top 87 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 57 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

(not mice), but Fancy Rats are extremely susceptible to tumors. It sucks. More rats I've owned have died of either cancer or respiratory illnesses than old age.

Bonus shot of my boy Finn:

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 139 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (22 children)

    In the long run, using mice to test human medicines will result in selection pressure for humans whose physiology more and more closely resembles mice.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    they use a lot of other things… including living human cancer cells in a petri dish

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I believe the vast majority of cultivated human cells are cancerous cells anyway.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    when researching cancer drugs, yeah

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Actually it's used in everything, it's available, it's well studied, it's cheap, and most importantly it grows fast in a lab, so it's easy to work with....

    I wish I was joking, but lots of in vitro human research is done on the poor women's cancer cells when the research has nothing to do with cancer, it's quite the confounder

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That's not how evolution works though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Assuming that

    • human phenotypic traits that correlate more closely with mouse traits have more-predictable outcomes with mouse-tested medicine, and

    • more-predictable medical outcomes correlate with higher survival and reproductive rates,

    can’t you plug that straight into the Price equation?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Mice, notorious for having evolved to suit unclean conditions and being able to survive as carriers of disease and parasites will definitely have a different set of evolved resistances and immunities to us. It's pretty ludacris science believes them to be a good point of comparison.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    It's just an early testing phase, more of an "ok, this drug kind of did what we want in mice, and the mice didn't explode. It's time to move to the next stage of testing on something more human analogue, like a pig."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The whole concept of “curing cancer” is such a trope. Cancer is a condition, and it annoys the fuck out of me that people treat it as one disease like measles or the flu.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Or it worked too well on mice and stopped regular cells from dividing.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    We know a bunch of ways to kill cancer cells. Unfortunately, we usually want to avoid killing the non-cancerous ones, which is considerably harder to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Just like with antibiotics. When Penicilin was originally tested, they happened to test it on just the right animals. One kind of standard lab animals would have just died from that stuff.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I mean, there are like dozens of different types of cancers, so we probably have missed some of them.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    imo, there's no single "cure" for cancer, because it's not a single disease

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    There are preventative measures but they’re all based on the rich not poisoning everyone for profit.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They're cooking up human organoids just for that.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The crazy thing is we actually do have things that work in humans but not in mice. Mice are omnivores and are very different in terms of optimal energy state. They tend to run in glucose more easily than on fat and their whole biology is built to be small and fast, with short life spans.

    Checking how DNA repair works in an animal which lives for maybe 2 years is great for understanding DNA repair in short lived organisms, but we have tk repair damage for 50 times as long. It is just so much more complex and requires such different tools when you switch from maybe 2 years to maybe 80 years, it really isn't sane to assume it will all carry over.

    Now for an accute toxin, say tobacco, sure, some things work just fine. There is not a huge difference between humans and mice when subjected to cyanide or arsenic. Being crushed by a falling piano is going to kill both of us. But a chronic poison? That will take decades to kill? That is very different. We can shed cells in a different way to how they can. We have more mass to store things. We have more energy storage. We have bigger kidneys with more opportunities for filtering. We are different.

    When we enter ketosis we have some fairly significant cancer responses. When we maintain fasting for 5+ days we have a fairly large bump in autophagy, a state where the body kills off and recycles damaged cells. This state can cause some types of cancer to be more obvious to our immune systems and allow the tumor to be attacked. In some cases otherwise inoperable tumors can be removed after shrinking them through fasting. This does not replicate in mice. So yes, some treatments (not cures because that doesn't really apply) do work in humans and not in mice.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    When we maintain fasting for 5+ days we have a fairly large bump in autophagy, a state where the body kills off and recycles damaged cells. This state can cause some types of cancer to be more obvious to our immune systems and allow the tumor to be attacked. In some cases otherwise inoperable tumors can be removed after shrinking them through fasting.

    Cancer cells can't metabolize fat, when your fasting and in ketosis your body is only supplying fat and the cancer has nothing to eat (mostly, there is some glucose produced as a baseline)

    I.E. fasting slows down the cancer energy rate so that the immune system can start catching up.

    This is why the press-pulse cancer protocol uses deep ketosis and fasting in addition to supreasing the bodies glucose production. I.e. never adding external sugar into the body at all during treatment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The strongest risk factor of human cancer is age. Wild mice live 6-9 months.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Yep, and surviving longer increases cancer rates. Cancer used to be a death sentence, now it is far less so. Many cancers which were a short time from death at diagnosis are now routine to remove or fix. Others that were soon fatal have 5 year survival over 90%, and some are even higher.

    We haven't cured cancer just like we haven't cured industrial accidents, but honestly, so few people are eaten by hungry machines and left disfigured that it is likely you know less than a handful. Not cured but reduced to a much more manageable level.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Or it was too cheap to duplicate so there was no profit in it…

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Also who is out there making sure all of these incredible discoveries are accessible to mice more broadly, outside the labs?

    This IS happening, right?

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Otoh, mice have never been healthier.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I wonder if we could one day grow miniature human bodies (not conscious ones) to use for these tests. Mice are a lot different to humans.

  • source
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (16 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So what, we just test things in a dish and then hope it works in a complex organism? Because the other alternative is human testing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The funny thing about this very dumb take, is if the people who believed it followed through, the idea would eventually die out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    And animal testing regardless of the benefit humans may receive is morally wrong.

    You can say whatever you want, but just because you feel it really hard doesnt mean it will be convincing to other people.

    In this particular case, I think animal testing is moral as fuck, because why in the fuck would I possibly value animal lives even close to that of a human or myself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Because I care about me more than any other animal.

    If someone tried to kill you, would you just let them or not?

    Any sane answer says you value you more than someone else.

    Its crazy you find this opinion applied to animals to be offensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yup, that sounds crazy AF.

    Its a wonder you think you'll convert anyone just by sounding batshit insane.

    I'm human. You think I would think my own species matters less than a different one? No other species thinks differently, why would we feel any different, especially given our massively different capabilities thought wise?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I know I won’t change anyone’s mind.

    So why are you spouting off about it? To what end?

    What other species kills at the level humans do? The shear fact you mention our capabilities proves my point; we do horrible things when we have the capability to choose not to.

    This could apply for so many things, but not testing for medical purposes. Thats you being irrationally idealistic past the point of stupidity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago*

    Your philosophy is antithetical to existence.

    Being alive kills other things, nature is competition. From bacteria and viruses in your body constantly being killed, to animals in the food supply (even veggies and croplands have pest control), just living in a safe community relies on the killing of other life: removing dangerous animals from the community, keeping pests out of food stores, keeping the water clean (kills water based life)

    The phone you are using is at the end of a very complicated supply chain that mines resources from the earth, which requires killing animals... Moving resources across the earth, which requires killing animals (fish hit by boats, animals run over by cars, birds hit by trucks, pest control in all the production and storage facilities), etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    This is one of the reasons why animal testing is not worth the torture the animals go through

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I don't think that follows logically...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    The fact that we are not the animals they test on so they can never guarantee it'll react to humans the same way it does to the animals? That doesn't follow logically?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    It is theoretically possible that we are basal in such away that mice are derived given a certain ailment, that a treatment doesn't work on mice. However we are so damn closely related to mice that probability is vanishingly small, and in such cases where it is known about, they actually genetically modify the mouse to account for it.

    They used to do fertility tests on hamster ovum to see if a human male's sperm was viable. We are fucking close enough to hamsters a human sperm can cause a hamster ovum to start to divide.

    Granted, I will agree with you: much animal testing is fucking horrific and deplorable. But it is generally reliable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No, it does not. Saying we might not find x treatment because it didn't work on mice says absolutely nothing about the actual efficacy of testing on mice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    It does if it diverts attention away from other potential cures, not to mention making the animals' sacrifices even more in vain

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    How can we develop therapeutics without animal testing? Genuinely asking your thoughts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm not the expert but it seems naive to think animal testing is the one and only way. It's just an already established norm with some regions requiring it for eligibility of sale, that's why it's still as prevalent as it is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment