It appears that the mouse model is a very poor model for the human form of the disease. I would go so far as to say it is worse than useless and actively leads us astray.
Of course if the animal model is not similar to the human form then what you end up doing is testing a drug that worked for one disease on a totally different one. In someways it is like using a drug that treats high blood pressure and then testing to see if cures bladder cancer. You might get lucky, but it is a pretty longshot.
You are funny. Please show me the regs via which this is as possible as you suggest.
> I would go so far as to say it is worse than useless and actively leads us astray.
A notable example is when a strain (or perhaps race is a better terminology) is used which is known to be very sensitive to cancer. Using that to prove something causes cancer is a slippery slope, especially when its extrapolated to other conclusions.
You raise a very good point which is almost all the animal models we have are terrible models for human disease that is supposedly being studied.
Cancer models of cancer are just as bad. Interestingly the only good model of human cancer are spontaneous cancers in human pet dogs . Of course we hardly use this models despite most dog owners being willing to volunteer their pets for study.
The American Heart Association literally has an infographic on their website that tells people to eat more polyunsaturated fats (i.e. vegetable oils) and completely avoid coconut oil (https://healthyforgood.heart.org/eat-smart/infographics/the-...). Anyone who has studied the science behind ketosis knows this is completely bonkers.
I read an article just a few days ago that discussed how sleep is important for cleaning out plaques from the brain like those associated with Alzheimer's. Unfortunately I flush my browser history frequently or I would post it.