"The bill, if it becomes law, will end an FDA mandate where experimental drugs must be tested on animals prior to humans in clinical trials."
So... the pharmaceutical companies just progress directly to human trials for their experimental drugs? Pretty much like they did with the Covid "vax"?
As noted in the article, it doesn't ban animal testing outright, and animal testing isn't always the same as human response.
"Over the decades, however, science and data have shown that product animal testing does not always replicate the potential toxic responses in humans.
Upon the Senate passing the FDA Modernization Act 2.0, Paul said the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was passed when the only testing methods available were animal trials or human trials. In modern day, statistics show that animal testing is a flawed system, with over 50% of drugs that pass animal trials failing in human clinical trials. Meanwhile, animal testing can be twice as expensive than non-animal alternatives."
"This bill allows an applicant for market approval for a new drug to use methods other than animal testing to establish the drug's safety and effectiveness. Under this bill, these alternative methods may include cell-based assays, organ chips and microphysiological systems, computer modeling, and other human biology-based test methods."
I neither like animals being used in this way, nor do I think it is always useful. But I am reminded of conversations I had back in the mid 80s with animal rights people who wanted to replace all animal testing with computer simulations. I couldn't convince them that a computer simulation would never be able to substitute for the real thing, just like animal testing is not a substitute for human testing.
They didn't want to listen. Just like all the folks who thought a computer simulation was enough to justify lockdowns.
The bill doesn't outright ban animal testing so that may still be appropriate in some situations, and there's more to it than an immediate jump to humans. Technology/science have developed new tests/testing methods that may be used before progressing to humans. See my response to OP.
The bill doesn't outright ban animal testing so that may still be appropriate in some situations, and there's more to it than an immediate jump to humans. Technology/science have developed new tests/testing methods that may be used before progressing to humans. See my response to OP.
"The bill, if it becomes law, will end an FDA mandate where experimental drugs must be tested on animals prior to humans in clinical trials."
So... the pharmaceutical companies just progress directly to human trials for their experimental drugs? Pretty much like they did with the Covid "vax"?
I don't see the advantage.
Just legitimizes what the pharams are doing already. Surprised to see Rand Paul co-sponsoring this.
As noted in the article, it doesn't ban animal testing outright, and animal testing isn't always the same as human response.
"Over the decades, however, science and data have shown that product animal testing does not always replicate the potential toxic responses in humans.
Upon the Senate passing the FDA Modernization Act 2.0, Paul said the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was passed when the only testing methods available were animal trials or human trials. In modern day, statistics show that animal testing is a flawed system, with over 50% of drugs that pass animal trials failing in human clinical trials. Meanwhile, animal testing can be twice as expensive than non-animal alternatives."
Per the Bill Summary at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2952 -
"This bill allows an applicant for market approval for a new drug to use methods other than animal testing to establish the drug's safety and effectiveness. Under this bill, these alternative methods may include cell-based assays, organ chips and microphysiological systems, computer modeling, and other human biology-based test methods."
I neither like animals being used in this way, nor do I think it is always useful. But I am reminded of conversations I had back in the mid 80s with animal rights people who wanted to replace all animal testing with computer simulations. I couldn't convince them that a computer simulation would never be able to substitute for the real thing, just like animal testing is not a substitute for human testing.
They didn't want to listen. Just like all the folks who thought a computer simulation was enough to justify lockdowns.
I was too
With the plus of not being tried for murder when shit goes wrong.
I wonder if I can claim "clinical trials" on my enemies when needed.
The bill doesn't outright ban animal testing so that may still be appropriate in some situations, and there's more to it than an immediate jump to humans. Technology/science have developed new tests/testing methods that may be used before progressing to humans. See my response to OP.
The bill doesn't outright ban animal testing so that may still be appropriate in some situations, and there's more to it than an immediate jump to humans. Technology/science have developed new tests/testing methods that may be used before progressing to humans. See my response to OP.