merckx Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 As an animal lover I'm really pleased that those used to test the drug were absolutely fine yet the humans are exploding - about time the roles were reversed. I bet the beagles, rats and monkeys are laughing right now. *takes tablet while wearing leather shoes and eating meat* Unfortunately they said on Radio 2 that they gave one of these tablets to a dog and it did die! Just not fair testing the stuff on defenceless animals. Just because we're superior we don't have any right to inflict suffering and pain on them. We should just test on humans who volunteer for money or murderers, rapists and paedophiles etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 I agree they knew there was a risk and must of signed some kind of disclaimer with a remote chance of developing some minor side effects....but Im sure they didn't expect to end up in Intensive Care...I hope they survive...and get a good out of court settlement... Really? Volunteering for a "First Human Dose" clues in the title surely? Don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for these people but unless the pharma company has done something ricoculously stupid they shouldn't even entertain sueing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 Unfortunately they said on Radio 2 that they gave one of these tablets to a dog and it did die! They use dogs in human drug testing? Or do you mean one of the blokes gave their dog a pill? Just bugs me that when companies make life saving, illness curing drugs everyone jumps about and congratulates them- this drug has just as much chance as any other of being one of those best in class jobbies and it would have been signed off by stringent regulatory boards and everyone jumps on them, they are trying to save lives in the long run, it's just unfortunate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 We should just test on humans who volunteer for money or murderers, rapists and paedophiles etc. I agree it is sad but how is that any better? Unless there is a sensible alternative, it's just the way it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 They use dogs in human drug testing? Or do you mean one of the blokes gave their dog a pill? They were just talking about these pills on the radio and they said prior to testing them on these people they did a test on a dog and it did die. Not sure if more than one dog was given the tablet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supragal Posted March 16, 2006 Author Share Posted March 16, 2006 They were just talking about these pills on the radio and they said prior to testing them on these people they did a test on a dog and it did die. Not sure if more than one dog was given the tablet. I thought that they didn't use dogs because they are so far from humans the results aren't at all reliable. I am no expert though, but feeding dogs lots of things is bad for them that humans can eat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merckx Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I agree it is sad but how is that any better? Animals don't deserve to suffer , why should they! There's an awful lot of scumbags that should suffer for the pain and suffering they've inflicted on others, I'll give them the tablets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Really? Volunteering for a "First Human Dose" clues in the title surely? Don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for these people but unless the pharma company has done something ricoculously stupid they shouldn't even entertain sueing. Its about making lots of money at the end of the day and also saving lives...theres always someone who will be willing to take part..I remember going into my local Job Centre when i was 17/18 in Somerset when i was that age and seeing no jobs...apart from offers of taking part in clinical trials for catching a cold or something...I dont think anyone would expect to die during one of these trials..when i had laser eye treatment to correct my vision..i had to sign about four disclaimers, luckily it was a huge success, but there were a few people that has this done through Boots, signed the disclamers and still managed to sue when it went wrong... I studied the success rate of Ultralase which was better..Boots had the best equipment but the the least experience I also checked the Surgeons CV before I went ahead with it... I know this is a bad comparison and Im sure like me none of us would submit ourselves to be used in an experiment like this..for any amount of money. Im sure this is very unusual and weren't fully aware of the risks..otherwise they wouldn't of taken part. These Drugs companies make £millions in huge profits...I think its only fair disclaimer or not that they compensate the familes and the individuels involved out of good will..as Im sure they will have probs later in life if they survive too! These people are heroes....agreeing to take part...for a measly £2k, donating money to a cancer charity is one thing but to become a human guineepig...is helping us all. I wouldn't do it..but someone has to..and i have known people to die of Luekemia and cancer...so In my view these people should be looked after and compensated in a way that reflects the tramour and risks to life they have taken as should anyone if they take part in such a trial if it all goes tits up... Maybe the drugs comapanies should have some kind of insurance cover (if they dont already) to cater for this kind of eventuality. The sad thing is..this will no-doubt put people off taking part in future... Edit: yep i get the point about being the first...that does turn the tables around a bit I suppose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffvalenti Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 How many trials can you do a year That depends on how your body reacts to the drug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Animals don't deserve to suffer , why should they! There's an awful lot of scumbags that should suffer for the pain and suffering they've inflicted on others, I'll give them the tablets. Good point..they should round up a few child molesters or terrorists...Im all for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew7 Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 They were just talking about these pills on the radio and they said prior to testing them on these people they did a test on a dog and it did die. Not sure if more than one dog was given the tablet. If the present victims were unaware of this fact when they signed up, they may have a case..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bromy Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 You must have to be really desperate to do this:bang: :bang: :bang: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffvalenti Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I'm sorry, but I can't stand this type of thing. If you're stupid enough to allow yourself to be given an unknown drug for £2000, and you die, you're just raising the average intelligence level of the population. I'm sure they wouldn't be complaining if the side effects were a longer dick or bigger tits I can't understand anybody taking unnecessary medication or even undergoing unnecessary "cosmetic" surgery. Taking unknown drugs is stupid in the best of cases, but in certain situations, when maybe it's your last hope, it's understandable. To take them for a lousy 2 grand is just unbelievably idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Rob_ Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I looked at this a couple of years ago when i was at college... the tests range from approx 350 quid up to like 4k iirc. the cheap ones involved go in, sign waivers, take drugs, play pool for a couple of hours, have loads of blood tests taken, then go home. the 4k ones involved staying at the lab for a number of weeks. the company send through upcoming options and you get to pick which test youd like to do. obviously, the only pro was you get paid for doing jack all! the main thing that put me off was the fact that i cannot stand needles! the blood tests woudve kiled me!! i didnt do it in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steviekid Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Unfortunately they said on Radio 2 that they gave one of these tablets to a dog and it did die! Just not fair testing the stuff on defenceless animals. Just because we're superior we don't have any right to inflict suffering and pain on them. Remember that if drugs weren't tested on animals they'd be no treatment for their diseases either. A hell of a lot of drugs are common to both human and veterinary medicine but with different labels. I'm completely against animal testing for the cosmetics industry but drug research on them is a necessary evil IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 or even undergoing unnecessary "cosmetic" surgery. . Well the way things are going....its going to become a High Street Thing...my dentist at Optical express already does botox...Ultralase are doing minor facelifts in and out in a couple of hours...soon Tony and Guy will no-doubt offer this treatment instead of a head massage... I agree Im totally against animal testing for cosmetics or cosmetic surgery...and im not too happy about animal testing for anything really, but you cant avoid using products that have been tested on animals...used to be a great fan of the Bodyshop..would always be willing to pay their prices for hair gel knowing that no animal had to die to make my hair look great... I think this pharmacutical companies are more interested in huge profits than performing medical breakthroughs and because of their competition i would imagine its a race to get these kinds of drugs on the market first so therefore im sure they cut a few corners in order to be first...but at least we have a choice in wether to take part in medical trials i suppose...poor rabbits and other animals dont get a say in it:( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steviekid Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I think this pharmacutical companies are more interested in huge profits than performing medical breakthroughs and because of their competition i would imagine its a race to get these kinds of drugs on the market first That's exactly right. In my experience (from the veterinary side) the first company that brings out the drug that lasts longer or acts faster etc get the market. Even if another company bring out exactly the same drug at a lower price, the doctor/consumer will still buy and trust the original product. You see it every day, the supermarket's own paracetamol etc are EXACTLY the same as the big names that everyones knows, but they still sell less as it's imprinted on peoples minds that they won't be as good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrad Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Sort of a thread hijack, but anyone ever see the Simpsons episode where Barney is in Moe's Tavern? He turns to Homer and says 'Hey Homer, I'm so glad they banned testing drugs on animals cus people like me can really clean up! BUUURRPP' And with that he turns round and the back of his head is mutating into something gross. You have to see it to appreciate it but it's a class gag! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I was in a waiting room today and happened to have a read of the Sun - they made it sound rather nasty for those involved (as they would). Lower your standards here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006120434,00.html The head of trainee plumber Ryan Wilson, 21, is three times its normal size and his limbs are purple. Doctors said his chances of survival were slim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter richards Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 good day for the beagles. theyre all in their kennels enjoying a fag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syed Shah Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Very nasty stuff, and I feel very sorry for those involved in the trial. But really, they should have been aware that drug testing pays for a reason. Your not getting 2k for doing nothing, your getting 2k for risking your health in both the short and long term. When you think of that, it does not seem a lot of money. And if you really do want to put yourself at risk, you can be much better paid doing other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 You take your money, you take your chance. I almost wet myself when I heard it was an anti-inflamatory drug... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgen-Jm-Imports Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 why have disclaimers if they can be broken becuase the trial went wrongand now they want to sue, they knew what they were doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_y3k Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 the testing is fully legislated. When it gets to the point of human trials the drug should not be at risk to life. There is so much legislation that the General Medical council have put in to place. They will be able to sue because the drug company will be deemed not to have carried out sufficent testing prior to going into human trails. just one other thought... these people are dying. We all like to try and make a quick pound now and again, should we really be saying its their own fault for wanting some cash ? Do they really deserve to die for it ? They would of been fully briefed on the drug and I'm sure they were led to belive it had been tested sufficently before being released to this level of testing. Its not that they took a cpl of pills for a wodge of cash in some back alley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattSZ Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 I sure when they signed the forms it probably didn't say side effects may include mutiple organ failure and possible death. Which means they are well within rights to sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.