10 ms·

So you volunteer to replace the monkeys in experimental drug research?

goldenkey 4y ago
No, I'd prefer to remain free. But at least you are asking for consent - that's a start in the right direction! Consent - something which the monkeys have not given. Something which their world-splitting cries of agony, anguish, and tortured existence, clearly indicate. It appears their disposition to being used as biological pin cushions is quite oppositional, one could say their entire life is dedicated to saying "No." Imagine a life dedicated to saying "No." Your mind is disoriented, deteriorating. The world is spinning, and your insides are churning, throbbing, and burning with the pain of a thousand suns. Your skin is peeling, your muscles ache, your bones dull with a hollow pain, and your body feels like it isn't even yours. Implants and incisions, scars and scabs, your body riddled with pockmarks. It sounds laborious and awful, more than nightmarish. Would you volunteer for it?
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > . But at least you are asking for consent trials are not about who's willing to partecipate, but about the best model available. monkeys are not asked for consent, true, but they're not picked at random either, because it would be useless. There's also another matter: who's gonna consent to participate to trials in your proposal, rich people or poorer people? An finally, how would you ask for consent to monkeys? Do you ask mosquitos to leave before killing them? edit: what really baffles me about this discussions is how much the mood of the population swings. We have seen literally revolts on the streets against COVID vaccines being a way to force untested drugs onto the people but at the same time people complain that there is too much testing on non people
  - karpierz 4y ago
    > trials are not about who's willing to partecipate, but about the best model available. Wait, then why aren't we using humans? Humans are the best model available for human biology, no?
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > Wait, then why aren't we using humans? because we can't and do not want to artificially breed and engineer humans for that purpose. we don't grow kids with rare diseases or tumors just to make them suitable models, not counting how long it would take. but if you prefer it...
      - karpierz 4y ago
        You're assuming your conclusion in your premise. The question is "should monkeys be available for research?" You state that "we should use the best models available", therefore we should use monkeys for research. But this assumes that monkeys are available in the first place! It doesn't show that we should experiment on monkeys, just that we currently do.
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > You state that "we should use the best models available", therefore we should use monkeys for research. unless you want to test drugs' safety on the actual best model available, they are the second best model available. > that monkeys are available in the first place! they are not available as in nature, they are bred to be available. we're not going to some rain forest to capture them in the wild. we could do the same with humans, in fact Nazis did it and it worked remarkably well, ethics issues aside. Anyway, only a few thousands monkeys are used in trials and most of them in non lethal (they do not risk to die) trials, for a short period of time. Most of the animals used are not primates. Even assuming researches and pharmaceutical companies are evil and have the worst intentions, monkeys are the most expensive option and it takes a lot of times to breed them, a true evil entity wouldn't waste all that money and time, when a rat gestation time is 21 days and they mature in a few weeks.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > . But at least you are asking for consent trials are not about who's willing to partecipate, but about the best model available. monkeys are not asked for consent, true, but they're not picked at random either, because it would be useless. There's also another matter: who's gonna consent to participate to trials in your proposal, rich people or poorer people? An finally, how would you ask for consent to monkeys? Do you ask mosquitos to leave before killing them? Last but not least, do animals reciprocate those feelings? Do they ask for consent before exploiting other animals?
  - cute_boi 4y ago
    As long as we can avoid mosquito we should. That's why I still prefer nets and repellent creams. However, I am not going to judge if some people kills mosquito that sucks their blood or spread dangerous diseases like malaria. Comparing monkeys with mosquitos is kind of disingenuous. How many monkeys have killed people in 2022 compared to mosquito? Lastly, many research takes place for beauty creams, shampoo etc.. that are total useless. There are also many research were animal are disregarded as useless. Maybe sustainable research is needed instead of dumping them uselessly? Thanks!
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > Lastly, many research takes place for beauty creams, shampoo etc.. that are total useless. That's a popular argument, but it's a false premise. If the objective is saving animals, why don't we ban flight transport altogether ? It kills, directly and indirectly, a lot more (a LOT more!) animals than medical trials will ever do. In the end it's mostly people going on holidays, it's useless.
      - goldenkey 4y ago
        We're for reducing suffering, not reducing death - the latter befalls everyone and everything.
        peoplefromibiza 4y ago
- nikanj 4y ago
  The way we do consent is ”find the poor and the destitute, the ones who have no other options left”. Consent given under duress is not real consent.
  - goldenkey 4y ago
    Indeed. By consent I meant, without duress, which I thought was pretty clear. These folks use logical fallacies like "Appeal to Definition" in order to cloud the debate with arguments about the definitions of words. Consent of certain actions is almost always under duress in a capitalistic society. These folks' arguments about consent not being "true" are just arguments against capitalism and for socialism, and I would agree with them, you'd probably too? It's pretty clear cut that these animals aren't consenting, so their arguments are just moving the fencepost to gripes with capitalism.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > Imagine a life dedicated to saying "No." Your mind is disoriented, deteriorating. The world is spinning, and your insides are churning, throbbing, and burning with the pain of a thousand suns. Your skin is peeling, your muscles ache, your bones dull with a hollow pain, and your body feels like it isn't even yours. Implants and incisions, scars and scabs, your body riddled with pockmarks. Representing this as typical of the research animal experience is disingenuous. You should be able to make your argument without resorting to hyperbole. We're talking about monkeys, whose biggest use in recent research was in vaccine development. So e.g. Rhesus macaques were given injections of vaccine candidates (and convalescent plasma, etc), and then immune responses were measured. Some were then exposed to SARS-COV-2 to determine if the vaccines were effective. SARS-COV-2 produces much less severe illness in macaques than humans.
  - goldenkey 4y ago
    I've experienced an allergic reaction to medication before. It was the worst hour of my entire life until I had an injection of Benadryl. Every moment, I felt like I'd rather be dead than experience another moment of the agony. So sure, experimentation effects may vary but the upper limit is fucking brutal and definitely depends on what stage the drug is in. Early on in development, the effects could be worse than death.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > So sure, experimentation effects may vary but the upper limit is fucking brutal and definitely depends on what stage the drug is in. Early on in development, the effects could be worse than death. So could the effects of e.g. life in the wild. Anything can go very badly. IMO: You can't be completely blind to the utilitarian angle. The average and distribution of outcomes matters. So, we go through an escalating series of tests-- designed to both weed-out drugs cheaply and to avoid suffering; from conceptual models to computation to tissue cultures to organ models to small animals to larger animals to small numbers of humans to large numbers of humans. If you weed out the last couple of steps before humans, you're going to either try a lot fewer drugs on humans, or increase human suffering a whole lot to protect smaller animals.
- ominous 4y ago
  > Imagine a life dedicated to saying "No." Your mind is disoriented, deteriorating. The world is spinning, and your insides are churning, throbbing, and burning with the pain of a thousand suns. Your skin is peeling, your muscles ache, your bones dull with a hollow pain, and your body feels like it isn't even yours. Implants and incisions, scars and scabs, your body riddled with pockmarks. > It sounds laborious and awful, more than nightmarish. Powerful stuff. I agree this suffering should be reduced. https://web.archive.org/web/20200203215527/http://www.xenosystems.net/hell-baked/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200203215527/http://www.xenosy...
  - goldenkey 4y ago
    It's insanity that we are in the minority. Capitalism and imperialism has grown these people into unconscious exploiters.
- tsol 4y ago
  The problem with consent is it can easily be pressured. The only people that will consent to being tested on are people that are really desperate. I mean by that logic instead of testing on monkeys, we should test on hungry third world children. They'd surely consent to keep for starving to death. And because it's consensual, we're much more moral than if we tested them on monkeys. What a moral paradise!
  - goldenkey 4y ago
    By consent I meant, without duress, which I thought was pretty clear. We can quibble about what represents "true" consent but that's aside the point since it is clear that imprisoning and torturing animals is nonconsensual, not in any grey area. In the theory of socialism, consenting to working is illegitimate since the alternative is homelessness. Do you have any actual arguments or just hypothetical slippery slopes? https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition
    - tsol 4y ago
      That's not a slippery slope. I argued that by your logic testing on desperate 3rd workers is more moral than testing on animals.
      - goldenkey 4y ago
        That's not really an argument against me, it's one against capitalism, since consent of certain actions is almost always under duress in a capitalistic society. Your argument is more for socialism, and I would agree with you.

No, I'd prefer to remain free. But at least you are asking for consent - that's a start in the right direction! Consent - something which the monkeys have not given. Something which their world-splitting cries of agony, anguish, and tortured existence, clearly indicate. It appears their disposition to being used as biological pin cushions is quite oppositional, one could say their entire life is dedicated to saying "No." Imagine a life dedicated to saying "No." Your mind is disoriented, deteriorating. The world is spinning, and your insides are churning, throbbing, and burning with the pain of a thousand suns. Your skin is peeling, your muscles ache, your bones dull with a hollow pain, and your body feels like it isn't even yours. Implants and incisions, scars and scabs, your body riddled with pockmarks. It sounds laborious and awful, more than nightmarish. Would you volunteer for it?

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> . But at least you are asking for consent trials are not about who's willing to partecipate, but about the best model available. monkeys are not asked for consent, true, but they're not picked at random either, because it would be useless. There's also another matter: who's gonna consent to participate to trials in your proposal, rich people or poorer people? An finally, how would you ask for consent to monkeys? Do you ask mosquitos to leave before killing them? edit: what really baffles me about this discussions is how much the mood of the population swings. We have seen literally revolts on the streets against COVID vaccines being a way to force untested drugs onto the people but at the same time people complain that there is too much testing on non people
- karpierz 4y ago
  > trials are not about who's willing to partecipate, but about the best model available. Wait, then why aren't we using humans? Humans are the best model available for human biology, no?
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Wait, then why aren't we using humans? because we can't and do not want to artificially breed and engineer humans for that purpose. we don't grow kids with rare diseases or tumors just to make them suitable models, not counting how long it would take. but if you prefer it...
    - karpierz 4y ago
      You're assuming your conclusion in your premise. The question is "should monkeys be available for research?" You state that "we should use the best models available", therefore we should use monkeys for research. But this assumes that monkeys are available in the first place! It doesn't show that we should experiment on monkeys, just that we currently do.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
        > You state that "we should use the best models available", therefore we should use monkeys for research. unless you want to test drugs' safety on the actual best model available, they are the second best model available. > that monkeys are available in the first place! they are not available as in nature, they are bred to be available. we're not going to some rain forest to capture them in the wild. we could do the same with humans, in fact Nazis did it and it worked remarkably well, ethics issues aside. Anyway, only a few thousands monkeys are used in trials and most of them in non lethal (they do not risk to die) trials, for a short period of time. Most of the animals used are not primates. Even assuming researches and pharmaceutical companies are evil and have the worst intentions, monkeys are the most expensive option and it takes a lot of times to breed them, a true evil entity wouldn't waste all that money and time, when a rat gestation time is 21 days and they mature in a few weeks.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> . But at least you are asking for consent trials are not about who's willing to partecipate, but about the best model available. monkeys are not asked for consent, true, but they're not picked at random either, because it would be useless. There's also another matter: who's gonna consent to participate to trials in your proposal, rich people or poorer people? An finally, how would you ask for consent to monkeys? Do you ask mosquitos to leave before killing them? Last but not least, do animals reciprocate those feelings? Do they ask for consent before exploiting other animals?
- cute_boi 4y ago
  As long as we can avoid mosquito we should. That's why I still prefer nets and repellent creams. However, I am not going to judge if some people kills mosquito that sucks their blood or spread dangerous diseases like malaria. Comparing monkeys with mosquitos is kind of disingenuous. How many monkeys have killed people in 2022 compared to mosquito? Lastly, many research takes place for beauty creams, shampoo etc.. that are total useless. There are also many research were animal are disregarded as useless. Maybe sustainable research is needed instead of dumping them uselessly? Thanks!
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Lastly, many research takes place for beauty creams, shampoo etc.. that are total useless. That's a popular argument, but it's a false premise. If the objective is saving animals, why don't we ban flight transport altogether ? It kills, directly and indirectly, a lot more (a LOT more!) animals than medical trials will ever do. In the end it's mostly people going on holidays, it's useless.
    - goldenkey 4y ago
      We're for reducing suffering, not reducing death - the latter befalls everyone and everything.
      - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
nikanj 4y ago
The way we do consent is ”find the poor and the destitute, the ones who have no other options left”. Consent given under duress is not real consent.
- goldenkey 4y ago
  Indeed. By consent I meant, without duress, which I thought was pretty clear. These folks use logical fallacies like "Appeal to Definition" in order to cloud the debate with arguments about the definitions of words. Consent of certain actions is almost always under duress in a capitalistic society. These folks' arguments about consent not being "true" are just arguments against capitalism and for socialism, and I would agree with them, you'd probably too? It's pretty clear cut that these animals aren't consenting, so their arguments are just moving the fencepost to gripes with capitalism.
mlyle 4y ago
> Imagine a life dedicated to saying "No." Your mind is disoriented, deteriorating. The world is spinning, and your insides are churning, throbbing, and burning with the pain of a thousand suns. Your skin is peeling, your muscles ache, your bones dull with a hollow pain, and your body feels like it isn't even yours. Implants and incisions, scars and scabs, your body riddled with pockmarks. Representing this as typical of the research animal experience is disingenuous. You should be able to make your argument without resorting to hyperbole. We're talking about monkeys, whose biggest use in recent research was in vaccine development. So e.g. Rhesus macaques were given injections of vaccine candidates (and convalescent plasma, etc), and then immune responses were measured. Some were then exposed to SARS-COV-2 to determine if the vaccines were effective. SARS-COV-2 produces much less severe illness in macaques than humans.
- goldenkey 4y ago
  I've experienced an allergic reaction to medication before. It was the worst hour of my entire life until I had an injection of Benadryl. Every moment, I felt like I'd rather be dead than experience another moment of the agony. So sure, experimentation effects may vary but the upper limit is fucking brutal and definitely depends on what stage the drug is in. Early on in development, the effects could be worse than death.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > So sure, experimentation effects may vary but the upper limit is fucking brutal and definitely depends on what stage the drug is in. Early on in development, the effects could be worse than death. So could the effects of e.g. life in the wild. Anything can go very badly. IMO: You can't be completely blind to the utilitarian angle. The average and distribution of outcomes matters. So, we go through an escalating series of tests-- designed to both weed-out drugs cheaply and to avoid suffering; from conceptual models to computation to tissue cultures to organ models to small animals to larger animals to small numbers of humans to large numbers of humans. If you weed out the last couple of steps before humans, you're going to either try a lot fewer drugs on humans, or increase human suffering a whole lot to protect smaller animals.
ominous 4y ago
> Imagine a life dedicated to saying "No." Your mind is disoriented, deteriorating. The world is spinning, and your insides are churning, throbbing, and burning with the pain of a thousand suns. Your skin is peeling, your muscles ache, your bones dull with a hollow pain, and your body feels like it isn't even yours. Implants and incisions, scars and scabs, your body riddled with pockmarks. > It sounds laborious and awful, more than nightmarish. Powerful stuff. I agree this suffering should be reduced. https://web.archive.org/web/20200203215527/http://www.xenosystems.net/hell-baked/ https://web.archive.org/web/20200203215527/http://www.xenosy...
- goldenkey 4y ago
  It's insanity that we are in the minority. Capitalism and imperialism has grown these people into unconscious exploiters.
tsol 4y ago
The problem with consent is it can easily be pressured. The only people that will consent to being tested on are people that are really desperate. I mean by that logic instead of testing on monkeys, we should test on hungry third world children. They'd surely consent to keep for starving to death. And because it's consensual, we're much more moral than if we tested them on monkeys. What a moral paradise!
- goldenkey 4y ago
  By consent I meant, without duress, which I thought was pretty clear. We can quibble about what represents "true" consent but that's aside the point since it is clear that imprisoning and torturing animals is nonconsensual, not in any grey area. In the theory of socialism, consenting to working is illegitimate since the alternative is homelessness. Do you have any actual arguments or just hypothetical slippery slopes? https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Definition https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition
  - tsol 4y ago
    That's not a slippery slope. I argued that by your logic testing on desperate 3rd workers is more moral than testing on animals.
    - goldenkey 4y ago
      That's not really an argument against me, it's one against capitalism, since consent of certain actions is almost always under duress in a capitalistic society. Your argument is more for socialism, and I would agree with you.