Posted by utopizen on February 2, 2003, at 9:47:28
In reply to Re: Adderall - what is the action of amphetamines? » utopizen, posted by viridis on February 2, 2003, at 1:41:05
> Almost every artificial substance you ingest has been tested in animals first (and some you don't take have been rejected because of animal tests). So, unless you avoid all meds on these grounds, it's just an unfortunate but necessary part of the process.
>That's an absurd statement to make. I do not purify myself from animal research for the sake of myself. Doing so would not in any way contribute to the relief of animals from suffering. Such an assumption is based on the idea that cosmetics and pharmaceuticals share the same economic factors, which they don't. So it does not in any way invalidate my concern for animal testing. It also has nothing to do what I was saying.
But uh, how are those LD-50's going? Because actually, the alternatives the FDA allows for substituting LD-50's without animals is actually more accurate. It's tough to be any more vague than to simply herd a bunch of dogs in a room and dose them with a drug until half of them die.
It's still used because it IS vague, so when a pharma company gets sued, they can go, "hey, look, we couldn't have known, it didn't pose a problem in the LD-50's".
poster:utopizen
thread:138755
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030130/msgs/138880.html