is too late.
You will note that massive amount of progress have been made in improving ethical experimentation in this country. Like I have stated, there are few alternatives, and these are so far the best we have done. The alternative would be rolling the dice, and whatever the consequences that occur, occur. Experimental design is massively better, ethicists are involved, and at major institutions there are controls. You may disagree, but I am telling you directly what the status quo is. Personally attacking me will change nothing, I hope you realize that.
According to PETA:
- 100% of treatments for strokes and sepsis developed in animals have failed humans
- More than 99% of Alzheimer's disease treatments developed have failed in humans
- Only 3.4% of oncology drugs test on animals succeed in humans
- There's no vaccine for HIV despite injecting monkeys with it for more than 40 years
- There is still no cure for cancer in most cancers despite of using animals in testings for more than 50 years
How can ANYONE ever condone pouring acid on a monkeys brain and then tormenting them to see how scared they get? Also, a 90% failure rate for torturing animals is not ok. We can do better. We have the ability to do that now.
PETA is unfortunately not a great source of information. They clearly have an axe to grind, and I wouldn't trust those numbers. What is considered a "success in oncology drugs"? HIV work is hard, I did not directly work on this, but I can tell you that last I heard (8y ago?) the going is slow.
"No cure for cancer in most cancers" is very obtuse, and despite is not the right word, but because of. Every cancer treatment you can think of has 100% been tested on an animal model before given to people. For a quick review peek this list of 250y in changes in our understanding of cancer: https://www.cancer.gov/research/progress/250-years-milestones
You can clearly see a progression from empirical studies, to chemical solutions, to genetic based solutions as we understand how these things work better. It is safe to say they are a result of animal models, both on the basic science level (my field) and more translational medicines.
I have worked in the cancer research field. The reasons for cancer are many, some genetic, some environmental. The state of the art, genetic testing and research has produced individualized treatment. Certain cancers respond to certain treatments. At Penn, they are using CAR-T cell treatments which are as specialized as you can get, since they are using the patients OWN cancer "signature" to setup antibodies to treat it. The generic version would be monoclonal antibodies, a well known by the public technology. These are a massive win, and is a direct result of using animal models.
As for an HIV vaccine, you may surprised to know that mRNA tech derived from Moderna's covid vaccine is being used for exactly that now: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05001373
Research is not perfect, and people have died from bad clinical trials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Gelsinger
This was from Penn in 1999, and was a massive setback to gene therapy research which only picked back up in the 2010s. The result of gene therapy is a cure for blindness: https://sparktx.com/press_releases/fda-approves-spark-therapeutics-luxturna-voretigene-neparvovec-rzyl-a-one-time-gene-therapy-for-patients-with-confirmed-biallelic-rpe65-mutation-associated-retinal-dystrophy/
Note, it is a cure and not a treatment.
As for primate research, I have not worked on things related to that. What I can tell you is that the "NHP recycling program"'s intention is to reduce the number of monkeys they use for experiments. Primate research, as I understand, is the most expensive and most disliked form of animal research. Many labs refuse to do work with them, but certain fields it is considered the only way. (Neuro/behavioral/psych is often the one.) I can't speak to that, to me it is not the best.
My overall point is that we are a far cry from rabbits with lipstick of the 70s, and much of that is due to people like the commenters here voicing their concerns and that is great. We cannot ignore the progress and benefits of animal models. Please remember that the people doing research are people as well, and we have just as many concerns and feelings as you do regarding animal welfare at least in the US. I cannot say the same in other countries. In my experience, we'd rather not if there was an alternative.
My only ask, which is not to change your mind about animal research, is that you cite high quality examples from journals. We are in an age of high quality information regarding original sources, and if nothing else please do that. Your interpretation is yours as well, but be sure to read up and understand how institutions evolved from the cigarette smoking maniacs that did the helmet experiments at Penn to where we are now.
Thank you for the information and the time you took to put us in the picture.
Full force.... Throwing a dog into its cage while bleeding from 60 different infected wounds, after being eaten alive for 30 days from 300,000 flies let loose in a small kennel with caged beagles wearing plastic cones on their heads and no antiseptic or any treatment at all is not experimenting. Its torture on purpose. Holding them up by one leg while they take their last breath and letting them fall into a trash can is not experiment. Thats torture on purpose.
This do this to fetuses too. After Mother's abort them. They are experimented on and tortured.
Both of my parents died during the AIDS pandemic in the 80's. Wonder if it could have been prevented now under this bozo Fauci. So sad. Resign now.
Animal rights advocates do themselves no favors by constantly reciting these talking points that animal experimentation has no value and everything can be done with in vitro experimentation or computer modeling. Try gathering any useful information in immunology or neuroscience with just in vitro experiments and modeling. Any sane biomedical researcher will laugh you out of the room if you try to make the case to them. Most animal experiments fail, because most experiments fail. That's just the nature of scientific enterprise.
Instead of focusing on areas where headway can be made on protecting animals from needless suffering, blithely claiming that we can do away with it while only citing blanket opponents of animal experimentation and the most extreme instances (the vast majority of research is done on small rodents) does a massive disservice to your readership. The only way to justify not doing animal experiments before human trials is if you think human and animal life is entirely equivalent. If you do, fine, but that's not the view of the vast majority of Americans.
Between this and the Weinstein-informed vaccine skepticism, I've pretty much given up hope of anything scientifically literate produced in this space.
We're just in fundamental disagreement, then. Feel free to dispute what I've reported with contrary evidence. I'm open-minded to it. Just declaring that it's ridiculous isn't worth much to me.
And by the way, I've said from the beginning I have no idea if Weinstein is right or not (it was always beside the point), and lately have been coming to the conclusion that he's wrong. When I've discussed Weinstein it's been in the context of objecting to censorship, not in standing by his conclusions.
i saw the one video - i am still in shock, but God does not sleep. those images were horrible. the staff treated those babies with terrible roughness, and NO they were not sedated, they were struggling crying trying to get out, thrown into bare cages with no bedding or padding just metal cages, with their iv still attatched, one doggie was thrown blimp and full of blood into dustbin like he was trash.... no i am sorry i cannot understand this.
Horrible, just like the third reich Dr. Mengele
Absolutely disgusting and ins best friend at that. Shame on them. There a special place in hell for them.
I wish I could tie those bastards to a tree on West Bay point and let the Sand gnats drive them crazy
They are already insane.
We should make Fauci undergo all the experiments he has forced on other animals. Is Fauci even a human being. I would like to strangle him myself. He is such a disgusting thing. You talk about satanic, that’s his middle name.
100% AGREE WITH YOU. HELL IS TOO GOOD A PLACE FOR HIM.
Interesting, "Under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials." Did this apply to the COVID "vaccine"? Funny how they bend the rules.
So evil 😈