[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Japanese research on LDI therapy for Type II diabetes [FW]

John,
    I believe the legislation you refer to is the so-called "Delaney clause" circa 1957 which mandated pretty much what you describe. This was the landmark policy that officially sanctioned a non-scientific basis for formulation of health and safety regulations and began the trend we are seeing today. Substances are labeled and regulated as carcinogens based on the Ames test which I believe uses yeasts (or some form of single-celled critters) as the test animal. 
    No wonder the opinions of movie actors and rock stars carry equal or greater influence than those of scientists. It is the will of Congress.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Japanese research on LDI therapy for Type II diabetes [FW]

Jerry,

I am not sure that I agree with your statement.  You hear constantly about drugs tested in animals that "show great promise" for human treatment.  It is amazing the number that you never hear about again.  (My comment to these is the same, "what does this have to do with humans.") It is clear that in many cases results in animal test may not relate to humans due to genetic and physiology factors.  There is an interesting article on animal testing and human cancers at http://www.idausa.org/ir/reports/cancer.htm and the use of mice can be found at http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/Animal_Alternatives/cancer.htm (These sites appear to be anti-vivisectioning, but I think the basic information is interesting.)  Animal testing is a stepping stone to human testing which must be done.  The "gold standard" is, does it work in humans? 

The basis for regulating against substances that cause harmful effects in animals I think goes back to a law passed in the 1960s call the Sullivan Act (I am probably wrong about the circa and actual legislation, and I hope someone will correct me on these.)  It said that any toxin that could cancer in animals required legislation to protect humans.  This predates the EPA, but the philosophy is still there.  Of course, this is really not very scientific.  You can put a dime or egg yoke under a mouse's skin and cause cancer.  Believe me, I have been saying for years "what does this have to do with humans?"

 Jerry Cohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:

How come when studies find something is harmful to laboratory animals, we assume it is also harmful to humans  and pass laws and regulations to protect people from it, but when a positive effect is observed we ask, "what does this have to do with humans?"
. . .


-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online