Re: human trials, archive 1218
- To: Rick Roush <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: human trials, archive 1218
- From: Robert Cohen <" i4crob"@idt.net>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 09:59:49 -0400
- Cc: email@example.com
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
Rick Roush wrote:
Is the basic physiology of humans greatly different from animals? Why
then must we value human trials above those on animals?
You ask a rhetorical question and then reach the wrong conclusion.
Rats are not humans (with a few exceptions at our own FDA and MONSANTO).
Fifty percent of FDA-approved drugs yield a surprise after approval, not
indicated by rat experiments. I recently attended a CODEX meeting and
asked this question of the 50 people in the room which included
representatives from major pharmaceutical companies, government agencies
and food producers.
The subject was what America's policy would be regarding our right or
need to know whether a genetically engineered product was contained in a
"Who believes that this technology is perfect and that we will make no
mistakes in the future."
I had to ask the question twice before one hand went up. I asked the
woman what company she represented and her response was, "State
Rick...get your head out of the sand like your Australian Emus. Rats
were never affected by thalidomide treatment. They did not have adverse
reactions to diethyl stilbesterol. Rats are not people. Rat studies
are good for just one thing. They allow scientists to do idiot
experiments which justify scientist's existance. If data does not work
out the way pharmaceutical companies expect, it is often fudged or
We have seen this too many times before.