ester
Not slacking multitasking
Why on earth would someone use a horse as a model for that!? There are much much cheaper mammal options!
Five British Labs Use Horses in Experiments, Claims Animal Right
- Thread starter Fenris
- Start date
Why on earth would someone use a horse as a model for that!? There are much much cheaper mammal options!
Birker2020
Well-Known Member
I didn't say they would Ester. I was talking about animal experiments in general.
fatpiggy
Well-Known Member
No-one ever said they did. It was animals being used for cosmetic tests, not horses specifically. Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't stick horse shampoo in them though
MurphysMinder
Well-Known Member
It's disgraceful isn't it? Doing important scientific research at Vet Schools to make advances in equine veterinary medicine, to extremely high welfare standards. We should ban it totally and drive it all overseas where we can't regulate it. That makes so much sense
Well said. How on earth do people think the innovative treatment that is now available to us is developed?
Alec Swan
...
It's disgraceful isn't it? Doing important scientific research at Vet Schools to make advances in equine veterinary medicine, to extremely high welfare standards. We should ban it totally and drive it all overseas where we can't regulate it. That makes so much sense
Obviously, and considering that (I suspect!) the bulk of research on equine medicines are carried out by private companies who will have to get their drugs licensed by the VMD, so the testing can only be done on horses. Logical, however distasteful.
A question for JFTD; Considering the drug Mycotil which is now only licensed for direct use by a qualified vet, I wonder how they discovered the risk attached to it when it came in to contact with humans. Mycotil WILL kill a human being at half the dosage which is given to a sheep. Quite why I'm unsure, but in cases of pneumonia in livestock, there is still little which is as effective. As I say though, it's invariably lethal should it accidentally be applied to humans. Any thoughts as to why?
Alec.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
presumably someone died? 
Alec Swan
...
presumably someone died?
There are those who've used the drug to top themselves and professionals mostly. So yes, you'd be right, but I still wonder if during 'testing or trials' there wasn't at least some testing of accidental self administration.
Alec.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
Well it seems as if some people experience some unwanted myocardial effects post accidental self administration that would have been reported, then they went back and did some more lethal dose studies on a variety of animals.
from 1992 ' Owing to the concern of governmental regulatory agencies over the possibility of an accidental injection of the antibiotic to a livestock handler, the cardiovascular effects of sub lethal doses of TM were evaluated in conscious mixed-breed dogs'
Obviously you aren't going to actually investigate lethal dose in humans, just compile reports of accidents.
from 1992 ' Owing to the concern of governmental regulatory agencies over the possibility of an accidental injection of the antibiotic to a livestock handler, the cardiovascular effects of sub lethal doses of TM were evaluated in conscious mixed-breed dogs'
Obviously you aren't going to actually investigate lethal dose in humans, just compile reports of accidents.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v38je06.htm
table 1, note the very low lethal dose (LD) for the rhesus monkey so I would imagine it was always on a watch list.
Monkeys given
20 mg/kg vomited during the first day but were subsequently normal.
The single monkey given 30 mg/kg vomited, exhibited hypoactivity,
laboured respiration, vocalization and ataxia, and died within 2
hours.
table 1, note the very low lethal dose (LD) for the rhesus monkey so I would imagine it was always on a watch list.
Monkeys given
20 mg/kg vomited during the first day but were subsequently normal.
The single monkey given 30 mg/kg vomited, exhibited hypoactivity,
laboured respiration, vocalization and ataxia, and died within 2
hours.
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
From: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Animal...lDrugProducts/FOIADrugSummaries/ucm115928.pdf
There's this paper from 2003: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...ERH1JCT7Rj5_H2uNQ&sig2=OHR1T3K8Wtar-xIH_l19TA
About accidental exposure in 2003. Not many signs of any toxicity noted in the 80s and 90s trials - but these were all done by research teams who are probably a bit more careful than most as they are used to handling unknown drugs.
So I'd guess it's some muppet using it off label or being careless with it!
ester
Not slacking multitasking
the monkey test was 1990 , mouse/rat/rabbit '86
, mouse/rat/rabbit '86Aru
Well-Known Member
It's disgraceful isn't it? Doing important scientific research at Vet Schools to make advances in equine veterinary medicine, to extremely high welfare standards. We should ban it totally and drive it all overseas where we can't regulate it. That makes so much sense
Love this statement.Yes how dare we do research here in a european country with some of the highest welfare standards for lab animals in the world.....
As far as I remember Micotil killed a few people before they realised it wasnt safe to hand out to the general public, yes they knew it was dangerous but they underestimate how much complacency is involved when drugs are being used frequently! from what I rememeber the first recorded was a young canadian farmer who accidently jabbed himself while treating cattle(actually not that difficult to do)and who didnt go to a and e until hours later when he was having issues. But im pretty sure there were other deaths before they changed the labelling.
To be fair though people can have an allergic reaction to any drugs and die quickly when they handle drugs so its always worth treating them with extreme caution. All it takes is for you to be unlucky.
As it happens Micotil is one of several drugs that vets handle frequently that are fatal to humans because humans and animals are very different when it comes to drugs! and im not even counting the euthanasia solution in that...if you self inject that by mistake in low volumes you'll likely be fine ironically enough...
Theres is however another anaesthetic injection that will kill a human in a couple of seconds if antidote is not given asap by the assistent...you dont have enough time to give the antidote yourself before becoming unconcious and your resp system shuts down....but it is reasonably safe in dogs, cats and wild animals and is still used in practice. Its most often used in those zoo dart guns these days I believe...and why I always laugh when people are up in arms over an animal on the loose and asking why they havent just tranq gunned it...in a public place..with lots of people around and a one prick kills all humans dart. Theres usually a reason behind these decisions.
Some of veterianry anti-arthritis meds will also ocasionally cause sudden death from heart issues in humans,(they discovered that one in the humans trials
)...but are safe in the animals its licensed for with minimal side effects!On the opposite side of the spectrum some of the new arthritis minimal side effect painkillers for humans have proven to be very dangerous to dogs and more likely to show complications then older less sophisticated drugs of the same class. We know this because we tested them on dogs as well as humans. So when an owner comes into the vet and tells me I've been giving my dog x that i take myself I can look it up...and recommend they discontinue that and here have some gastroprotectants for your animal...because theres a good chance its stomach is full of low level ulcers that are likely to perferate if you continue that drug...
Drugs are facinating.....and each need to be researched on the animal they are planned for use in to be safe. Veterinary drugs need to be tested on veterinary species ....so a total ban of animal testing makes no sense what so ever.
Theres enough scaremondering already around the tested drugs!
Can you imagine how much worse it would be without knowing what side effects can be expected and having an idea of safe doses. Those things are found through animal testing. Is it an ideal world.of course not.ideally we would be able to research these things without ever experimenting on a living breathing creature...but this is the world we live in and drugs are to be used on living breathing creatures...whatever the species.
Without research we will have no new antibiotics in the market, no new cancer treatment breakthroughs, no new pain control drugs...
Managing the industry and insuring standards are adhered to is the key to ethical research....and thats much more likely to happen in a first world country where rules are enforced.
To put it in perspective theres a lot of pet rabbits in the uk living in much more neglectful circumstances and cruelty then any uk laboratory rabbit will ever experience at the moment....
Also animals live in the now,euthanasia is not the worst thing that can happen to an animal.
Buddy'sMum
Well-Known Member
Post-marketing surveillance. One paper published in 2005 reported 13 deaths from Micotil, only 2 of which were accidental.
Mooseontheloose
Well-Known Member
We rehomed a pony from an experimental station. She had been very well cared for, was well handled, microchipped, passported, fed, wormed and in very good condition. Not remotely scared of humans, in fact almost too confident.
I have also re homed a pony from the local common, stinky, wormy, dirt encrusted and wild! I'm not saying either is better or worse, or moral or immoral. Just let's keep a sense of perspective on it. The one I rehomed from the common as a colt would have gone in a can come the autumn via the sales.
I know any of the experimental station ponies were humanely pts if homes could not be found for them. I also know that the person running the station had to check daily under their car for IEDs.
Some of the research was into the causes of cot deaths. It's never an easy thing to rationalise, but my feelings are that quite a lot of us wouldn't be here if it wasn't for antibiotics etc, so let's keep a clear head.
I have also re homed a pony from the local common, stinky, wormy, dirt encrusted and wild! I'm not saying either is better or worse, or moral or immoral. Just let's keep a sense of perspective on it. The one I rehomed from the common as a colt would have gone in a can come the autumn via the sales.
I know any of the experimental station ponies were humanely pts if homes could not be found for them. I also know that the person running the station had to check daily under their car for IEDs.
Some of the research was into the causes of cot deaths. It's never an easy thing to rationalise, but my feelings are that quite a lot of us wouldn't be here if it wasn't for antibiotics etc, so let's keep a clear head.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
My favourite one in the stories about drugs affecting some animals more than others is ivermectin. Safe for all equines. Safe for all sheep, all cattle. Safe for all dogs .........EXCEPT for anything with a collie gene in it, which it kills.
Go figure!
Go figure!
Mooseontheloose
Well-Known Member
Probably because collies are daft enough to eat it. (Collie owner!)
Alec Swan
...
Our sheepdogs are always kept well clear of sheep-ground when we've used an Ivermectin based wormer. …….. Just in case!
Alec.
char3479
Well-Known Member
I wonder how many new drugs are actually useful & needed, and how many are produced to continue generating profit for the extremely lucrative pharmaceutical companies.
ycbm
Overwhelmed
New drugs aren't adopted, surely, unless they work better than existing ones?
ILuvCowparsely
Well-Known Member
5* I am with you - I hate it too specially on cosmetics
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
How many diseases do you think we have which are currently without effective cures?
How many current drugs are completely safe and effective in even the majority of cases?
How widespread do you think resistance is to antibiotics?
Getting drugs to market is horrifically expensive and very, very few trialled compounds ever make it through safety testing, let alone efficacy studies. Without profit margins for the few successful compounds, we will have no new drugs coming through to replace those which are no longer appropriate for use (this is a huge issue with antibiotics particularly).
I personally don't relish the prospect of a world where bacterial diseases are routinely lethal; where diseases like TB are (even more) widespread and completely untreatable. Currently TB requires 6+months of combination antibiotic therapy for resolution - these drugs have unpleasant side effects, but they do currently work - for the most part.
Mortality within 5 years of diagnosis with multi-drug resistant strains of TB is over 90%.
Without new drugs to replace those which are becoming useless, we will have a huge problem with diseases like this which the general public currently largely thinks are confined to the history books.
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
I work in R&D in a company that does pharmaceuticals, given that it can cost well over £1billion to develop a new drug, no company is going to develop a drug that there is no need for!
New drugs are expensive because of the R&D costs which the company who developed the drug must gain back within 15 years as after that they lose thier protection and generics are allowed, once generics are allowed on the market the price drops immensely.
The new drug must be proved both effective and safe in clinical trials that cost tens of £millions otherwise the regulatory authorities (MHRA in uk, FDA in USA etc) will not approve it for use. virtually every market has to be registered individually, so even if approve in the Uk, it may not be approved in us or Japan!
In the uk the nhs is pretty much 99% of the market and they will not purchase anything that is expensive but no more effective than what is already on the market
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
And the drugs which do make it to market have to cover the costs of every drug that has failed safety or efficacy testing - because pharma companies are businesses and do have to make ends meet!
Alec Swan
...
Would you consider that the practice of feeding permanently medicated a/b feedstuffs, from the day of hatching, and to the commercially produced poultry that we eat and seem to be reliant upon, is in any way responsible for a/b resistance? Pork too and pork derivatives are treated in the same fashion once pigs move from their mother's milk and towards the fattening feeds.
Alec.
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
Massively so. Which is exactly why there's an EU ban on the addition of abs to livestock feed. I believe this is widely ignored in practice though...
Moomin1
Well-Known Member
I'm genuinely surprised you even care Fenris, given your desire to defend animal cruelty.
Alec Swan
...
No poultry is commercially reared, anywhere, without 24/7 access to a/bs. The clue is in the word 'commercial', as without the permanent lacing of foodstuffs, so any enterprise would collapse. 80-90% of those birds reared would die before their due date.
Alec.
eta, and just to underline the use of the word 'Permanent'. It means just that, Antibiotics aren't administered as and when their needed, all feed is medicated, 'permanently' from hatching to the abattoir.
Last edited:
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
Perhaps the industry should collapse. The current system is unsustainable.
Or perhaps we should, as a nation, be prepared to pay a fair price for animal products, and produce them somewhat more ethically.
eta - Sweden have the right idea, I think: http://www.iatp-web.us/iatp/files/64_2_72931.pdf
Last edited:
Alec Swan
...
Explain that to those who are on benefits who barely manage to feed and cloth themselves and their families. 50 years ago we had chicken on Sundays if then and turkey at Christmas. Today, both form the basis of our staple diet, it seems to me.
And no, I don't have an answer to the problem!
Alec.
JFTDWS
+++ Out of Cheese Error +++
Explain that to those who are on benefits who barely manage to feed and cloth themselves and their families. 50 years ago we had chicken on Sundays if then and turkey at Christmas. Today, both form the basis of our staple diet, it seems to me.
And no, I don't have an answer to the problem!
Alec.
Well there are cheaper things to eat than meat - and there certainly ought to be. I'd suggest they increase their relationship with Mr Lentil his friends, who can be obtained cheaply and (I believe?!) ethically. There's no need for meat every day of the week, but folk do seem to expect it these days!