5 ms·

> . 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 c

> . 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
      I'm good with it.
will5421 4y ago
> There's also another matter: who's gonna consent to participate to trials in your proposal, rich people or poorer people? Probably those who want the benefit of the medication badly enough.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Probably those who want the benefit of the medication badly enough. it doesn't make them good models anyway. not better than peaking up a random animal from the zoo or a random. human from the population. in fact access to experimental trials is not on a consent only basis, patients need to adhere to some parameter. for example: my mother in law was rendered almost blind by a degenerative disease. She volunteered for an experimental trial on a new treatment but she was too old and her condition too advanced to be a suitable candidate. She was fully willing to be part of it, but consent alone wasn't enough.
  - will5421 4y ago
    Sometimes, people will be suitable candidates, and sometimes they won’t. In the cases they aren’t, we’d just have to accept that this will slow down the development of the medication.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      and that's exactly how it works now. I'm not happy we have to rely on animals, believe me, but suitable patients are already hard to find, if we don't test drugs for at least a reasonable definition of safe, we risk to kill the research, not simply slowing it down. and that's much more probable for those diseases that are rare on humans, that are already underfunded and under researched.
- tsol 4y ago
  So not poor people, but desperate people? That's just a different sort of problematic
  - 4y ago
goldenkey 4y ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop Do you always debate in a dishonest fashion?
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Do you always debate in a dishonest fashion? I'm simply not an English native speaker. So the question goes right back at you, I guess. Would you prefer to argue in Italian? I can be much more precise in my native tongue. p.s. please remind me what false arguments I provided. It would be much appreciated. thanks.
  - goldenkey 4y ago
    The dishonesty stems from the intent and tactics - not from a specific statement. Asking a lot of questions is really not a valid form of debate - it's moreso a form of argument. I do not believe that lab animals should exist, period. You are in search for a replacement solution to drug development. I am not. There lies our dispute. I feel that it is okay to not be able to solve this "problem" because our current solution is exploitative and wrong. I agree that often in human trials, the people who volunteer are poor or desperate, and this is a different issue which goes to the root of capitalism -- since work itself is a coerced form of volunteerism with the societal threat of homelessness. Pretty much all of capitalism is coerced, just on different degrees or levels. The same applies to most of what is considered voluntary or consenting. For example, joining the military. One can argue that most who join are lost, confused or poor. And they'd be right. Or prostitution. Or working a minimum wage job. Etc. The problem with fake consent in capitalism is much larger than drug trials.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > The dishonesty stems from the intent and tactics > Asking a lot of questions is really not a valid form of debate It's the same question, actually. > I do not believe that lab animals should exist, period. What you believe it's irrelevant. > You are in search for a replacement solution to drug development. I'm perfectly fine with what we have. You're rhetoric skills must be quite weak if you need to put words in my mouth. > I am not. There lies our dispute. I feel that it is okay to not be able to solve this "problem" because our current solution is exploitative and wrong. Then just don't use drugs or any product coming from animals. Watch this https://www.ted.com/talks/christien_meindertsma_how_pig_parts_make_the_world_turn/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/christien_meindertsma_how_pig_part... > I agree that often in human trials, the people who volunteer are poor or desperate Nobody said it and not necessarily. They are simply ill. You can't use healthy people to prove a drug works... > since work itself is a coerced form of volunteerism with the societal threat of homelessness. > Pretty much all of capitalism is coerced, (・_・ヾ «The dishonesty stems from the intent and tactics»

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
    I'm good with it.

will5421 4y ago

> There's also another matter: who's gonna consent to participate to trials in your proposal, rich people or poorer people? Probably those who want the benefit of the medication badly enough.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Probably those who want the benefit of the medication badly enough. it doesn't make them good models anyway. not better than peaking up a random animal from the zoo or a random. human from the population. in fact access to experimental trials is not on a consent only basis, patients need to adhere to some parameter. for example: my mother in law was rendered almost blind by a degenerative disease. She volunteered for an experimental trial on a new treatment but she was too old and her condition too advanced to be a suitable candidate. She was fully willing to be part of it, but consent alone wasn't enough.
- will5421 4y ago
  Sometimes, people will be suitable candidates, and sometimes they won’t. In the cases they aren’t, we’d just have to accept that this will slow down the development of the medication.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    and that's exactly how it works now. I'm not happy we have to rely on animals, believe me, but suitable patients are already hard to find, if we don't test drugs for at least a reasonable definition of safe, we risk to kill the research, not simply slowing it down. and that's much more probable for those diseases that are rare on humans, that are already underfunded and under researched.
tsol 4y ago
So not poor people, but desperate people? That's just a different sort of problematic
- 4y ago

goldenkey 4y ago

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop Do you always debate in a dishonest fashion?

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Do you always debate in a dishonest fashion? I'm simply not an English native speaker. So the question goes right back at you, I guess. Would you prefer to argue in Italian? I can be much more precise in my native tongue. p.s. please remind me what false arguments I provided. It would be much appreciated. thanks.
- goldenkey 4y ago
  The dishonesty stems from the intent and tactics - not from a specific statement. Asking a lot of questions is really not a valid form of debate - it's moreso a form of argument. I do not believe that lab animals should exist, period. You are in search for a replacement solution to drug development. I am not. There lies our dispute. I feel that it is okay to not be able to solve this "problem" because our current solution is exploitative and wrong. I agree that often in human trials, the people who volunteer are poor or desperate, and this is a different issue which goes to the root of capitalism -- since work itself is a coerced form of volunteerism with the societal threat of homelessness. Pretty much all of capitalism is coerced, just on different degrees or levels. The same applies to most of what is considered voluntary or consenting. For example, joining the military. One can argue that most who join are lost, confused or poor. And they'd be right. Or prostitution. Or working a minimum wage job. Etc. The problem with fake consent in capitalism is much larger than drug trials.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > The dishonesty stems from the intent and tactics > Asking a lot of questions is really not a valid form of debate It's the same question, actually. > I do not believe that lab animals should exist, period. What you believe it's irrelevant. > You are in search for a replacement solution to drug development. I'm perfectly fine with what we have. You're rhetoric skills must be quite weak if you need to put words in my mouth. > I am not. There lies our dispute. I feel that it is okay to not be able to solve this "problem" because our current solution is exploitative and wrong. Then just don't use drugs or any product coming from animals. Watch this https://www.ted.com/talks/christien_meindertsma_how_pig_parts_make_the_world_turn/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/christien_meindertsma_how_pig_part... > I agree that often in human trials, the people who volunteer are poor or desperate Nobody said it and not necessarily. They are simply ill. You can't use healthy people to prove a drug works... > since work itself is a coerced form of volunteerism with the societal threat of homelessness. > Pretty much all of capitalism is coerced, (・_・ヾ «The dishonesty stems from the intent and tactics»