Would you consider it wrong to test a possibly dangerous product that could be improved to save hundreds of?!
people on an animal!?
This is just for school!. XPWww@FoodAQ@Com
This is just for school!. XPWww@FoodAQ@Com
Answers:
this is the results of a drug "safely tested" on animals before being given to humans in a trial, A prime example of how flawed animal testing is!.
Google TGN1412 for lots more info!
I would consider it wrong to test a product on animals, as it wouldn't prove safe for humans!.
The drug tested, TGN1412, was developed by the company TeGenero based in Würzburg, Germany, and manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim!. But another company, Parexel International Corporation based in Lowell, Massachusetts, USA, was commissioned to carry out the clinical trial!. The six young men were paid a small fee to participate in the experiment [1-5], according to one of them, ￡2 330 (US$4 070)!.
While Paraxel said it followed the rules for drug research, a former executive of the company, who asked to remain anonymous, expressed surprise that the drug was tested on so many persons at once!. “It is common sense not to dose six individuals with the drug at once where there is no prior human experience,” he said [2]!.
TeGenero describes TGN1412 on its website as [7] “an immunomodulatory humanized agonistic anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody that is being developed for the treatment of immunological diseases with a high unmet medical need, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancers”!. A monoclonal antibody (MAB) is an immunoglobulin protein made by the descendants of a single antibody-producing cell!.
In a statement updated 24 March 2006 [8], the company disclosed that TGN1412 binds to the cell marker CD28 present on the cell surface of T lymphocytes, causing more T cells to be created!. It claimed that the safety of TGN1412 was extensively tested on “rabbits and monkeys”, that “there were no drug related deaths despite administering doses up to five hundred times the dose to be used in the phase 1 clinical trial”!. Nevertheless, in pre-clinical tests, 2 monkeys experienced a transient increase in the size of lymph nodes, but TeGenero considers that not a drug related side effect!.
Family members of the human volunteers were told that a dog died in testing, TeGenero denied that TGN1412 was tested on dogs, but stated that academic research which led to the initial development of TGN1412 did include testing on mice and rats!.
Angela, you stated this in your answer!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!. Computer simulations are not perfect and sometimes unpleasant surprises come up after people have purchased products and used them!.
The above info about TGN1412 couldn't get any more unpleasant, so computer simulations are no more unpredictable than animal tests, in fact i would go so far to say that the computer simulations are most probably more accurate!.
!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Google TGN1412 for lots more info!
I would consider it wrong to test a product on animals, as it wouldn't prove safe for humans!.
The drug tested, TGN1412, was developed by the company TeGenero based in Würzburg, Germany, and manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim!. But another company, Parexel International Corporation based in Lowell, Massachusetts, USA, was commissioned to carry out the clinical trial!. The six young men were paid a small fee to participate in the experiment [1-5], according to one of them, ￡2 330 (US$4 070)!.
While Paraxel said it followed the rules for drug research, a former executive of the company, who asked to remain anonymous, expressed surprise that the drug was tested on so many persons at once!. “It is common sense not to dose six individuals with the drug at once where there is no prior human experience,” he said [2]!.
TeGenero describes TGN1412 on its website as [7] “an immunomodulatory humanized agonistic anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody that is being developed for the treatment of immunological diseases with a high unmet medical need, such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and certain cancers”!. A monoclonal antibody (MAB) is an immunoglobulin protein made by the descendants of a single antibody-producing cell!.
In a statement updated 24 March 2006 [8], the company disclosed that TGN1412 binds to the cell marker CD28 present on the cell surface of T lymphocytes, causing more T cells to be created!. It claimed that the safety of TGN1412 was extensively tested on “rabbits and monkeys”, that “there were no drug related deaths despite administering doses up to five hundred times the dose to be used in the phase 1 clinical trial”!. Nevertheless, in pre-clinical tests, 2 monkeys experienced a transient increase in the size of lymph nodes, but TeGenero considers that not a drug related side effect!.
Family members of the human volunteers were told that a dog died in testing, TeGenero denied that TGN1412 was tested on dogs, but stated that academic research which led to the initial development of TGN1412 did include testing on mice and rats!.
Angela, you stated this in your answer!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!. Computer simulations are not perfect and sometimes unpleasant surprises come up after people have purchased products and used them!.
The above info about TGN1412 couldn't get any more unpleasant, so computer simulations are no more unpredictable than animal tests, in fact i would go so far to say that the computer simulations are most probably more accurate!.
!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Yes, because a lot of the time when they say that the research could potentially "save hundreds of people" it is often misleading!. They always end up testing the drug or medicine on humans in the end anyway, and at this point they usually realize that the results they gained from all the animal testing were actually skewed, and therefore useless!.
Animal testing is proving to be less & less efficient as biomedical technology improves!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Animal testing is proving to be less & less efficient as biomedical technology improves!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
The fact is that while there are many formulations that contain materials that are known to be fully safe individually and in combination, it is impossible to guess the effects of newly developed chemicals on living things without some sort of test!. Computer simulations are not perfect and sometimes unpleasant surprises come up after people have purchased products and used them!.
I personally would not want to buy a product that might blind or scar or cause cancer to myself or a family member!. Would you sue a company if a loved one died from using a product that was sold without warnings, or would you just take it in stride as your family's contribution to knowledge!?
This is an important controversy, and it is good that they are considering it in schools!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I personally would not want to buy a product that might blind or scar or cause cancer to myself or a family member!. Would you sue a company if a loved one died from using a product that was sold without warnings, or would you just take it in stride as your family's contribution to knowledge!?
This is an important controversy, and it is good that they are considering it in schools!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
If it's possibly dangerous, do you honestly think they would try to improve it to save lives!? Come on!
Short of pressure from the company on the FDA, that would never happen!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Short of pressure from the company on the FDA, that would never happen!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
Yes, I would consider it wrong!.
If it's POSSIBLY dangerous, then it's PROBABLY unsafe!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
If it's POSSIBLY dangerous, then it's PROBABLY unsafe!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
No!.
What I consider wrong is that our schools waste my tax dollars "teaching" you by means such as this question!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
What I consider wrong is that our schools waste my tax dollars "teaching" you by means such as this question!.Www@FoodAQ@Com