Animal tests get renewed backing

[monkeytrousers]

here

I think this is a tricky one. I'm a vegetarian, mostly for moral and ethical reasons and I'd like to hope that one day science and medicine could move away from this area. But at the same time I couldn't campaign against such testing while it remains vital to medical research, as I would support stem cell testing also.

I was briefly a member of the BUAV but their language was increasingly sensational and overly emotive and that made me doubt their findings. I wanted a more middle ground stance.

What does anyone else think?

Yes AS I read about some the other day for PTSD. On an orgonomy forum. Drug to remove traumatic memories from people.

No, to be honest with you I don't think that it would. The amimals were kept in conditions that were at least comparable with prison settings, but with more space and more social interaction. The resaserch was into improving the timulation given to primates in captivity.

Inetestingly stundents demanded the right to inspect the site, since they had been told that animals were being 'tortured' there. they were given total, free, access and when they failed to find what they wanted they insisted that things had been hidden....which was simply not true.

Some people on the anti side have very fixed view on what is happening , fed in part by blatent propaganda.

Torture would be pointeless in any case , since it would affect the results of almost any experiment, it would affect the biochemistry of the animal under study. there are practices that wre carried out without an anaethetic, but only trival ones, where giving an anaethetic would cause more pain and stress. If this is not the case then pain relief must be given under current British law.

It's difficult to shift that paradigm.

Skeptic,

The MHRA (previously MCA) accepts both UK and foreign reports of ADRs. Data from foreign reports is entered onto the same database as the UK reports and is reviewed alongside the UK data every week. It's often a bit sketchy though whereas UK ADRs can be followed up directly with the reporting doctor for further info. Pharma companies do have an obligation by law though to report foreign reports, as well as UK ones.

And soesn't it depend a bit on if they are severe and unexpected?

FWICremember you didn't have to report forign ons if they were expected, eg cough with an ACE inhibitor but you did if it was more serious

Dophus - don't forget that thalidomide happened pre-1968 when there were no regulations around drugs. This is when the MCA was established and drugs then had to be licensed and safety reviewed.

I think that's right hmb - foreign ADRs are only reported for black triange drugs and if the reaction is serious and unexpected like you say. I think pharma companies have to report all UK ones - it's a while since I worked there so not sure if my memory is right!

Did I read somewhere that UK ADRs are fairly outstanding compared to other countries? Maybe I am thinking of during the regular marketing stage, but the same system does not exist in the USA and so it is easier for adverse reactions to take a while to be properly picked up.

All paradigms are rigid and lots of humans have a addiction to them. Thanks for the explanation HMB.

I have to go write a short story so need to leave for now.

MHRA...grrrr, it was the MCA when I worked in the sector

If they were black trianle then yes, you had to report everything no matter how tangencial.. So in the pasrt I had to report 'sudden dislike of salads' for one drug that we had under study! Also falling of a bike an a contraceptive pill trial!!!

For well established drugs we didn't have to report everything and there were different time frames depending on the severity of the reasction , 10 and 3 days springs to mind, but don't quote me asit was a long time ago!

That must have made computer coding of the responses rather interesting

Agree re ABPI stats on cost of taking a new molecule to market. Can't remember where I saw the stat, but in at least one drug company marketing budget is way beyond R&D. I know marketing includes post-marketing surveillance, but seemed odd.

Interestingly, DTB told me as a very rough rule of thumb, generally when a new product is licensed all the trials will show a large therapeutic effect - obviously. That therapeutic effect as measured by trials gets smaller and smaller every year until by the time the patent expires it's only just better than placebo. Obviously to do with number and type of studies carried out and new entrants to market in the meantime, but still amusing, I thought.

All sounds right hmb - think it's 15 days for foreign reports!

I remember some of those daft foreign ones like falling off a bike or dropping a bowl on toe!!

I know Ameriscot - I can't get used to this MHRA business either - it's the MCA to me!!

Ameriscot - those daft ones just end up being left in the queue for classification as the classifiers pick it up, read it and put it back again

love falling off bike/dislike of salads. Black triangle's not a bad system but yellow card is full of holes - about 1.5 reports per GP per year IIRC.

A myth, Edam.

Take aspirin, for example. It's been around for over 100 years and it is still way better than placebo.

You might be onto something that is anti-bactirial or anti-virus, and the reasons would be fairly obvious.

EMEA is even worse because it's not even in that order in English...

sigh.... I know it's an exaggeration, Ameriscot.

Aspirin's a great example of an originally plant-derived drug - willow bark. And it's an unusual one in terms of sustained therapeutic effect.

You should have heard what my DH has just had to say about your theory, Edam (he used to develop analgesics in his time). And to think I've been accused of being rude...

He's going ballistic now!

He's just reeled off: alcohol, marijuana, heroine, valium...

Oh, OK, fair point - was trying to do ten things at once. Note to self - don't try to say anything sensible on MN while doing other stuff too.

blimey, that is asking something!