• MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The fact that we are not the animals they test on so they can never guarantee it’ll react to humans the same way it does to the animals? That doesn’t follow logically?

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No, it does not. Saying we might not find x treatment because it didn’t work on mice says absolutely nothing about the actual efficacy of testing on mice.

          • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            It does if it diverts attention away from other potential cures, not to mention making the animals’ sacrifices even more in vain

              • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I’m not the expert but it seems naive to think animal testing is the one and only way. It’s just an already established norm with some regions requiring it for eligibility of sale, that’s why it’s still as prevalent as it is

                • OldChicoAle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  But what could replace it? Genuinely curious. I used to do animal studies in grad school. I don’t see a better option for making sure this new drug doesn’t kill Grandma.