PDA

View Full Version : Drug trials


black mirror
March 15th, 2006, 06:22 PM
Story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4808836.stm)


Before a drug is tested in humans, it would have been through laboratory and animal testing.

Surely this means that animal testing is worthless, and that animals have different reactions to humans!!!!

What do you think????

Nick Grana
March 15th, 2006, 06:45 PM
Have you taken part in a drug trial? Am constant in testing drugs.:hmm:
What are you gonna do? You can't just start with humans, so animal testing is a must. People volunteer for these tests knowing, going in, that adverse side effects may occur. Most don't die. It's a big time game with drugs. $$$$$
You can see that some drugs on the market for quite some time eventually leads to atrocious conditions, even deaths.
I'm sure if there was any other way, it would be done, don't you?:cool:

Snurfen
March 15th, 2006, 10:55 PM
This is a really strange story - someone must've have cocked up on a grand scale. Could barely believe it on the news today.
Poor buggers.

Decay
March 15th, 2006, 11:42 PM
The point being these men placed thier lives on the line to test this life saving drug.

The company doesn't even know if it was a error in producing the product... Wouldn't ya think they would have at least ensured that the product was the same they have been testing?

A dog died... Don't you belive that is strong evidence that the drug is not ready for human trial? Call me crazy but when they know that it has the ability to cause death in animals it makes it at the least man slaughter at most murder if these men do not survive

If the doctors can not determine the cause of death the person who gave the men the drug should be held responsible. He should have ensured everything was proper before allowing the test to proceed...

dammit
March 15th, 2006, 11:52 PM
Lab testing comes first... then animal testing. Which in my opinion is the correct way to go. Who really cares if a rat dies during testing? After all they wouldn't have been alive in the first place if animal testing didn't exist. (they are bred for the purpose)

Human testing is the final one.. taken on by willing volunteers who are paid to do it. Probably 99.9% of the time everything goes fine.. they must be pretty damn sure that the drug is "safe" before unleashing it on humans.

This just seems to be a tragedy and a freak accident which no-one could have predicted.

Snurfen
March 16th, 2006, 12:42 PM
Unless it was lack of "due dilligence" on the part of the team preparing the trial batch.

black mirror
March 16th, 2006, 12:59 PM
I bet the 2 who were given the placebo are thanking their lucky stars

dohray
March 16th, 2006, 04:05 PM
I have been involved with testing with Simbec at Merthyr for various trials. We all have extensive medicals for a few months leading up to the trials. Also, you are aware of any dangers and sign consent forms. There is also the question of the amount of payment. As a rule of thumb, it's the highest payment for a course equals the biggest danger.

Yes, you are guinea pigs bit you are well aware of possible side-effects. One volunteer said something along the lines of he though it was going to be easy money. Well, generally it is (if you like donating pints of blood and being probed at regular intervals).

People are squealing now because they can smell compensation.

dammit
March 16th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Common sense to me would be to inject ONE guy first and watch for problems. Not six all at the same time. :hmm:

Nick Grana
March 16th, 2006, 05:19 PM
inject ONE guy first and watch for problems
That would not work at all. All drugs have different effects on many people. They have to get enough people in the trial to compensate for the different effects have on a watched group. Even today, so many drugs have many different effects on certain people. That's why you see the label on drugs list percentages of a certain effect it had on some people. When the percentages are very low, you still may be the one it affects. If anyone in the trial test has any adverse symptoms in the slightest way, it will be put down as side effects at the percentages it may affect.
I know you all know this but I couldn't stop my fingers.:D

DELTREE
March 16th, 2006, 05:54 PM
For those that want to test drugs that is up to them, for me NO Thanks!
NO Money in the world is going to help you if you DIE or be SICK for the rest of your life.:disgust:
MY POINT OF VIEW!

Nick Grana
March 16th, 2006, 06:26 PM
Point taken and totally agree. That's why you and I never receive letters to be guinea pigs.:D Most do it for the money (low income or worse) and I appreciate their postion. Someone has to do it and volunteers are the best.
Court ordered deathrow inmates wouldn't be right.:cool:

black mirror
March 16th, 2006, 06:45 PM
Their age is the only plus in their favour
As they are all young and healthy their chances might be better for a full recovery.
The lawyers are hovering like vultures waiting to take the drugs company to the cleaners, but i wonder what you have to sign before you start the trials......

It will be interesting to follow what happens and i hope they all make a full recovery because without volunteers we might not have some of the life saving drugs available today

Nick Grana
March 16th, 2006, 07:28 PM
:thumbsup: BM.
Clinical Trial (http://www.emergingmed.com/pub_AboutClinicalTrials.asp)s
Good info although question: "People who participate in clinical trials are not guinea pigs." I guess interruption is relevant.:cool:

uripyores
March 16th, 2006, 10:01 PM
I saw one of the agrreements they had to sign beforehand and it said, amongst other things, that they accepted that there could be side effects "including life-threatening risks". :eek:
Also, there was a scientist/doctor on the news saying they should have been injected at hourly intervals and not all at the same time.

Snurfen
March 17th, 2006, 10:07 AM
If we ever hear the full story, I'm begining to believe it was a cock-up at the administration end, like you say uri.
Someone along the line either wasn't 100% sure of what they were doing, or plain and simple got it wrong.

uripyores
March 17th, 2006, 12:42 PM
prolly SNAFU then, as they say. :dizzy: :disgust:

Snurfen
March 18th, 2006, 12:09 AM
more like FUBAR methinks (and who syas the Americans haven't added to our culture) :rotflmao:

Nick Grana
March 18th, 2006, 02:45 AM
Yeah Snurf, you must have seen 'Saving Pvt. Ryan' to even know FUBAR.:D

Snurfen
March 18th, 2006, 02:03 PM
Standard handover from my boss a few years back. Ex-Us Navy . He trained folk how to drive nuclear reactors, and taught us limeys a few top notch acronyms.

Great film Pvt Ryan, but wasnt too keen on that follow up, Shaving Ryans Pvts. Not what I was expecting at all :eek:

black mirror
March 18th, 2006, 02:04 PM
:D Standard handover from my boss a few years back. Ex-Us Navy . He trained folk how to drive nuclear reactors, and taught us limeys a few top notch acronyms.

Great film Pvt Ryan, but wasnt too keen on that follow up, Shaving Ryans Pvts. Not what I was expecting at all :eek:

Not as good as Full Metal Jacket though

Snurfen
March 18th, 2006, 02:09 PM
"Happy Birthday dear Jesus" absolute cinematic genius, that scene.