So if you're a mouse of old age and fear alzheimers you can be happy, it's as good as cured. If you're a human however this likely has little meaning for you.
Your proposed changes in testing are either impractical ("genetically edit mice") to do in a way that actually translates well (and that also translates in a nonspecific way) or very, very unethical (later embryo testing, earlier testing on animals which are sapient).
I have tried periodically to relocate this article but have not yet been able to find it. It's probably old enough now that one could even evaluate the validity of its forebodings.
But of course big pharma can't make any money from these...
I hate to break this to you, but big pharma is making lots of money from omega 3 pills.
IIRC it was Frontline's "The Fish on My Plate" but it might've been another doc
Not sure if some of big pharma has a stake in the dietary supplement industry, maybe the original commenter could provide a link?
Also lazy people (like me) can't make much use of these, because effect/effort ratio is not very good.
in my country they're now also selling "red krill oil" which sound horrendously inefficient.
Fish get their Omega 3s from algae; people can get Omega 3s directly from algae as well; see:
"Derived from various types of micro-algae, algal oil is gaining popularity among vegans and other people who want a source of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) but don’t want to get them from fish or fish-oil supplements. But it’s also gaining buzz because it’s a more sustainable alternative to deriving oil from fish (due to declines in certain fish populations) and doesn’t pose the risk of contamination with pollutants, such as PCBs, that are found to some degree in many fatty fish."
Note: I don’t actually recommend doing this. GABA blockers can fuck you up.
Drugs of this class are used to induce seizures in studies. They can kill you.
On the other hand, miracle drugs for dementia and senile decline are announced every ten minutes and I've just started tuning them out. Everything falls flat on human trials. We're stuck with what we have.
I do notice I have lower blood sugar levels, which helps me keep weight off with less diet strictness and exercise.
No, did not talk to a doctor. I’m a responsible adult and did my research.
Can we reliably determine that a product is safe for humans by testing it on animals, or is that also a fallacy?
Where as deaths[b] could be, in theory, a controlled and limited number of willing participants, deaths[a] could, in theory, be millions of disease victims.
a is not fewer than b.
How many of those "willing participants" should be referred to a psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies, or are desperate people being exploited by the pharmaceutical industry.
Actually loeg made the Utilitarianism argument 'well known downside[let sick people die]. The upside is we kill fewer humans' my disagreement was limited to the use of the word fewer.
>How many of those "willing participants" [are willing]
Good point. The best reasoning would be [for the test subjects] that in their current financial situation it makes sense to take this chance.. If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. i don't know, maybe we should be.
I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. The point here is that it might very well cost human life, and not a small amount at that.
Precisely, and for the same reasons.
> I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life.
I don't know enough about pharmaceutical testing, but I do feel the animal testing phases are a bureacratic requirement.
As I'm not mistaken, when creating the Ebola vaccine is the last few years, many steps were skipped and large scale human testing happened very fast.