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 6:55 am

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/

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 · Thu May 17, 2012 10:10 am

fitgineer wrote:

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...

This is a pet peeve of mine with many studies and abstracts. I realize tests can't be done on humans but still agree with all you said!!!

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 May 18, 2012 6:56 am

egyptiangoddess wrote:

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

My thoughts exactly EG! Thanks for the link to another study! Smile

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:43 pm

It is strange how often studies on hairless mice and lab rats are posted to convince us that what works on them will apply to us! Confused

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 12:57 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

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.

I agree Lotus,

What makes it worse to me is what I read in the article, these tests really don't apply to humans in so many ways!

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 1:28 pm

Ok but seriously animal testing isn't done on skincare anymore, right? Crying or Very sad

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:32 pm

Tiny wrote:

Ok but seriously animal testing isn't done on skincare anymore, right? Crying or Very sad

I think some companies still do, I try to remember to always check for the "we do no testing on animals" on products and websites!

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:49 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

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.

Wrinkle studies aren't done in rats. They don't get wrinkles unless they have diseases or genetic abnormalities. Maybe because they live in labs away from sunlight, and are hairy. Like some of my colleagues.

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:53 pm

Hairless mice then, they're human too.

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:54 pm

You should be thankful for all those rats. Without them we would be in the pre-antibiotic era, and our human life expectancy would be 1/2 what it is today. I can guarantee you that every major drug and every surgical procedure and device now available went through a pre-clinical (animal) phase.

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:55 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Tiny wrote:

Ok but seriously animal testing isn't done on skincare anymore, right? Crying or Very sad

I think some companies still do, I try to remember to always check for the "we do no testing on animals" on products and websites!

What is worse - animal testing, or no testing at all? Products released with no preclinical or clinical trials?

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 2:04 pm

I didn't say I am against animal testing for medicines, don't twist my words dr J.

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:09 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

I didn't say I am against animal testing for medicines, don't twist my words dr J.

Where did I say you were?

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:09 pm

DrJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Tiny wrote:

Ok but seriously animal testing isn't done on skincare anymore, right? Crying or Very sad

I think some companies still do, I try to remember to always check for the "we do no testing on animals" on products and websites!

What is worse - animal testing, or no testing at all? Products released with no preclinical or clinical trials?

Funny some COSMETIC companies manage to not test on any animals!

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:13 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

DrJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Tiny wrote:

Ok but seriously animal testing isn't done on skincare anymore, right? Crying or Very sad

I think some companies still do, I try to remember to always check for the "we do no testing on animals" on products and websites!

What is worse - animal testing, or no testing at all? Products released with no preclinical or clinical trials?

Funny some COSMETIC companies manage to not test on any animals!

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

free skin care · Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:18 pm

DrJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

DrJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Tiny wrote:

Ok but seriously animal testing isn't done on skincare anymore, right? Crying or Very sad

I think some companies still do, I try to remember to always check for the "we do no testing on animals" on products and websites!

What is worse - animal testing, or no testing at all? Products released with no preclinical or clinical trials?

Funny some COSMETIC companies manage to not test on any animals!

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

Really they don't test on animals, catch up on your research here are a few to keep you occupied:

http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_test.htm

http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/PDF/companiesdotest.pdf

http://www.idausa.org/facts/costesting.html

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 10:11 am

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

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 10:37 am

egyptiangoddess wrote:

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...

Yep! Heartbreaking!!!! Sad

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.