Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

428 | 429 | 430

 ... 487

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Lorelei

Lorelei

SUICIDEGIRL

Tennessee, USA

NOV 13, 2003 04:48 PM

ok, but we're talking about an experiment in a lab here, not just you giving your dog a couple slurps of beer now and then in your living room. these are not quite the same things... (by the way, i'm really curious... do you put it in their bowl? let them drink out of the bottle? huh?) and i'll reemphasize that i just think you probably shouldn't give your dog things on only the merit that they *like* them. just sayin'.
a lot of little kids would love to eat oreos and doritos and ho-hos all day, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to. dig?

by the way, animals that don't burp shouldn't consume carbonated liquids.. i'm not sure if dogs can burp or not. i know that rats can't. does anyone know if dogs can burp?

Amitabha

Amitabha

Black Rock City, NV
July 2003

NOV 13, 2003 04:49 PM

yep they can.

Lorelei

Lorelei

SUICIDEGIRL

Tennessee, USA

NOV 13, 2003 05:04 PM

ah. ok.

adjunct

adjunct

Philadelphia, PA
July 2002

NOV 14, 2003 02:20 PM

Lorelei said:
something tells me you're missing the point...

1) it's wrong to force dogs to drink beer
2) do we really need to spend money to do a study like this?



Well, I dunno. There are plenty of people who drink beer. It might be useful to know if it's good or bad for them, and what some of the specific effects of drinking beer are. Lo and behold, the sphere of human knowledge has been expanded a bit by this study.

3) dogs aren't people. nor are rabbits people. using rabbits or dogs or monkeys instead of people simply to avoid some paperwork ... yeah that's really scientific. did you know that sheep can eat arsenic and guinea pigs can eat strychnine? boy, i'd feel bad for the people that participated in the study that was done based on the "evidence of the safeness of the procedure from a previous (e.g. animal) trial"!



Yeah, all that's holding him back from doing trials with humans is a couple of extra forms. It obviously has nothing to do with obtaining permission from his institution, the agency that's funding his research, the various oversight agencies, or the subjects themselves. Nor does it have anything to do with the large differences in funding required to do human trials and the amount of time it takes to get enough subjects together to get some results.

You do realize that every drug on the market was tested on an animal (and found to be safe) at some point? And that many drugs that are extremely toxic to humans were never released ot the market specifically because their toxicity in animals was an obvious warning sign? Wait, I think that's the point you're missing.

oh and yeah.. you're right.. it could be a very risky procedure, experimenting with beer and people.. not many people have tried drinking beer before.. it would be really hard to convince them to do it.. who can tell what could go wrong!



Ah, as I suspected: you in fact have no idea what you're talking about. It isn't just that the drug or procedure itself isn't toxic, it's that participating in the trial itself could require subjects to engage in dangerous behavior. The subjects would already have to have heart disease, like the dogs, and to do this study they'd have to stop taking whatever heart disease medication they might be taking (which could be as simple as aspirin) and use a drug that has been shown to have harmful effects in many other ways.

[Edited on Nov 14, 2003 by AJ]

Max16Characters

Max16Characters

Korea, Republic Of
March 2003

NOV 14, 2003 04:28 PM

Lorelei said:
Something tells me you don't really know what you're talking about here.

something tells me you're missing the point...

1) it's wrong to force dogs to drink beer
2) do we really need to spend money to do a study like this?
3) dogs aren't people. nor are rabbits people. using rabbits or dogs or monkeys instead of people simply to avoid some paperwork ... yeah that's really scientific. did you know that sheep can eat arsenic and guinea pigs can eat strychnine? boy, i'd feel bad for the people that participated in the study that was done based on the "evidence of the safeness of the procedure from a previous (e.g. animal) trial"!

oh and yeah.. you're right.. it could be a very risky procedure, experimenting with beer and people.. not many people have tried drinking beer before.. it would be really hard to convince them to do it.. who can tell what could go wrong!




1) I doubt that they had to force dogs to drink beer...they like it anyways, just like people
2) Sure, it's not my money...i live in Pennsylvania...but at any rate, learning that darker colored drinks are better for my ticker is valuable to me
3) So what your suggesting then is that we genetically cross breed people with Guinea Pigs and Sheep to make a race of super beings that are immune to STrychnine and Arsenic? That's PURE GENIUS!!!

I have no idea what could go wrong wit experimenting on beer...but i sure would like to find out. Sign me up!

ViolenceJack

ViolenceJack

Wichita, KS
April 2003

NOV 16, 2003 01:41 PM

( wants to hang out and drink dark beer with Lorelei)

fiendish

fiendish

USA
December 2002

NOV 16, 2003 01:56 PM

Lorelei said:
'diet soda'... hahahahaha

yes amitabha, you're probably right.

(with the exception of me, at least.. now i can feel even better about my
love for dark beer, and i don't eat big macs or drink soda either..) smile



tab puke

wigglefree

wigglefree

I'm lost
October 2003

NOV 16, 2003 03:41 PM

AJ said:


You do realize that every drug on the market was tested on an animal (and found to be safe) at some point? And that many drugs that are extremely toxic to humans were never released ot the market specifically because their toxicity in animals was an obvious warning sign? Wait, I think that's the point you're missing.

....Ah, as I suspected: you in fact have no idea what you're talking about.



Sorry AJ, I suspect you are the one who is outside their frame of refrence. Ever heard of thalidomide? Animal pathophysiology is different than in humans. Animal experimentation has resulted in mass human injury. And our government has kindof a kooky idea of what is "safe" [MEA (or monoethanolamine), TEA (or triethanolamine)]. If you want to start standing up for the status quo, fine by me, but do a little more reading first.



ARRR!!!

adjunct

adjunct

Philadelphia, PA
July 2002

NOV 17, 2003 06:49 PM

wigglefree said:
Sorry AJ, I suspect you are the one who is outside their frame of refrence. Ever heard of thalidomide? Animal pathophysiology is different than in humans.


The great Bogeyman of drug testing- I was wondering when thalidomide would show up. Never mind that the FDA's trials were based on West Germany's supposedly successful trials from the late 50's, or that it was pulled shortly after the medical field started to see the results. Or that all this happened 40 years ago, and the pharmaceutical industry is very different now.

Animal experimentation has resulted in mass human injury. And our government has kindof a kooky idea of what is "safe" [MEA (or monoethanolamine), TEA (or triethanolamine)]. If you want to start standing up for the status quo, fine by me, but do a little more reading first. ARRR!!!


I agree, animal testing is not a perfect system. I work in a place where some of the research is on the design of cancer drugs; clearly, animals die in this research, and it's not a great feeling knowing that you're packing up drug samples that will be used to 'cure' mice of cancers that've been induced. The problem is that there don't seem to be viable alternatives that can work in large-scale settings.

To add to that, on balance, drug testing seems to have benefitted many more people than it's harmed. If we're talking about Gilette testing shaving cream on vivisected bunnies, there's obvious ethical problems, but these are not vanity drugs that we're talking about. Despite my sarcasm, though, I'm very interested- what are the alternatives that you suggest? Everything I've heard seems to suggest testing on humans first (likely not going to happen, for obvious reasons), or curtailing drug research (again, not going to happen).

plonk

plonk

Campbell, CA
February 2003

NOV 17, 2003 07:17 PM

AJ said:
The great Bogeyman of drug testing- I was wondering when thalidomide would show up. Never mind that the FDA's trials were based on West Germany's supposedly successful trials from the late 50's, or that it was pulled shortly after the medical field started to see the results. Or that all this happened 40 years ago, and the pharmaceutical industry is very different now.



Point of information: Thalidomide was never approved in the US.

adjunct

adjunct

Philadelphia, PA
July 2002

NOV 17, 2003 09:23 PM

plonk said:
Point of information: Thalidomide was never approved in the US.


Didn't know that. I do know that it was approved and used in Europe (of course) as well as Canada, though there was less use (and less birth defects) in Canada than the Continent. However, the thalidomide scare is what prompted the feds to pass many of the laws governing human drug trials. Disturbing point of information #2, though, is that both FDA and NIH clinical trials of thalidomide have been ongoing since the mid 90's.

plonk

plonk

Campbell, CA
February 2003

NOV 17, 2003 09:43 PM

AJ said:
Didn't know that. I do know that it was approved and used in Europe (of course) as well as Canada, though there was less use (and less birth defects) in Canada than the Continent. However, the thalidomide scare is what prompted the feds to pass many of the laws governing human drug trials. Disturbing point of information #2, though, is that both FDA and NIH clinical trials of thalidomide have been ongoing since the mid 90's.



Yeah, I've heard of those, and they aren't nearly as scary as all that when you get past the initial frisson of horror. They're looking at it as an anti-cancer drug, and teh results are promising. The scientists running the studies are taking heroic precautions to avoid any of the study subjects becoming pregnant. It's certainly a bit risky, but thalidomide's side effects are much more tolerable in an anti-cancer drug than they are in a tranquilizer.

misguidedd

misguidedd

Edmonton, AB
November 2003

NOV 17, 2003 10:05 PM

Ugh, don't get me started on people who freak out about the drug approval process, on either side of the argument... this post would get too long. what it's supposed to be is a
*** PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT ***

BEER IS HEALTHIER THAN SOFT DRINKS.

I don't have the study or know where you can get a copy of it, but it was brought to my attention by my brother in law, who holds his bachelor's in nutritional science and is working towards his master's... if you really want to know, I could try to find out more information on where you could get a copy of the actual published findings. But basically, what they did is this:
They took two demographically equalized study groups, and a control group. None of the groups made any changes to their regular diets, except that the one group drank one additional pint of beer a day and the other group drank one additional can of pop a day.
After a year, the control group and the beer group both gained no average weight.
The pop group gained an average of 12 POUNDS.
Draw from that what you will. smile

*** END PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT ***

billybrown

billybrown

Saint Paul, MN
January 2003

NOV 17, 2003 11:34 PM

Although it didn't need the approval of medical science, this once again proves that Guinness is the greatest beer in the world.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next