Rats: Test Results That Don’t Apply to Humans
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Thu May 17, 2012 10:07 am

DarkMoon wrote:

Rats: Test Results That Don't Apply to Humans

Rats are often used in laboratory experiments. The Office of Technology Assessment estimates that between 3.4 and 3.7 million rats are killed annually in research laboratories, and estimates from other sources range as high as 23.6 million every year.1 Rats differ markedly from humans in many respects, making rat experiments difficult to extrapolate to humans.

More on link: http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/04/rats-test-results-that-dont-apply-to-humans/

I totally agree. There are so many studies out there that show the effects of certain substances on rats... take CLA for example. PubMed has a few... how do those substances, concentrations, quantities relate to humans? In some cases, if I were to convert the quantities to get the same effect, humans would have to ingest hundreds of times more of the substance tested on rats... And that's just one aspect of it. I don't think the human body metabolizes all substances the same way that rats do...

free skin care · Fri May 18, 2012 5:01 am

I found this article interesting about animal studies: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000245

Here are some key points I found interesting:

Quote:

Animal experiments have contributed much to our understanding of mechanisms of disease, but their value in predicting the effectiveness of treatment strategies in clinical trials has remained controversial [1]–[3]. In fact, clinical trials are essential because animal studies do not predict with sufficient certainty what will happen in humans. In a review of animal studies published in seven leading scientific journals of high impact, about one-third of the studies translated at the level of human randomised trials, and one-tenth of the interventions, were subsequently approved for use in patients [1]. However, these were studies of high impact (median citation count, 889), and less frequently cited animal research probably has a lower likelihood of translation to the clinic. Depending on one's perspective, this attrition rate of 90% may be viewed as either a failure or as a success, but it serves to illustrate the magnitude of the difficulties in translation that beset even findings of high impact.

Quote:

The disparity between the results of animal models and clinical trials may in part be explained by shortcomings of the clinical trials. For instance, these may have had insufficient statistical power to detect a true benefit of the treatment under study. For practical or commercial purposes, the designs of some clinical trials have also failed to acknowledge the limitations of efficacy observed in animal studies, for example by allowing therapy at later time points when the window of opportunity has passed [10],[11]. Secondly, the failure of apparently promising interventions to translate to the clinic may also be caused by inadequate animal data and overoptimistic conclusions about efficacy drawn from methodologically flawed animal studies. A third possible explanation is the lack of external validity, or generalisability, of some animal models; in other words, that these do not sufficiently reflect disease in humans. Finally, neutral or negative animal studies may be more likely to remain unpublished than neutral clinical trials, giving the impression that the first are more often positive than the second. This article aims to address the possible sources of bias that threaten the internal and external validity of animal studies, to provide solutions to improve the reliability of such studies, and thereby to improve their translation to the clinic.

I've read researchers say it is a BIG LEAP from rats to humans, and to never be overoptimistic! It's always better to be safe than sorry I say! Shock

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:52 pm

I have read so many articles and studies now about testing on rats and mice. I never liked animal testing, but understand that it can be a necessary step in the development of medicines. But somehow I am beginning to feel quite uneasy when I see how many animals are sacrificed in the fight against wrinkles.

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:04 pm

Thanks for this thread, I cannot agree more, how can a 2lb rat have anything in common with a 100lb human Confused

! We definately do not eat the same, sleep the same, HOPEFULLY think the same Laughing

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:57 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

Hairless mice then, they're human too.

Somebody is not seeing a difference of medical needs testing (still s stretch applied to humans) and unnecessary use in the cosmetic industry!

Maybe that is why so many drugs do fine in clinical trials only to prove terrible for humans?

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:56 pm

Formulated stuff doesn't get tested on animals. Ingredients often are or have been.

free skin care · Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:30 am

DarkMoon wrote:

Lotusesther wrote:

Formulated stuff doesn't get tested on animals. Ingredients often are or have been.

Exactly Lotus,

I can remember the "underground" documentaries filmed by a few animal activist groups where it was not just rats and mice but rabbits, cats and dogs being tortured in the name of beauty! Cringe Worthy! Sad

Ugh...

free skin care · Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:54 pm

My point is this is an example of what we put up with and below are examples of other options! Believe as you choose, but some cosmetic companies (and manufactures of raw ingredients) have caved in light of how some feel about the cruelty of the testing on animals.

Q: What animal tests are carried out on cosmetics?
A: Newly-developed raw ingredients may be subject to the same sorts of tests as any other chemicals. This can include skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of rabbits; repeated force-feeding studies lasting weeks or months to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards, such as cancer or birth defects; and even widely condemned “lethal dose” tests, in which animals are forced to swallow massive amounts of a test chemical to determine the dose that causes death. At the end of a test the animals are killed, normally by asphyxiation, neck-breaking or decapitation. Pain relief is not provided. In the United States, a large proportion of the animals used in such testing (such as laboratory-bred rats and mice) are not counted in official statistics and receive no protection under the Animal Welfare Act.

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/qa/questions_answers.html

Same link:

Q: What are the alternatives to animal testing?
A: Cosmetics companies can stop animal testing immediately and still produce new, safe and exciting beauty products by manufacturing the cruelty-free way. Firstly, companies can use ingredients that are already known to be safe, of which there are thousands. These ingredients have been tested in the past and don’t require new testing. This is how so many socially conscious companies have been able to swear off animal testing. Secondly, companies can use non-animal tests where new data need to be generated. More than 40 non-animal tests have been validated for use, and these modern alternatives can offer results that are more relevant to people, often more cheaply and efficiently. Advanced non-animal tests represent the very latest techniques that science has to offer, replacing outdated animal tests that have been around for many decades and haven’t stood the test of time. For example, there are a number of skin tests available that use human reconstructed skin, such as EPISKIN, EpiDerm and SkinEthic, as wells as the 3T3 neutral red uptake test for sunlight-induced “phototoxicity”, and the Bovine Cornea Opacity and Permeability test for eye corrosion.

free skin care · Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:27 am

What good is animal testing anyway, they get all nervous and give the wrong answers...sheesh Poor little creatures.. Sad

free skin care · Sun Jun 17, 2012 10:09 am

Kassy_A wrote:

What good is animal testing anyway, they get all nervous and give the wrong answers...sheesh Poor little creatures.. Sad

OMG thanks for the laugh!!!

free skin care · Sun Jun 17, 2012 11:57 am

DrJ wrote:

Cosmetics generally are tested on humans. That's why many companies can say "not tested on animals". They don't consider humans to be animals. Rolling Eyes

Human volunteers involved in clinical studies are give informed consent; they are able to express any discomfort they experience; they can withdraw by choice at any time; they are not killed and dissected at the end of the experiment.

When a company (like mine) proudly claims that "we don't conduct animal testing" but does conduct human testing, it is not because we don't consider humans to be animals, or in any way are trying to deceive anyone. We simply recognize the significant ethical differences between animal and human testing.

Human testing always produces the most reliable results. It is also far more costly, complicated and risky on the part of the company. Any company that refrains from animal testing in favor of human testing should be praised and supported.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.