May 292010
 

Neato!

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2960357-1/fulltext

Translation: pump some monkeys full of Ebola Zaire, one of the scariest viruses on the planet, then give ’em the product of Science for a few days… and the monkeys are fine. Obviously more testing is required, but if this pans out… woo hoo! Once again, science bitchslaps natures attempts to mess with us!

What will eventually have to happen is human trials. That’ll be fun. What I would like to see after that, assuming the human trials work, is a second round of human trials: take 100 people, pump 50 of them full of Ebola, 50 full of placebo. Mix ’em up, then pump 50 of them full of the cure, and then pray real hard for the other fifty. I’m sure nobody’d have any problem with that test…

 Posted by at 12:28 pm
  • Brianna

    I don’t think you’ll get any volunteers for the test even where everybody gets the cure. Ebola’s just too terrifying. What’ll probably happen is they’ll keep it in class 4 biofacilities and wait until someone accidentally exposes themselves to the disease anyway.

  • Pat Flannery

    Admin wrote:

    “Translation: pump some monkeys full of Ebola Zaire, one of the scariest viruses on the planet, then give ‘em the product of Science for a few days… and the monkeys are fine.”

    Now, let’s look at scenario “B”:

    Translation: pump some monkeys full of Ebola Zaire, one of the scariest viruses on the planet, then have the Animal Liberation Front grab them and release them in a large city so that people will learn a profound lesson and won’t do any more inhumane experiments on poor monkeys.

    These would be really good experiments to perform somewhere up on the Moon. 😉

  • admin

    > Animal Liberation Front grab them and release them in a large city

    I saw that movie.

  • Michael Holt

    Releasing test animals is something that was discussed by PETA members in the 70s and the 80s. My ex-wife worked in a research building in which some animal experiments were performed. One summer the PETA clowns were there with their signs, making physically-threatening movements toward the employees. I escorted my wife into the building for two months.

    In a separate building, away from everyone else, was a small population of monkeys being used for AIDS research. PETA let it be known on the research campus that they wanted to release those animals.

    Old idea.

  • Pat Flannery

    PETA is fairly benign compared to the real nutballs like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, who you really could picture doing something like letting infected monkeys loose to make a point.
    At The American Museum Of Unnatural History, we all have our bumper stickers, proudly proclaiming: “People Are Animals Too!” and “Death To All Extremists!”
    In the spirit of conservation, we cook up and eat all of our experimental research animals used during the past year on Midsummer Night at our “Great Circle Of Life Party” , and Dr. Schroeder’s groundbreaking work on breeding giant lobsters that produce their own butter, in combination with Dr. Hung’s staggering success on genetic manipulation of olives so that they will convert a glass of water into a dry martini on being dropped into it are bound to be big hits.
    In fact…now that I think of it…there haven’t been any rats, mice, or monkeys used as research animals around here for many years; their places being taken by things like Australian giant shrimp, Cornish hens, lake trout, pheasants, and truffles…which Dr. Chevalier assures me are a type of mole that display even more torpor than the sloth, which accounts for their complete lack of observed movement once they are dug out of their burrows.

  • admin

    > PETA is fairly benign compared to the real nutballs like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front

    You seem to be making the assumption that PETA isn’t related to those other groups.

    Penn & Teller beg to differ.

  • Pat Flannery

    I don’t take a pair of comedic stage magicians who are members of the Cato Institute as a reliable source of information on things any more than I take Michael Moore as a reliable source of information on things:
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Penn_and_Teller

  • admin

    > I don’t take a pair of comedic stage magicians who are members of the Cato Institute as a reliable source of information …

    Maybe you should. They have these things called “video cameras” and “the ability to read official records.” PETA’s funding of ALF terrorist Rob Coronado demonstrates quite adequately that there *are* direct links between PETA and ALF.

    > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Penn_and_Teller

    This site blew any chance of respectability when it pulled a little stunt.
    A: It quoted the BS! synopsis: “PETA supports banning the ownership of pets …”
    B: But it then counters that with a most remarkable strawman: “PETA does not “ban the ownership of pets””
    It then follows that up with this bit of remarkableness: “Since they (like many animal advocates, health advocates and scientists), consider animal testing to be misleading and dangerous, it cannot have “potential benefits for human beings”. “

    Huh. If this apparent cure for ebola pans out with monkeys, then both PETA and sourcewatch should advocate strongly against its use on humans, since it can’t possibly work on them. PETA, like hard-core religious fundamentalists, apparently believe that humans are magically separated from animals, with no real link.

  • Pat Flannery

    Although animal tests are indicative of results that can be expected in some ways on humans, the animals used should be as genticlly close to humans as possible if you want to get near 100% reliability in what you find out.
    That pretty much narrows it down to Chimps and Bonobos as your ultimate test animals, and setting aside any moral qualms about using them, they are not cheap to get hold of.
    At some future point, one can foresee genetic research allowing a computer simulation of a person to be constructed with such fidelity that you could just enter the substance to be tested into the computer simulation and it would tell you exactly what would occur to a real person being administered it.
    To tell you the truth, I find the genetic simularity of man to the higher apes to be dangerous from a viewpoint of disease, in that things that crop up in them can very easily mutate into forms that can spread to humans, like the suspected primate AIDS link.
    Although this would cause the ALF people to string me up, we might be smart to exterminate all of the primate line in the wild, just to prevent problems like that from cropping up in the future.
    As far as pets go, my philosophy is that plants and animals live outdoors, and I live indoors – free from their annoyances, needs, and expenses.
    I did give some thought to getting some bioluminescent microscopic sea organisms from Edmund Scientific as pets, as taking a little tank of glowing goo out for a walk had a twisted appeal to it, and if it ever did get annoying, you could just drop some Alka-Seltzers in the tank.
    I did that with some minnows once as a kid, and it worked great.

  • admin

    > Although animal tests are indicative of results that can be expected in some ways on humans

    Notice how that is entirely unlike the reference you posted: “it cannot have “potential benefits for human beings”. “

  • Pat Flannery

    Here’s the whole statement in context:

    ‘An April of 2004 episode was heavily critical of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). According to the synopsis:

    “PETA is against all forms of medical testing involving animals – regardless of the potential benefits to human beings… PETA supports banning the ownership of pets and advocates releasing them into the wild… It’s enough to make a vegetarian eat meat!”[8]

    PETA does not “ban the ownership of pets” or advocate “releasing them into the wild”. PETA is actually very clear and concise about their views on vivisection as a danger to human health. Since they (like many animal advocates, health advocates and scientists), consider animal testing to be misleading and dangerous, it cannot have “potential benefits for human beings”. They advocate extensively for companion animals as well. See also PETA and animal testing, section 6.

    Two corporate front groups also appeared in the episode. The program featured the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise(CDFE)[citation needed] and David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) as a “consumer advocate”. CCF and CDFE represent collectively, industries such as oil, tobacco, fast food, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and vivisection, etc. Both CCF and Cato receive funding from Phillip Morris, which contracts animal testing to the notoriously abusive Covance Laboratories. Covance and other companies represented by CCF, have been subjects of PETA investigations. See also Richard Berman cares about animals: clients exposed.’

    Now, that’s Source Watch’s take on things, not PETA in its own words, which can be found here:
    http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/testing.asp
    Their main gripe seems to be not with true medical research on animals, but rather using them to test consumer products, and interpreting the fact that the product didn’t seem to affect the test animal badly shows it’s completly safe for human use.
    If the test animals were all something like chimps, you would probably be right…if you tested the product on the same particular chimps for a few decades, like a person would be liable to use it for.
    But sticking it onto or into a white rat for a few days or weeks and then deciding that since the rat is still okay it’s safe for human use could indeed be misleading.

  • admin

    > PETA in its own words…

    …can be found on the PETA episode of BS. Listen to what those jackholes actually say.

    > that’s Source Watch’s take on things

    Which, as pointed out, discredits “Source Watch.” A quick look at their take on nuclear power also discredits them.

  • Jeff Wright

    Let’s hope we see more cures.