>Please re-read my original comment. In particular, the 92% bit Better than nothing. >Are you suggesting testing on humans? Clearly that's the only way to cle

>Please re-read my original comment. In particular, the 92% bit Better than nothing. >Are you suggesting testing on humans? Clearly that's the only way to clear those "surprises". No, I'm just saying a full body with multiple organ systems, hormones, and everything else has many more variables than a cell in a petri dish. So a living organism of some sort is a big plus. It's true that if you tested on humans you'd have even fewer unknowns, but that's obviously unethical. >I think the gist of my argument against animal testing is that animal models aren't very good at predicting outcomes in humans They aren't perfect. They're just the best thing we have right now