Vegetarian Discussion: The Great "animal Rights" Lie Of Omission

The Great "animal Rights" Lie Of Omission
Posts: 7

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Leif Erikson
2006-06-04 15:02:13 EST
Yet again, an "ara" ('animal rights activist') has
trotted out one of the most easily discredited lies
told by their movement: that adverse drug reactions,
including deaths, "prove" the conceptual failure of
drug safety testing on animals. The claim is a lie of
omission: it omits to say that any drug approved by
the FDA or any other national drug approval agency in
other countries also passed much more extensive testing
on humans prior to being approved. Logically, if
post-approval adverse drug reactions are going to be
claimed to show the failure of testing on animals, then
one *must* also conclude that testing on humans is a
conceptual failure, and should be scrapped. Of course,
"aras", one of the more peculiar forms of lying
ideological extremists, don't want to make that claim.

"aras" fundamentally misstate (lie about) the purpose
of testing on animals. The tests are not intended to
prove the safety of the drug compound for human
prescriptive use. They are intended only to establish
that the compounds are *likely* safe enough to begin
testing on human test subjects without killing them.
Any drug that is approved for prescription passed at
least three phases of human clinical trials, in
addition to passing the animal testing prior to the
human trials. If approval is contingent on passing
four consecutive phases of testing, and some
post-approval adverse reactions occur, it is absurd to
lay the blame for the failure on the *first* phase, the
animal tests; but that's what the liars calling
themselves "aras" always do.

Pearl
2006-06-04 16:04:32 EST
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:V6Ggg.8988$921.1299@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Yet again, an "ara" ('animal rights activist') has
> trotted out one of the most easily discredited lies
> told by their movement: that adverse drug reactions,
> including deaths, "prove" the conceptual failure of
> drug safety testing on animals. The claim is a lie of
> omission: it omits to say that any drug approved by
> the FDA or any other national drug approval agency in
> other countries also passed much more extensive testing
> on humans prior to being approved. Logically, if
> post-approval adverse drug reactions are going to be
> claimed to show the failure of testing on animals, then
> one *must* also conclude that testing on humans is a
> conceptual failure, and should be scrapped. Of course,
> "aras", one of the more peculiar forms of lying
> ideological extremists, don't want to make that claim.
>
> "aras" fundamentally misstate (lie about) the purpose
> of testing on animals. The tests are not intended to
> prove the safety of the drug compound for human
> prescriptive use. They are intended only to establish
> that the compounds are *likely* safe enough to begin
> testing on human test subjects without killing them.
> Any drug that is approved for prescription passed at
> least three phases of human clinical trials, in
> addition to passing the animal testing prior to the
> human trials. If approval is contingent on passing
> four consecutive phases of testing, and some
> post-approval adverse reactions occur, it is absurd to
> lay the blame for the failure on the *first* phase, the
> animal tests; but that's what the liars calling
> themselves "aras" always do.

Jonathan Ball, aka "Lief Erikson", refuses to address the following:

>From the horse's mouth:

'For more than 15 years, Bristol-Myers Squibb has had a highly
regarded program to reduce our reliance on animal testing methods
and to ensure humane care when animal testing is unavoidable. As
a result of our efforts, we believe that our laboratory animal use is
the minimum possible to *ensure* the efficacy and *safety* of our
products and attain their regulatory approval. Through our funding
of computer simulation models and research, we continue to look
for new ways to further reduce our reliance on animal testing methods.
http://www.bms.com/static/ehs/perfor/data/produc.html#animaltest

Yet:

92% of drugs fail in clinical trials, having successfully passed
through animal studies. - Lester Crawford, FDA Commissioner,
in The Scientist 6.8.04 "More compounds failing Phase I"

In order to get drugs onto the market clinical trial results
are routinely suppressed:

'SSRI dangers for children 'suppressed'
..
Researchers uncovered unpublished data about clinical trials
of the most popular antidepressants on the market, known
as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which
raise serious doubts about prescribing them to children.
..'
http://society.guardian.co.uk/mentalhealth/story/0,8150,1201844,00.html

Law Firms Prepare For Celebrex Cases After Pfizer Says
1999 Trial Revealed Cardiovascular Risks, Says Weitz &
...'
http://www.weitzlux.com/lawfirmcelebrexlawsuitpfizertrial_472.html

'under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, the American
Food and Drug Administration routinely conceals information
it considers commercially sensitive, leaving medical specialists
unable to assess the true risks.
http://www.thenhf.com/fda_31.htm

'Since the late 1990s, the number of drugs either pulled from
the U.S. market or given a "black box" label (a warning of
side-effects that could lead to death or serious injury) has
"mushroomed," according to Dr Joel Lexchin, professor in
the School of Public Health Policy and Management at
Toronto's York University. "A lot of people, including me,
are attributing that to faster approvals in the U.S. \ufffd faster
reviews by FDA officials have resulted in drugs getting onto
the market which shouldn't have," Lexchin told IPS,
commenting on newer medicines generally.
..
"It's a general healthcare crisis, I think, at this point in time,"
famed British drug scientist and psychiatrist David Healy said
in an interview. "If the pharmaceutical companies in this area --
in the area of a hazard like a child being made suicidal by these
drugs -- if they're prepared to sweep a thing like this under the
carpet, then there isn't anyone taking any other drugs who can
really be confident."
..
Death estimates and resurfacing medical studies are now
providing another kind of clarity, one of horrific proportion.

The highly respected British medical journal, 'The Lancet',
published a report on a 1998 study by University of Toronto
researchers showing that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are
"a leading cause of death." It noted the study examined "
only ADRs attributed to drugs that were 'properly prescribed
and administered'."

The study's authors suggested, "many adverse reactions
result from the use of drugs with unavoidably high toxicity,"
and that medicine "cannot expect to reduce this burden
until drug-induced illness is actually defined as a problem."

In the May 1 2002 issue of the 'Journal of the American
Medical Association' (JAMA), five physicians from
Harvard Medical School reported adverse drug reactions
"are believed to be a leading cause of death in the United
States."

The authors urged the FDA to raise "its threshold for
approving new drugs when safe, effective therapies already
exist, or when the new drug treats a benign condition",
citing the "frequent introduction" of drugs where serious
side-effects occur.

And they emphatically advised that "clinicians should
avoid using new drugs when older, similarly efficacious
agents are available."

Lexchin, who consults on pharmaceutical policy for groups
such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and
governments including Australia and Canada, estimated that
in the last five years, "biased research, suppression of
negative studies, over-publication of positive studies and,
all their (the pharmaceutical industry's) promotional activities,
which includes their funding of continuing medical education,"
has meant, yearly, "one death per 1,500 people" in the general
population.
..'
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs//2004/1004pharmaceuticals.htm

The OP will snip and ignore all of this, and just continue to
restate his flawed opinion ad nauseum with a load of filth,
abuse and lies thrown in as an ad hominem distraction.

Ignore, as I most certainly will.





Leif Erikson
2006-06-04 16:15:26 EST
lesley ("peark"), an anti-science foot masseuse
("reflexologist" - yeah, right) charlatan in Cork,
Ireland, predictably ignored the point:

> "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:V6Ggg.8988$921.1299@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Yet again, an "ara" ('animal rights activist') has
>>trotted out one of the most easily discredited lies
>>told by their movement: that adverse drug reactions,
>>including deaths, "prove" the conceptual failure of
>>drug safety testing on animals. The claim is a lie of
>>omission: it omits to say that any drug approved by
>>the FDA or any other national drug approval agency in
>>other countries also passed much more extensive testing
>>on humans prior to being approved. Logically, if
>>post-approval adverse drug reactions are going to be
>>claimed to show the failure of testing on animals, then
>>one *must* also conclude that testing on humans is a
>>conceptual failure, and should be scrapped. Of course,
>>"aras", one of the more peculiar forms of lying
>>ideological extremists, don't want to make that claim.
>>
>>"aras" fundamentally misstate (lie about) the purpose
>>of testing on animals. The tests are not intended to
>>prove the safety of the drug compound for human
>>prescriptive use. They are intended only to establish
>>that the compounds are *likely* safe enough to begin
>>testing on human test subjects without killing them.
>>Any drug that is approved for prescription passed at
>>least three phases of human clinical trials, in
>>addition to passing the animal testing prior to the
>>human trials. If approval is contingent on passing
>>four consecutive phases of testing, and some
>>post-approval adverse reactions occur, it is absurd to
>>lay the blame for the failure on the *first* phase, the
>>animal tests; but that's what the liars calling
>>themselves "aras" always do.
>
>
> "Lief Erikson", refuses to address the following:
>
> From the horse's mouth:
>
> 'For more than 15 years, Bristol-Myers Squibb has had a highly
> regarded program to reduce our reliance on animal testing methods
> and to ensure humane care when animal testing is unavoidable.

There you go: "...when animal testing is unavoidable".
You and other LYING "aras" talk about "non-animal
alternatives" as if there *always* are alternatives.
There aren't.

But you've ignored the main point, lesley. IF you are
going to condemn animal testing as a "failure" due to
adverse drug reactions following regulatory approval,
then logically, you *MUST ALSO* condemn the human
testing. But you don't. That's a lie of omission,
lesley. You are attempting to lay the "blame" for the
ADR entirely on the first phase of testing, when the
drug *also* had to pass at least three additional
phases of human testing before gaining approval. You
have no scientific basis for that. You do it because
you're a lying, anti-science ideologue, lesley.

Turk
2006-06-04 17:09:08 EST
"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:ybHgg.1422$lf4.524@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> lesley ("peark"), an anti-science foot masseuse ("reflexologist" - yeah,
> right) charlatan in Cork, Ireland, predictably ignored the point:
>
>> "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>> news:V6Ggg.8988$921.1299@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Yet again, an "ara" ('animal rights activist') has
>>>trotted out one of the most easily discredited lies
>>>told by their movement: that adverse drug reactions,
>>>including deaths, "prove" the conceptual failure of
>>>drug safety testing on animals. The claim is a lie of
>>>omission: it omits to say that any drug approved by
>>>the FDA or any other national drug approval agency in
>>>other countries also passed much more extensive testing
>>>on humans prior to being approved. Logically, if
>>>post-approval adverse drug reactions are going to be
>>>claimed to show the failure of testing on animals, then
>>>one *must* also conclude that testing on humans is a
>>>conceptual failure, and should be scrapped. Of course,
>>>"aras", one of the more peculiar forms of lying
>>>ideological extremists, don't want to make that claim.
>>>
>>>"aras" fundamentally misstate (lie about) the purpose
>>>of testing on animals. The tests are not intended to
>>>prove the safety of the drug compound for human
>>>prescriptive use. They are intended only to establish
>>>that the compounds are *likely* safe enough to begin
>>>testing on human test subjects without killing them.
>>>Any drug that is approved for prescription passed at
>>>least three phases of human clinical trials, in
>>>addition to passing the animal testing prior to the
>>>human trials. If approval is contingent on passing
>>>four consecutive phases of testing, and some
>>>post-approval adverse reactions occur, it is absurd to
>>>lay the blame for the failure on the *first* phase, the
>>>animal tests; but that's what the liars calling
>>>themselves "aras" always do.
>>
>>
>> "Lief Erikson", refuses to address the following:
>>
>> From the horse's mouth:
>>
>> 'For more than 15 years, Bristol-Myers Squibb has had a highly
>> regarded program to reduce our reliance on animal testing methods
>> and to ensure humane care when animal testing is unavoidable.
>
> There you go: "...when animal testing is unavoidable". You and other
> LYING "aras" talk about "non-animal alternatives" as if there *always* are
> alternatives. There aren't.
>
> But you've ignored the main point, lesley. IF you are going to condemn
> animal testing as a "failure" due to adverse drug reactions following
> regulatory approval, then logically, you *MUST ALSO* condemn the human
> testing. But you don't. That's a lie of omission, lesley. You are
> attempting to lay the "blame" for the ADR entirely on the first phase of
> testing, when the drug *also* had to pass at least three additional phases
> of human testing before gaining approval. You have no scientific basis
> for that. You do it because you're a lying, anti-science ideologue,
> lesley.

Compelling argument you make there...if hyperbole is what impresses you,
that is. Try facts some time.

How about this one:
If not for the fact that an animal supplier had run out of guinea pigs,
instead supplying rabbits, the world would not have penicillin, at least not
until a much later date.

turk
--
"The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And
one such goal is a democracy in Germany." -George W. Bush, D.C., May 5, 2006



Leif Erikson
2006-06-04 19:12:16 EST
turk wrote:

> "Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:ybHgg.1422$lf4.524@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>lesley ("peark"), an anti-science foot masseuse ("reflexologist" - yeah,
>>right) charlatan in Cork, Ireland, predictably ignored the point:
>>
>>
>>>"Leif Erikson" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>>news:V6Ggg.8988$921.1299@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yet again, an "ara" ('animal rights activist') has
>>>>trotted out one of the most easily discredited lies
>>>>told by their movement: that adverse drug reactions,
>>>>including deaths, "prove" the conceptual failure of
>>>>drug safety testing on animals. The claim is a lie of
>>>>omission: it omits to say that any drug approved by
>>>>the FDA or any other national drug approval agency in
>>>>other countries also passed much more extensive testing
>>>>on humans prior to being approved. Logically, if
>>>>post-approval adverse drug reactions are going to be
>>>>claimed to show the failure of testing on animals, then
>>>>one *must* also conclude that testing on humans is a
>>>>conceptual failure, and should be scrapped. Of course,
>>>>"aras", one of the more peculiar forms of lying
>>>>ideological extremists, don't want to make that claim.
>>>>
>>>>"aras" fundamentally misstate (lie about) the purpose
>>>>of testing on animals. The tests are not intended to
>>>>prove the safety of the drug compound for human
>>>>prescriptive use. They are intended only to establish
>>>>that the compounds are *likely* safe enough to begin
>>>>testing on human test subjects without killing them.
>>>>Any drug that is approved for prescription passed at
>>>>least three phases of human clinical trials, in
>>>>addition to passing the animal testing prior to the
>>>>human trials. If approval is contingent on passing
>>>>four consecutive phases of testing, and some
>>>>post-approval adverse reactions occur, it is absurd to
>>>>lay the blame for the failure on the *first* phase, the
>>>>animal tests; but that's what the liars calling
>>>>themselves "aras" always do.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Lief Erikson", refuses to address the following:
>>>
>>>From the horse's mouth:
>>>
>>>'For more than 15 years, Bristol-Myers Squibb has had a highly
>>>regarded program to reduce our reliance on animal testing methods
>>>and to ensure humane care when animal testing is unavoidable.
>>
>>There you go: "...when animal testing is unavoidable". You and other
>>LYING "aras" talk about "non-animal alternatives" as if there *always* are
>>alternatives. There aren't.
>>
>>But you've ignored the main point, lesley. IF you are going to condemn
>>animal testing as a "failure" due to adverse drug reactions following
>>regulatory approval, then logically, you *MUST ALSO* condemn the human
>>testing. But you don't. That's a lie of omission, lesley. You are
>>attempting to lay the "blame" for the ADR entirely on the first phase of
>>testing, when the drug *also* had to pass at least three additional phases
>>of human testing before gaining approval. You have no scientific basis
>>for that. You do it because you're a lying, anti-science ideologue,
>>lesley.
>
>
> Compelling argument you make there

It sure is! Sound logic *always* is. I notice, of
course, that you didn't even attempt to refute it, so I
have to assume you truly did find it compelling. Thanks!


> How about this one:
> If not for the fact that an animal supplier had run out of guinea pigs,
> instead supplying rabbits, the world would not have penicillin, at least not
> until a much later date.

Uh...do you have a point? It's a very good thing in
discussions of this nature to have a point. Give it
another try.

Pearl
2006-06-04 19:56:05 EST
"turk" <turk96@nowaynohow.not> wrote in message news:zqqdneuKrOVn1h7ZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...

> How about this one:
> If not for the fact that an animal supplier had run out of guinea pigs,
> instead supplying rabbits, the world would not have penicillin, at least not
> until a much later date.

"Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no
alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace
it should have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything in
biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and
misleading than vivisection. So the methods we propose for
medical research should be called 'scientific methods'. they are
not 'alternatives'."
- Prof. Croce M.D, Vivisection or Science: A Choice To Make,
page 21.
..
Animal experimentation is a methodological error. And a science
that is based on a false methodology can only be a false science.

The abolition of vivisection would allow a true health service to
focus attention on the many valid healing therapies which are
harmonious, non-invasive and compatible with other life-forms.
Briefly they incorporate:

* A search for patterns and causes of dis-ease and dis-harmony;
* Integration and concern with the patient as a whole;
* Focus on caring as a component of healing;
* Minimal intervention with technology;
* The adaptation of totally non-invasive techniques including
psychotherapies, diet and exercise;
* Study of the individual and family patterns;
* Provision of substantial, thorough and comprehensive
therapeutic programmes and surveys;
* Investigation and rectification of pollution points;
* Education of self-esteem and responsibility.

A focus on clinical research and prevention, together with the
abolition of vivisection, is the only way to turn the present
sickness service into a health service.

http://www.nzavs.org.nz/print/alternatives.html

For the testing of novel compounds, see:

'TESTING ALTERNATIVES'
http://www.neavs.org/betterscience/Alt-4-.htm


>
> turk
> --
> "The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And
> one such goal is a democracy in Germany." -George W. Bush, D.C., May 5, 2006

LOL.





Leif Erikson
2006-06-04 22:25:21 EST
pearl wrote:

> "turk" <turk96@nowaynohow.not> wrote in message news:zqqdneuKrOVn1h7ZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>>How about this one:
>>If not for the fact that an animal supplier had run out of guinea pigs,
>>instead supplying rabbits, the world would not have penicillin, at least not
>>until a much later date.
>
>
> "Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no
> alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace
> it should have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything in
> biomedical research that is, and always was, more deceptive and
> misleading than vivisection.

This does not address the Great "ar" Lie of Omission.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron