Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Animal Studies

  1. #1

    Animal Studies

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric.S View Post
    people are actually criticizing them for not curing animals first? my God!! is this process not strenuous enough? anything they can skip i personally appreciate. why would anyone advocate wasting more time and money?
    Quote Originally Posted by khmorgan View Post
    Right! Of course, it costs far more to exercise a mouse (move his limbs) 6 hours at day 6 days a week, than it does to have a patient's family do it. But, I'm sure your knowledge and experience is superior to ours.
    Oh yes, Dr. Young also mentioned that in China, you pretty much walk or you die. They don't have Medicaid, SSD, etc. that act as a safety net for injured people. So, you think it would be better to let people die and cure mice. Interesting.
    As for bringing the Phase 3 trials to the US, if the treatment has been proven to be safe and effective in China (Phase 1 & 2 trials), why not bring it to the US? Maybe we can deprive a few people the enjoyment of being in a chair.

    Sorry for the sarcasm. I just get tired of laypeople constantly questioning the actions of dedicated, highly trained professionals who are just trying to save people's lives.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric.S View Post
    by shear logic the therapy either works or it doesn't. which ever way leads to the most effective/efficient way of coming to that conclusion is best for us all. spending hundreds of millions and years of organization to find out something doesn't work does not seem effective or efficient (which gives credence your animal studies comment but the positive results there seeing may be connected to there deciding not to waste time with animal studies, how many pointless animal studies have we read about on this site over the years anyway)... well it may be effective but it is not efficient. regardless lets not knock the thread off course so i won't respond anymore as I have no other questions..
    Quote Originally Posted by taymas View Post
    Rather than have fun at the lab with mice as a schoolboy scientist, they've also applied it to humans. That isn't to say that animal testing does not serve it's purpose - it can be useful for other conditions. But there have been countless animal studies.
    By your logic, we might as well stay in our wheelchairs, Nowhere Man.

    This is half-assed as I will not waste too much of my time.

    This is common sense. What kind of a FOOL wants to waste MILLIONS of dollars, money that SCI community does not have, and SEVERAL years to test potential therapies without a successful animal study? It defies common sense. There are hundreds...thousands maybe... of different chemicals or cells that COULD help SCI. Are we going to spend millions (tens of millions) of dollars for each one to see if they work or not? That's just stupid.

    Safety -- putting things in spinal cord is very dangerous. If a treatment is going to cause harm (ex: a tumor), I'd rather find out about it in a rat as opposed to humans. But...that's just me.

    Better study of spinal cord -- scientists can get better imaging of a rats spinal cord than a humans. They can dissect a rat spinal cord (can't do that in a human). So they can better understand the mechanisms of recovery of a given treatment -- or better understand failure.

    Cost & time -- a rat study costs 60 times less and is 16 times faster to see results. Roughly, by no means official, but is based off Dr. Young?s statement. "It costs us about $1000 and 3 months to assess regeneration in a rat, perhaps $20,000 and 24 months to assess regeneration in a monkey, and probably $60,000 and 4 years to assess regeneration in a human."
    3 months (more if considering planning). You can't wait 3 months to see if a treatment can actually help treat a mammal spinal cord? If after 3 months, a rat study shows no signs of efficacy, you can move on to another potential treatment and you just saved yourself millions of dollars and several years by not doing human trials. If the study showed positive results, you have only wasted months (maybe actually saved time).

    Funding -- Furthermore, if successful animal study, now you have EVIDENCE of success in a real spinal cord, in vivo, and will likely receive millions in investor funding and/or public funding. That funding would most likely speed up human trials because there would be less wait to raise funds (ex: dollar a day & dr. vaquero situation). So you probably saved time by doing rat studies as opposed to straight to human trials!

    The reason there have been many rat studies and very few human studies is because they have never cured, or even moderately improved, a rat! NEVER. You have read news stories about rats with incomplete sci that walk a little better than control rats who walk anyways. If they can't even show moderate recovery in a rat, why waste millions on human trials? Spend those millions (if public $) on trying to find new therapies. The "cure" does not exist yet, spend money trying to find it. I know it sucks big time being in a chair, but animal studies...rigorous animal studies...will only help treat SCI sooner. The SCI community should be demanding more rigorous animal studies instead of being so damned hung up on when human trials are going to start.

    A Human trial =/ a successful treatment. So please stop equating the two.

    Questioning and skepticism is part of discovery in science. If you can't handle it, I suggest you start a religious thread and discuss your blind support of your favorite scientists there.
    Last edited by Nowhere Man; 08-21-2014 at 05:00 PM.

  2. #2
    I applause your effort and am going to show some humility here - I understand your point.

    I think the issue with some of us (at least me) is that we run out of patience, and let our emotions get the best of us, even by 3 months. At least that was my issue, with a hint of arrogance and ignorance.

    I saw a video of a French researcher who injected a serum in to complete injured rats, who in return, regained movement. Haven't heard anything since. That was years ago. This, and reading a few dozen rat studies. Eitherway , aren't phase 1 and phase 2 safety studies? At least that's what I thought. I'm not saying any of the above as a rebuttal to your points, maybe someone can elaborate in regards to the necessity of animal studies applicable to the trials of ChinaSCI Net. Maybe there was application of a previous animal study model, I don't know.


Similar Threads

  1. Animal studies!
    By JamesMcM in forum Cure
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 12-11-2013, 10:57 PM
  2. chronic animal sci studies
    By jhope in forum Cure
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 02-24-2012, 07:05 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-04-2010, 05:35 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-09-2007, 09:47 AM
  5. Failed OEG Replication in Animal Studies
    By Curt Leatherbee in forum Cure
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-29-2002, 10:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts