Animal Rights

Animal Studies Ignored

| by Dr Ray Greek

As I said in my previous blog, I agree that aspartame is safe. That was not the point of the blog. My point was that different animals reacted differently and that is true. I pulled two studies off PubMed in about 5 minutes. There are others. Another one stated that the bladder was affected in one species, I forget which one. Not all the studies are perfect; indeed not all the human studies are perfect. But that does not diminish my point that different animal studies gave conflicting results. I can provide, and have provided in some of the books, long lists of drugs that adversely affected species A but not species B.

This leads me to the following.

A story from FierceBiotech: The Biotech Industry’s daily Monitor titled: Arena shares dive ahead of expert panel meeting states the following:

Arena Pharmaceuticals' stock was hit hard today [9-14-2010] as FDA staffers expressed concern about the company's weight loss drug lorcaserin. Preclinical data in rats show the drug was linked to "valvular heart disease, neuro-psychiatric and cognitive-related adverse events, and preclinical tumor development," according to TheStreet. The FDA notes, however, than an increased cancer risk wasn't apparent in the 7,000 subjects who participated in Arena's clinical trials.

The article continues but what I found interesting was the fact that despite the drug causing "valvular heart disease, neuro-psychiatric and cognitive-related adverse events, and preclinical tumor development," in rats, it still went to human trials. Makes me wonder whether the FDA and the drug companies actually believe the animal findings. Actually, it doesn’t, as I know the drug companies do not believe the animal data but must perform the studies anyway. I wonder if this will convince the vivisection activists who campaign for vivisection based on its predictive ability?

Vivisection activists like David Gorski who on May 10, 2010 stated that: “the correlation between cell culture studies is even more unreliable than that of animal studies.” I responded on May 11 with the following:

Hi David

Nice article. Thanks for the summary! One question. You state: “the correlation between cell culture studies is even more unreliable than that of animal studies.” If you have the time, could you provide some references for that. As you know I am interested in the subject.
Thanks!
Ray

Day 95 and still no response. Wonder why? Could it be that a contributor to Science-Based Medicine has no science to back up his position?