Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!columbia!heathcliff.columbia.edu!zdenek
From: zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Animal testing: are results valid for human comparisons at all?
Message-ID: <3901@columbia.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Nov-86 17:37:54 EST
Article-I.D.: columbia.3901
Posted: Sun Nov 23 17:37:54 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 24-Nov-86 01:48:14 EST
References: <2627@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Sender: nobody@columbia.UUCP
Reply-To: zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu.UUCP (Zdenek Radouch)
Followup-To: sci.med
Distribution: net
Organization: Columbia University CS Department
Lines: 58

In article <2627@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>				....The whole point was the testing of
>things of clearly dubious value, like a new fragrance additive for
>dishwashing soap.

I couldn't agree any more. As far as I am concerned all the cosmetic
products are of dubious value. I personally use probably only one kind
of soap and I hate when they have more than one brand of toothpaste and
I have to chose. It's all the same stuff anyway. But that wasn't my point.

>You drag in things like medicines to make your point, no one was
>arguing about that so it's moot.....

>Maybe we should have a moratorium on paragraphs which begin with "Oh
>yeah? Then what if..." which almost invariably is followed by
>something the original poster never said nor intended, but provides an
>easy target for the respondent.

I have no means of finding out what the original poster INTENDED to say,
but I surely know what was POSTED. Reread the original article again before
wasting too much time with unique ideas. I drag in things like medicine?
Could you please explain the intent of the following?

>>It seems to me these are very GOOD reasons *NOT* to rely on animal testing
>>for valid assumptions about human reactions to drugs, etc.  There are lots
>>of animals suffering in these horrible experiments....

>>What the heck are all these animals dying for?  Rather useless information,
>>and potentially dangerous assumptions.

I read this as <animal reactions differ from human reactions, we can't rely
on those results, therefore testing drugs etc. on animals is useless>.
Sorry if I misunderstood...

Also, just in the case you missed that, the poster of the article you
defend edited the Subject line and changed it from "Re: Animal testing for
Cosmetic and Household products" to "Re: Animal testing: are results valid
for human comparisons at all?".
I must have misunderstood the intent in this case, too.

Anyway, my point was that it is necessary to first analyse the problem
(at least a little bit, please) and then complain and bitch. So far all
the proposals I have heard about animal testing were the same, namely
Stop it! I haven't heard anybody saying "let's convince all the women that
by not using say lipsticks they can prevent cruel animal tests".
It's OK to produce, watch and even stomach (I'm affraid some people must
believe that crap) all the stupid and mindless commercials about new products,
it's OK to buy the products. There is no problem with using new shampoos,
make-ups and I don't know what else one could use. It's fine that all these
people require that the stuff is safe. But to test it on animals is bad.
I am sick of irrational arguments.

Enough said.

zdenek

 zdenek@cs.columbia.edu  or 	...!seismo!columbia!cs!zdenek