🚀 go-pugleaf

"gtrgrrrl" <gtrgrrrl@nospamev1.net> wrote in message
news:103qhhqkb12uu25@corp.supernews.com...
> "Steve Pope" <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote in message
> news:c1jdgd$kee$1@blue.rahul.net...
> > Asya Kamsky <asya@bayarea.net> wrote:
> >
> > > As a friend of mine said (he was in medicinal chemistry not biomed):
> >
> > >    There *will* be a living system that the drug is tested
> > >    on. It will either be animals in the pharmaceutical labs,
> > >    or humans in the marketplace. Your choice.
> >
> > There's a third choice, of course, which is to not develop
> > additional new drugs in the first place.  This would save money
> > (by defunding fablulously expensive pharmaceutical R&D), it would
> > save lots of animals, and if the resources were properly
> > reapplied it would improve healthcare and save lives.
> >
> > But due to the profit motive nobody in the industry would
> > seroiusly consider this choice, or even a modest move in this
> > direction.
>
> Hmmm well... as an insulin dependent diabetic, I am grateful for the
> experimentation that has led to medical advances which might preclude me
> from going blind, losing my extremities, or any other host of fun
> afflictions associated with diabetes.  Maybe I'll get to live past 50.
> gtrgrrrl
>
Oh and I forgot to mention... I AM a labrat for research.  I take part in a
research program at Baylor for insulin.  Some of us have the opportunity to
offer ourselves as a guinea pig.   In many respects I am no better than a
lab rat except for many of them died so that we may live.

I dunno.  I don't condone cruelty.  And it would take someone with a
stronger stomach than mine to experience what has previously been described
in other postings about the treatment of the labcritters.
There has to be an answer.  This is an old question.  Is it just that we
haven't bothered to find another way?   Or (unnecessary, avoidable, cruelty
aside) is it the only way?  Now I'm not talking about testing on make-up and
such.  Only medical research.
gtrgrrrl