Companies are for profit yet most of their r&d $$ comes from taxpayers!!! Almost 100% upside and then when the drugs come to market they gouge those who need it. But but they are saving lives. Hahaha yeah.
Materialism has been proven a failed theory yet they continue to see us as mechanical things. Because drugs have no impact on mind-based and quantum healing modalities; of course just fixing the food supply (and eliminating the chemical assault) will do.
Science and “advanced (at whatever time introduced) technology” created the health problems we have today.
And the solution is to mess with and harm another species to prove for-profit drugs will fix the problems that science and technology created.
Is there a single damn pharma drug that doesn’t harm and cause yet other disorders and the need for yet more drugs?
These drugs often cause nutritional deficiencies (often WHY they are prescribed in the first place – doctors up to a few years ago received less than two weeks of study in nutrition -DUH, but naturally if why they are writing scripts is mostly related to nutritional deficiencies.
Refined sugar and modern semi-dwarf wheat variety are what cause almost all modern disease. It’s like this big secret that shouldn’t even exist, but it does. Why?
How utterly vile to claim this flurry of activity is to “help save lives.” Then stop destroying the food supply with “technology” and “science.”
Stop advancing for efficiency when the loss comes in nurtitional value to the end user.
as s small exemplar of public sector vs private sector bio-med research.. years ago NIH ,(ie F Collins) had a monopoly on sequencing the human genome … it was taking years, and $millions. Then along came Craig Venter from the private sector w his new “shotgun sequencing”, which despite the NIH naysayers, did in one year at fraction of the cost what it had taken many years and many million $ for NIH. The competition rather than govt/NIH monopoly was best thing that ever happened to DNA sequencing. NASA is also being forced to lose its space monopoly for same reasons … way too expensive, too little ‘translation”
The usual ignorant pontificating. Jonah “once saw a picture of a lab animal.” Pippin claims that “much of this entrenched animal research can be replaced with human-relevant methods that are more accurate, faster, and less expensive,” but does not back that up with facts or state his own credentials. Mayor states that “animal tests do not have a very good success rate, irrespective of whether or not it is the result of animal testing,” which is not only contradictory, but lacks a basis in fact as well as a definition of success. It is true that lab animals are not just small, furry humans, which is why it takes years of training and experience to interpret the results correctly. But based on 40+ years in biopharmaceutical research, I can assure you that there is no better model of a living human being than a living animal. What is often ignored in criticizing the “success rate” of drugs in human testing is the fact that thousands of prospective drugs never make it into humans because they are not active or not safe in animals. The success rate would be even worse, or zero, if not for animal research.
It is hard to believe that in 2018 someone still says that “there is no better model of a living human being than a living animal.” Living animals are horrible models for human beings and everyone (but you, apparently) already knows that. The time for thinking that those who criticises the use of animals in science do not know what they are saying has passed. Everyone is investing in alternatives because it is clear that animal models do not work, let alone the ethical and moral issues implicated. iPSCs, organoids, 3D cultures, bioinformatics, biomarkers…everyone is playing with better ways to understand human diseases and you still think that animals are better. If the money wasted with research using animals were all used to develop even better non-human models we would have by now not just more drugs but drugs that are affordable. Some papers for you to check to be up-to-date:
Pound P, Bracken MB. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 2014;348:g3387–g3387.
Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, Warrington B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012;11:191–200.
Clerc P, Lipnick S, Willett C. A look into the future of ALS research. Drug Discov Today 2016;21:939–49.
Langley GR. Considering a new paradigm for Alzheimer’s disease research. Drug Discov Today 2014;19:1114–24.
Muotri AR. The Human Model: Changing Focus on Autism Research. Biol Psychiatry 2016;79:642–9.
UK I. A non-animal technologies roadmap for the UK Advancing predictive biology 2015:1–20.
Please, let the progress move on. Let it go the animals. Say hello to a brighter future.
“If you’re really saving sick kids, then a lot of money can be made from that,” he told me. “Surely someone would want to invest in a miracle cure for sick veterans or sick kids.”
This statement by Bellotti is independent on how you achieve such a miracle cure. So, why doesn’t Bellotti oppose human based research as well? As he should know, a very large part of the NIH budget is to do human-based clinical research. Surely, one expects him to argue, the private sector could take care of that as well.
The fact that he does not seem to oppose such work means only one thing — He is just an animal right fanatic trying to fool people into his position by passing as someone he is not.
I once saw a picture of a lab animal so covered in tumors and lesions I could not identify the species. I was thoroughly horrified.
Vivisection is barbaric and morally disgusting. It has no place in a civilized society.
Not touched on here is the jaw-dropping futility of animal research regarding human diseases. For example, NIH has confirmed that at least 95% of drug research using animals leads to failed clinical trials…costing billions and leaving the public with nothing. The same story can be told for the major disorders that frighten and shorten the lives of Americans…Alzheimer disease, stroke, multiple sclerosis, cancers, etc. Add to this the fact that much of this entrenched animal research can be replaced with human-relevant methods that are more accurate, faster, and less expensive than using animals who cannot replicate human diseases. But animal research is an industry where careers and profits are underwritten by taxpayers and guaranteed by other researchers who sit on the committees that make funding decisions. It’s a racket, a house of cards, a self-perpetuating boondoggle.
I was curious about the source of JP’s statement ”The NIH has confirmed that at least 95% of drug research using animals leads to failed clinical trials.” Based on some research, I learned that it comes from this document: http://bit.ly/2oIWvjM. It’s not a peer-reviewed research paper. Nor is it an NIH statement on the use of animals. Instead, it’s an online request from one of the 27 NIH institutes. Back in 2015, they were looking for input on their strategic plan. This document was their request for input.
But that isn’t the biggest issue. The real problem is that the document is not specifically about animal studies. In fact, a search reveals it does not even include the word “animal.”
Here’s the key sentence for JP’s claim:
“Currently, a novel intervention can take about 14 years and $2 billion to develop, with a failure rate exceeding 95 percent.”
So…assuming that this document, which is by no means a major NIH document, is correct, the success rate would be 5 percent.
Proven: The development of drugs and treatments is a huge, incredibly complex process.
Also proven: Animals are part of the process in the development of interventions.
Not proven: That animals are “to blame” for the 5 percent rate (again…assuming it is accurate in the first place.)
Of course, the overall success rate would be tied to a lot of things including: study design, genetics data, safety testing, the population that was involved in each phase of the clinical trial, animal data, and a bunch of other factors.
Of course…the most likely conclusion is that the final success rate is the result of dozens if not hundreds of factors.
One major problem with this longstanding debate? When statistics like that one are characterized as “proof.”
Actually, I don’t believe that Pippin claimed this as proof that animal testing results in 95% “failure.” What it does INDICATE is that animal tests do not have a very good success rate, irrespective of whether or not it is the result of animal testing.
Jim Newman..if it comes from an article authored by FS Collins, the director of NIH, will you believe in the 95% failure rate?
Here it goes “The medical benefits of the current revolution in biology clearly cannot be achieved without vigorous and effective translation. Yet the triple frustrations of long timelines, steep costs, and high failure rates bedevil the translational pathway. The average length of time from target discovery to approval of a new drug currently averages ~13 years, the failure rate exceeds 95%, and the cost per successful drug exceeds $1 billion, after adjusting for all of the failures (1, 2). In this Commentary, I describe the goals, functions, and structure of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a new entity currently being shaped by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to reengineer the process of developing diagnostics, devices, and therapeutics.”
Plus this “The use of small and large animals to predict safety in humans is a long-standing but not always reliable practice in translational science (22). New cell-based approaches have the potential to improve drug safety prediction before use in patients (23). The NIH-EPA-FDA Tox21 consortium has already begun this effort (24), which may benefit from the use of (i) three-dimensional tissue-engineered organoids representative of human heart, liver, and kidney and (ii) induced pluripotent stem cells derived from individuals of selected genotypes that may allow an in vitro assessment of pharmacogenomics (25).”
Plus this: “The use of animal models for therapeutic development and target validation is time consuming, costly, and may not accurately predict efficacy in humans (28, 29). As a result, many clinical compounds are carried forward only to fail in phase II or III trials; many others are probably abandoned because of the shortcomings of the model. Building on a potentially extensive network of collaborations with academic centers and advocacy groups, NCATS will aim to develop more reliable efficacy models that are based on access to biobanks of human tissues, use of human embryonic stem cell and induced pluripotent stem cell models of disease, and improved validation of assays. ”
Reference here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5101940/
It is naive to assume that the free market will spend significant amounts of money in areas with little change for monetary return. Pharmaceutical companies are just that, companies, not non-profits.
Comments are closed.