# Five British Labs Use Horses in Experiments, Claims Animal Right



## Fenris (8 April 2016)

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/...horses-experiments-claims-animal-rights-group

Five British Labs Use Horses in Experiments, Claims Animal Rights Group
Wed, 04/06/2016 - 3:11pm
Seth Augenstein, Digital Reporter


Five laboratories in the United Kingdom have been using retired racehorses and ponies in medical experiments, an animal-rights group claims.

More than 8,000 experiments were carried out on the animals in 2014, according to Cruelty Free International, a group formerly known as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.

The experiments have previously involved applying sources of pain to measure the efficacy of painkillers on the animals. Other potential uses are surgically removing glands and testing different in utero effects on unborn foals, according to the animal-rights group.

However, no allegations of illegality were made by the organization.
Which innovative new product has been a game-changer this year? Tell us & win! Learn More

We believe the public will be horrified to learn that these majestic animals are subjected to such cruel experiments here in the UK, said Michelle Thew, the chief executive of CFI. Just as disturbing is the revelations that there are no restrictions regarding where the laboratories can obtain these animals.

The laboratories  the University of Cambridge, the Royal Veterinary College, the Animal Health Trust, the University of Bristol, and the University of Liverpool  all are able to acquire the horses from private owners, like racing enthusiasts and farmers. This is different than other animals used in UK research, which need to be expressly bred for research purposes.

A University of Cambridge spokesperson released a statement to Laboratory Equipment that the school was in compliance  and had stopped using horses for scientific testing.

"We place good welfare at the center of all our animal research and aim to meet the highest standards, they stated. "We only use a small number of horses in research, and have used none since those reported in our 2011 Home Office return.

"Animal research plays an essential role in our understanding of health and disease and in the development of new medicines, antibiotics, vaccines and surgical techniques for both human and veterinary medicine," the school added.

Last year, the European Commission rejected a petition that asked for the complete halt of animal testing in the European Union.

In the United States, the number of animals used in experiments that are protected under the Animal Welfare Act has reached a historic low. However, the number of mice and other non-protected animals has grown exponentially over several years.


----------



## ycbm (8 April 2016)

How else are we supposed to find out what the effects are of new drugs to be used on our horses?

Surely no-one would use an expensive to keep animal that is nothing at all like a human to test human medication. It must be for animal medication, probably horse.

Would you rather these clinical trials were carried out in China or India?


----------



## Clodagh (8 April 2016)

Much as I hate the thought of any animal being used for experiments, the horses nervous system and it's feeling of pain is the same as monkeys/rats/dogs/mice/ all mammals, so the fact that it is a horse is fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## case895 (8 April 2016)

So?


----------



## MotherOfChickens (8 April 2016)

deleted. should know better than to rise to it!


----------



## JFTDWS (8 April 2016)

It's disgraceful isn't it?  Doing important scientific research at Vet Schools to make advances in equine veterinary medicine, to extremely high welfare standards.  We should ban it totally and drive it all overseas where we can't regulate it.  That makes so much sense


----------



## Emily99 (9 April 2016)

JFTD said:



			It's disgraceful isn't it?  Doing important scientific research at Vet Schools to make advances in equine veterinary medicine, to extremely high welfare standards.  We should ban it totally and drive it all overseas where we can't regulate it.  That makes so much sense 

Click to expand...

They don't have barns of ex-racehorses etc. This will also include things they do do such as extra tests on bloods initially taken for diagnostic reasons etc.


----------



## JFTDWS (9 April 2016)

Emily99 said:



			They don't have barns of ex-racehorses etc. This will also include things they do do such as extra tests on bloods initially taken for diagnostic reasons etc.
		
Click to expand...

I doubt it - far more than 5 labs in the UK will use equine blood / tissue.  Five using live horses sounds about right to me.    I wonder if it also includes CAL / biomechanic research.

Though I'm not really sure why you've quoted me as your post carries no relation to mine.


----------



## hibshobby (9 April 2016)

How on earth do you think the vaccines for tetanus and equine flu were developed and manufactured ? So they use horses, so what ? Humans are used for clinical trials too.


----------



## JFTDWS (9 April 2016)

hibshobby said:



			How on earth do you think the vaccines for tetanus and equine flu were developed and manufactured ? So they use horses, so what ? Humans are used for clinical trials too.
		
Click to expand...

Plus any potential vaccines for other equine conditions (foal pneumonia, infectious anaemia etc).  The Lees trials into bute toxicity in ponies were done at the RVC in the 80s and they're pretty important re safe dosing etc.  There are any number of incredibly important studies which require live equine subjects.  Nobody likes it, but there's no alternative.


----------



## MagicMelon (9 April 2016)

I dont agree in animal testing personally. Yes, once it gets to a certain level then they can conduct trials but these should be IMO as straight forward as human trialling new drugs - not cutting up pieces of live animal or doing horrific pain-causing things to them (which we do not do to humans). I dont know how anyone could agree with that, would you put your own horses forward for this testing?  Doubt it.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (9 April 2016)

MagicMelon said:



			but these should be IMO as straight forward as human trialling new drugs
		
Click to expand...

they are!




MagicMelon said:



			not cutting up pieces of live animal or doing horrific pain-causing things to them (which we do not do to humans).
		
Click to expand...

you obviously have no idea what goes into a license application/plan or how tightly it is regulated in the UK.


----------



## JFTDWS (9 April 2016)

MagicMelon said:



			I dont agree in animal testing personally. Yes, once it gets to a certain level then they can conduct trials but these should be IMO as straight forward as human trialling new drugs - not cutting up pieces of live animal or doing horrific pain-causing things to them (which we do not do to humans). I dont know how anyone could agree with that, would you put your own horses forward for this testing?
		
Click to expand...

No but I have used animals in research.  Not horses, but I could have, if I'd continued in that field.  It's incredibly difficult to get in vivo research licensed - there are ethical boards to consider, and funding which will only be available for expensive live animal work if the research is really likely to be useful.  Nobody does it for fun, or because they get a kick out of causing pain to animals for no reason...


----------



## ycbm (9 April 2016)

MagicMelon said:



			I dont agree in animal testing personally. Yes, once it gets to a certain level then they can conduct trials but these should be IMO as straight forward as human trialling new drugs - not cutting up pieces of live animal or doing horrific pain-causing things to them (which we do not do to humans). I dont know how anyone could agree with that, would you put your own horses forward for this testing?  Doubt it.
		
Click to expand...

Do you believe that they use an animal as expensive and difficult to keep as a horse when it isn't essential?


----------



## Buddy'sMum (9 April 2016)

MagicMelon said:



			I dont agree in animal testing personally. .
		
Click to expand...

And you are entitled to your opinion. I hope you never need any medicines, vaccines or antibiotics.


----------



## Ditchjumper2 (9 April 2016)

The majority of drugs that keep people alive were tested on animals...that is how it works. I for one, would not be here otherwise. There is no alternative and as long as it is conducted correctly and rigourously checked I do not see the problem. How else do you think it works?


----------



## stencilface (9 April 2016)

I hate it, bit accept t in the UK with high standards for medical treatment research.

I try my hardest to avoid giving money to ANY companies using animals for cosmetics.


----------



## popsdosh (12 April 2016)

Buddy'sMum said:



			And you are entitled to your opinion. I hope you never need any medicines, vaccines or antibiotics.
		
Click to expand...

Or even worse  their horse does! I am assuming MM doesnt ride either?


----------



## ester (12 April 2016)

I bet it does include use for gait testing etc- many of which are student projects. They also provide handling experience for students and as on site blood donors when required. I did my PhD at bristol and they were perfectly happy normal horses with regular turnout. I can't think of any horrific pain causing things they were involved in. 
They use pigs quite a bit too as piglets are the best substitute for human neonates and given how intelligent they are I'd see them on a par.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (12 April 2016)

and don't forget, that these experimental horses won't be kept individually, won't have food withheld like those poor sods kept in stables with no hay from midnight, will have space (barns or paddocks), shelter and not kept in mud pits. The are not permitted to be lame/snotty/have a temp and then not have a vet called out 'to see how they do'. Better kept than quite a lot of privately kept horses I have seen on forums and FB in the last few months. 

And generally speaking, if a study is looking at a new type of painkiller, it would be tested against the existing gold standard painkiller-not the absence of painkiller if the pain is expected to be anything other than very low (ie the sort of pain that some would give 1/2 bute for and then go riding).


----------



## cobgoblin (12 April 2016)

Yep...and human drugs are tested on humans, shock horror!


----------



## fatpiggy (12 April 2016)

It is true that ponies are supplied sometimes to research institutes - there was a big hoo-ha here in Manchester 3 or 4 years ago as they were going to PTS at the end of the tests and were young animals (under 4yo). I think all were taken by a local sanctuary.  In universities, every last mouse required has to be accounted for when research funding is being sought and the numbers used has dropped dramatically over the years.  People who work in research labs haven't got TIME to torment animals or be cruel and most invasive procedures are carried out under anaesthetic and the animal euthanized if necessary before it comes round.  The animals have to be kept healthy before the testing begins as they don't want the outcome of the tests to be corrupted by external factors.  I don't particularly like the use of animals for experiments, but accept that it is a necessary evil and don't see it as any worse than the average farm animals' life. What I do object to is the use of animals for cosmetic testing.  But I bet 90% of the population doesn't give a single thought about that when they buy the shampoo that gives them the bounciest hair, or glossiest lips. I've volunteered for low some level medical research over the years. The most painful paid a vets bill and I still have the scars to show for it!   Some animals are donated to veterinary colleges and become invaluable in potential saving the lives of others.  I used to refer to my own mare as a lab rat because she was treated with a drug that wasn't licenced for horses and now others have been given the same chance of a life as a result of her success.


----------



## Goldenstar (12 April 2016)

I have have no idea what alternative there is to testing on horses things that are to be used on horses .


----------



## applecart14 (14 April 2016)

There was a similar post on the forum a few months ago. I wrote that there were horses who were used in experiments and then PTS afterwards and also horses used for the same purpose for research.  I was shot down in flames by a number of users and told that this simply didn't happen anymore and that I had made things up. 

I gave up trying to explain in the end......you can't win with some people.

Only yesterday I came across the article I was trying to provide and couldn't find, for the last debate.  All horses were euthanized after twelve months of the study following the procedure for ethyl fusion/chemical arthrodesis.


----------



## ester (14 April 2016)

The ones PTS would usually be those that you needed to PM afterwards in order to investigate whether something had actually worked as imaging can only go so far.


----------



## fburton (14 April 2016)

applecart14 said:



			Only yesterday I came across the article I was trying to provide and couldn't find, for the last debate.  All horses were euthanized after twelve months of the study following the procedure for ethyl fusion/chemical arthrodesis.
		
Click to expand...

Is that the one you posted about last month? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16649921)

Sadly this study would have been considerably poorer if it hadn't included the gross tissue examination and histology.


----------



## MotherOfChickens (14 April 2016)

applecart14 said:



			There was a similar post on the forum a few months ago. I wrote that there were horses who were used in experiments and then PTS afterwards and also horses used for the same purpose for research.  I was shot down in flames by a number of users and told that this simply didn't happen anymore and that I had made things up. 

I gave up trying to explain in the end......you can't win with some people.

Only yesterday I came across the article I was trying to provide and couldn't find, for the last debate.  All horses were euthanized after twelve months of the study following the procedure for ethyl fusion/chemical arthrodesis.
		
Click to expand...

experimental animals are generally euthanased after a study it's true-the emphasis being on humanely euthanased. Some horses will be too as there are very strict rules about accountability etc in testing and some have to be for PM data. But afaik for those in efficacy/drug testing for wormers etc, many are rehomed-and these would be hill ponies that might have spent months going round bottom end sales rings etc. 


every time there is a scare/threat about some midge-borne disease, posters are up in arms that 'scientists' havent come up with a vaccine yet. If it ever came to pass that the threat became a real one you can bet your life 'scientists' will be blamed and it will be 'scientists' that come up with the answer-if they're allowed to bloody test on the species they are trying to help. 

Arguably there are diseases of horses in the UK whereby research has definitely been handicapped by not using a horse model-or another animal model of some sort. Noone's had the stomach to do it quite apart from the fact noone's had the money.


----------



## hairycob (14 April 2016)

Last couple of years I have been bloody grateful for veterinary research.  Grateful to the extent I organised a fund raiser to help.


----------



## applecart14 (14 April 2016)

hairycob said:



			Last couple of years I have been bloody grateful for veterinary research.  Grateful to the extent I organised a fund raiser to help.
		
Click to expand...

I am not against animal experimentation in some forms.  

If animals were not experimented on many of us would not be alive today, most probably me included. So whilst I am not against animal experimentation for medical purposes, the use of animals for putting shampoo in their eyes and other make up, etc is totally irrelevant and unnecessary in my book.

Horses used for experimentation will benefit other horses and for that reason it is a good thing.


----------



## applecart14 (14 April 2016)

fburton said:



			Is that the one you posted about last month? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16649921)

Sadly this study would have been considerably poorer if it hadn't included the gross tissue examination and histology.
		
Click to expand...

It was a very old study and I am sure there are many more since then that are more up to date and go into greater detail.


----------



## ester (14 April 2016)

applecart14 said:



			I am not against animal experimentation in some forms.  

If animals were not experimented on many of us would not be alive today, most probably me included. So whilst I am not against animal experimentation for medical purposes, the use of animals for putting shampoo in their eyes and other make up, etc is totally irrelevant and unnecessary in my book.

.
		
Click to expand...

Why on earth would someone use a horse as a model for that!? There are much much cheaper mammal options!


----------



## applecart14 (18 April 2016)

ester said:



			Why on earth would someone use a horse as a model for that!? There are much much cheaper mammal options!
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say they would Ester. I was talking about animal experiments in general.


----------



## fatpiggy (19 April 2016)

ester said:



			Why on earth would someone use a horse as a model for that!? There are much much cheaper mammal options!
		
Click to expand...

No-one ever said they did.  It was animals being used for cosmetic tests, not horses specifically.  Wouldn't surprise me if they didn't stick horse shampoo in them though


----------



## MurphysMinder (19 April 2016)

JFTD said:



			It's disgraceful isn't it?  Doing important scientific research at Vet Schools to make advances in equine veterinary medicine, to extremely high welfare standards.  We should ban it totally and drive it all overseas where we can't regulate it.  That makes so much sense 

Click to expand...

Well said.   How on earth do people think the innovative treatment that is now available to us is developed?


----------



## Alec Swan (19 April 2016)

JFTD said:



			It's disgraceful isn't it?  Doing important scientific research at Vet Schools to make advances in equine veterinary medicine, to extremely high welfare standards.  We should ban it totally and drive it all overseas where we can't regulate it.  That makes so much sense 

Click to expand...




MurphysMinder said:



			Well said.   How on earth do people think the innovative treatment that is now available to us is developed?
		
Click to expand...

Obviously,  and considering that (I suspect!) the bulk of research on equine medicines are carried out by private companies who will have to get their drugs licensed by the VMD,  so the testing can only be done on horses.  Logical,  however distasteful.

A question for JFTD;  Considering the drug Mycotil which is now only licensed for direct use by a qualified vet,  I wonder how they discovered the risk attached to it when it came in to contact with humans.  Mycotil WILL kill a human being at half the dosage which is given to a sheep.  Quite why I'm unsure,  but in cases of pneumonia in livestock,  there is still little which is as effective.  As I say though,  it's invariably lethal should it accidentally be applied to humans.  Any thoughts as to why?

Alec.


----------



## ester (19 April 2016)

presumably someone died?


----------



## Alec Swan (19 April 2016)

ester said:



			presumably someone died? 

Click to expand...

There are those who've used the drug to top themselves and professionals mostly.  So yes,  you'd be right,  but I still wonder if during 'testing or trials' there wasn't at least some testing of accidental self administration.

Alec.


----------



## ester (19 April 2016)

Well it seems as if some people experience some unwanted myocardial effects post accidental self administration that would have been reported, then they went back and did some more lethal dose studies on a variety of animals. 
from 1992 ' Owing to the concern of governmental regulatory agencies over the possibility of an accidental injection of the antibiotic to a livestock handler, the cardiovascular effects of sub lethal doses of TM were evaluated in conscious mixed-breed dogs' 
Obviously you aren't going to actually investigate lethal dose in humans, just compile reports of accidents.


----------



## ester (19 April 2016)

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v38je06.htm

table 1, note the very low lethal dose (LD) for the rhesus monkey so I would imagine it was always on a watch list.
 Monkeys given
    20 mg/kg vomited during the first day but were subsequently normal.
    The single monkey given 30 mg/kg vomited, exhibited hypoactivity,
    laboured respiration, vocalization and ataxia, and died within 2
    hours.


----------



## JFTDWS (19 April 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			A question for JFTD;  Considering the drug Mycotil which is now only licensed for direct use by a qualified vet,  I wonder how they discovered the risk attached to it when it came in to contact with humans.  Mycotil WILL kill a human being at half the dosage which is given to a sheep.  Quite why I'm unsure,  but in cases of pneumonia in livestock,  there is still little which is as effective.  As I say though,  it's invariably lethal should it accidentally be applied to humans.  Any thoughts as to why?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...





			Labeling continues to restrict this drug to use by or on order of a licensed veterinarian.  This decision was based on the following factors:  (a) adequate directions cannot be written to enable laypersons to appropriately diagnose and subsequently use this product to treat BRD and ORD, (b) administration by other than approved routes and dosages, or uses in species other than cattle and sheep can cause signs of toxicity, including death, and (c) there is a potential danger to the person administering the product if it is accidentally self injected or to other persons if it is accidentally injected. Because of these effects, extensive warning and caution statements are provided in the labeling which are deemed to be adequate to protect users from accidental injection and to discourage extralabel use.
		
Click to expand...

From: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Animal...lDrugProducts/FOIADrugSummaries/ucm115928.pdf

There's this paper from 2003: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...ERH1JCT7Rj5_H2uNQ&sig2=OHR1T3K8Wtar-xIH_l19TA

About accidental exposure in 2003.  Not many signs of any toxicity noted in the 80s and 90s trials - but these were all done by research teams who are probably a bit more careful than most as they are used to handling unknown drugs.  

So I'd guess it's some muppet using it off label or being careless with it!


----------



## ester (19 April 2016)

the monkey test was 1990 , mouse/rat/rabbit '86


----------



## Aru (19 April 2016)

JFTD said:



			It's disgraceful isn't it?  Doing important scientific research at Vet Schools to make advances in equine veterinary medicine, to extremely high welfare standards.  We should ban it totally and drive it all overseas where we can't regulate it.  That makes so much sense 

Click to expand...

Love this statement.Yes how dare we do research here in a european country with some of the highest welfare standards for lab animals in the world.....

As far as I remember Micotil killed a few people before they realised it wasnt safe to hand out to the general public, yes they knew it was dangerous but they underestimate how much complacency is involved when drugs are being used frequently! from what I rememeber the first recorded was a young canadian farmer who accidently jabbed himself while treating cattle(actually not that difficult to do)and who didnt go to a and e until hours later when he was having issues. But im pretty sure there were other deaths before they changed the labelling.
To be fair though people can have an allergic reaction to any drugs and die quickly when they handle drugs so its always worth treating them with extreme caution. All it takes is for you to be unlucky.

As it happens Micotil is one of several drugs that vets handle frequently that are fatal to humans because humans and animals are very different when it comes to drugs! and im not even counting the euthanasia solution in that...if you self inject that by mistake in low volumes you'll likely be fine ironically enough...

Theres is however another anaesthetic injection that will kill a human in a couple of seconds if antidote is not given asap by the assistent...you dont have enough time to give the antidote yourself before becoming unconcious and your resp system shuts down....but it is reasonably safe in dogs, cats and wild animals and is still used in practice. Its most often used in those zoo dart guns these days I believe...and why I always laugh when people are up in arms over an animal on the loose and asking why they havent just tranq gunned it...in a public place..with lots of people around and a one prick kills all humans dart. Theres usually a reason behind these decisions.

Some of veterianry anti-arthritis meds will also ocasionally cause sudden death from heart issues in humans,(they discovered that one in the humans trials  )...but are safe in the animals its licensed for with minimal side effects!
On the opposite side of the spectrum some of the new arthritis minimal side effect painkillers for humans have proven to be very dangerous to dogs and more likely to show complications then older less sophisticated drugs of the same class. We know this because we tested them on dogs as well as humans. So when an owner comes into the vet and tells me I've been giving my dog x that i take myself I can look it up...and recommend they discontinue that and here have some gastroprotectants for your animal...because theres a good chance its stomach is full of low level ulcers that are likely to perferate if you continue that drug...

Drugs are facinating.....and each need to be researched on the animal they are planned for use in to be safe. Veterinary drugs need to be tested on veterinary species ....so a total ban of animal testing makes no sense what so ever.

Theres enough scaremondering already around the tested drugs!
Can you imagine how much worse it would be without knowing what side effects can be expected and having an idea of safe doses. Those things are found through animal testing. Is it an ideal world.of course not.ideally we would be able to research these things without ever experimenting on a living breathing creature...but this is the world we live in and drugs are to be used on living breathing creatures...whatever the species.
Without research we will have no new antibiotics in the market, no new cancer treatment breakthroughs, no new pain control drugs...

Managing the industry and insuring standards are adhered to is the key to ethical research....and thats much more likely to happen in a first world country where rules are enforced.

To put it in perspective theres a lot of pet rabbits in the uk living in much more neglectful circumstances and cruelty then any uk laboratory rabbit will ever experience at the moment....

Also animals live in the now,euthanasia is not the worst thing that can happen to an animal.


----------



## Buddy'sMum (19 April 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			There are those who've used the drug to top themselves and professionals mostly.  So yes,  you'd be right,  but I still wonder if during 'testing or trials' there wasn't at least some testing of accidental self administration.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Post-marketing surveillance. One paper published in 2005 reported 13 deaths from Micotil, only 2 of which were accidental.


----------



## Mooseontheloose (20 April 2016)

We rehomed a pony from an experimental station. She had been very well cared for, was well handled, microchipped, passported, fed, wormed and in very good condition. Not remotely scared of humans, in fact almost too confident.
I have also re homed a pony from the local common, stinky, wormy, dirt encrusted and wild! I'm not saying either is better or worse, or moral or immoral. Just let's keep a sense of perspective on it. The one I rehomed from the common as a colt would have gone in a can come the autumn via the sales.
I know any of the experimental station ponies were humanely pts if homes could not be found for them. I also know that the person running the station had to check daily under their car for IEDs.
Some of the research was into the causes of cot deaths. It's never an easy thing to rationalise, but my feelings are that quite a lot of us wouldn't be here if it wasn't for antibiotics etc, so let's keep a clear head.


----------



## ycbm (20 April 2016)

My favourite one in the stories about drugs affecting some animals more than others is ivermectin. Safe for all equines. Safe for all sheep, all cattle. Safe for all dogs .........EXCEPT for anything with a collie gene in it, which it kills.

Go figure!


----------



## Mooseontheloose (20 April 2016)

Probably because collies are daft enough to eat it. (Collie owner!)


----------



## Alec Swan (20 April 2016)

ycbm said:



			My favourite one in the stories about drugs affecting some animals more than others is ivermectin. Safe for all equines. Safe for all sheep, all cattle. Safe for all dogs .........EXCEPT for anything with a collie gene in it, which it kills.

Go figure!
		
Click to expand...

Our sheepdogs are always kept well clear of sheep-ground when we've used an Ivermectin based wormer. &#8230;&#8230;.. Just in case!

Alec.


----------



## char3479 (21 April 2016)

I wonder how many new drugs are actually useful & needed, and how many are produced to continue generating profit for the extremely lucrative pharmaceutical companies.


----------



## ycbm (21 April 2016)

New drugs aren't adopted, surely, unless they work better than existing ones?


----------



## ILuvCowparsely (21 April 2016)

stencilface said:



			I hate it, bit accept t in the UK with high standards for medical treatment research.

I try my hardest to avoid giving money to ANY companies using animals for cosmetics.
		
Click to expand...

5*  I am with you - I hate it too specially on cosmetics


----------



## JFTDWS (21 April 2016)

char3479 said:



			I wonder how many new drugs are actually useful & needed, and how many are produced to continue generating profit for the extremely lucrative pharmaceutical companies.
		
Click to expand...

How many diseases do you think we have which are currently without effective cures?  

How many current drugs are completely safe and effective in even the majority of cases?

How widespread do you think resistance is to antibiotics? 

Getting drugs to market is horrifically expensive and very, very few trialled compounds ever make it through safety testing, let alone efficacy studies.  Without profit margins for the few successful compounds, we will have no new drugs coming through to replace those which are no longer appropriate for use (this is a huge issue with antibiotics particularly).

I personally don't relish the prospect of a world where bacterial diseases are routinely lethal; where diseases like TB are (even more) widespread and completely untreatable.  Currently TB requires 6+months of combination antibiotic therapy for resolution - these drugs have unpleasant side effects, but they do currently work - for the most part.  

Mortality within 5 years of diagnosis with multi-drug resistant strains of TB is over 90%.  

Without new drugs to replace those which are becoming useless, we will have a huge problem with diseases like this which the general public currently largely thinks are confined to the history books.


----------



## conniegirl (21 April 2016)

char3479 said:



			I wonder how many new drugs are actually useful & needed, and how many are produced to continue generating profit for the extremely lucrative pharmaceutical companies.
		
Click to expand...

I work in R&D in a company that does pharmaceuticals, given that it can cost well over £1billion to develop a new drug, no company is going to develop a drug that there is no need for!
New drugs are expensive because of the R&D costs which the company who developed the drug must gain back within 15 years as after that they lose thier protection and generics are allowed, once generics are allowed on the market the price drops immensely.
The new drug must be proved both effective and safe in clinical trials that cost tens of £millions otherwise the regulatory authorities (MHRA in uk, FDA in USA etc) will not approve it for use. virtually every market has to be registered individually, so even if approve in the Uk, it may not be approved in us or Japan!

In the uk the nhs is pretty much 99% of the market and they will not purchase anything that is expensive but no more effective than what is already on the market


----------



## JFTDWS (21 April 2016)

conniegirl said:



			I work in R&D in a company that does pharmaceuticals, given that it can cost well over £1billion to develop a new drug, no company is going to develop a drug that there is no need for!
New drugs are expensive because of the R&D costs which the company who developed the drug must gain back within 15 years as after that they lose thier protection and generics are allowed, once generics are allowed on the market the price drops immensely.
The new drug must be proved both effective and safe in clinical trials that cost tens of £millions otherwise the regulatory authorities (MHRA in uk, FDA in USA etc) will not approve it for use. virtually every market has to be registered individually, so even if approve in the Uk, it may not be approved in us or Japan!

In the uk the nhs is pretty much 99% of the market and they will not purchase anything that is expensive but no more effective than what is already on the market
		
Click to expand...

And the drugs which do make it to market have to cover the costs of every drug that has failed safety or efficacy testing - because pharma companies are businesses and do have to make ends meet!


----------



## Alec Swan (21 April 2016)

JFTD said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

How widespread do you think resistance is to antibiotics? 

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Would you consider that the practice of feeding permanently medicated a/b feedstuffs, from the day of hatching,  and to the commercially produced poultry that we eat and seem to be reliant upon,  is in any way responsible for a/b resistance?  Pork too and pork derivatives are treated in the same fashion once pigs move from their mother's milk and towards the fattening feeds.

Alec.


----------



## JFTDWS (21 April 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Would you consider that the practice of feeding permanently medicated a/b feedstuffs, from the day of hatching,  and to the commercially produced poultry that we eat and seem to be reliant upon,  is in any way responsible for a/b resistance?  Pork too and pork derivatives are treated in the same fashion once pigs move from their mother's milk and towards the fattening feeds.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Massively so.  Which is exactly why there's an EU ban on the addition of abs to livestock feed.  I believe this is widely ignored in practice though...


----------



## Moomin1 (21 April 2016)

Fenris said:



http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/...horses-experiments-claims-animal-rights-group

Five British Labs Use Horses in Experiments, Claims Animal Rights Group
Wed, 04/06/2016 - 3:11pm
Seth Augenstein, Digital Reporter


Five laboratories in the United Kingdom have been using retired racehorses and ponies in medical experiments, an animal-rights group claims.

More than 8,000 experiments were carried out on the animals in 2014, according to Cruelty Free International, a group formerly known as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.

The experiments have previously involved applying sources of pain to measure the efficacy of painkillers on the animals. Other potential uses are surgically removing glands and testing different in utero effects on unborn foals, according to the animal-rights group.

However, no allegations of illegality were made by the organization.
Which innovative new product has been a game-changer this year? Tell us & win! Learn More

We believe the public will be horrified to learn that these majestic animals are subjected to such cruel experiments here in the UK, said Michelle Thew, the chief executive of CFI. Just as disturbing is the revelations that there are no restrictions regarding where the laboratories can obtain these animals.

The laboratories  the University of Cambridge, the Royal Veterinary College, the Animal Health Trust, the University of Bristol, and the University of Liverpool  all are able to acquire the horses from private owners, like racing enthusiasts and farmers. This is different than other animals used in UK research, which need to be expressly bred for research purposes.

A University of Cambridge spokesperson released a statement to Laboratory Equipment that the school was in compliance  and had stopped using horses for scientific testing.

"We place good welfare at the center of all our animal research and aim to meet the highest standards, they stated. "We only use a small number of horses in research, and have used none since those reported in our 2011 Home Office return.

"Animal research plays an essential role in our understanding of health and disease and in the development of new medicines, antibiotics, vaccines and surgical techniques for both human and veterinary medicine," the school added.

Last year, the European Commission rejected a petition that asked for the complete halt of animal testing in the European Union.

In the United States, the number of animals used in experiments that are protected under the Animal Welfare Act has reached a historic low. However, the number of mice and other non-protected animals has grown exponentially over several years.
		
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely surprised you even care Fenris, given your desire to defend animal cruelty.


----------



## Alec Swan (21 April 2016)

JFTD said:



			Massively so.  Which is exactly why there's an EU ban on the addition of abs to livestock feed.  I believe this is widely ignored in practice though...
		
Click to expand...

No poultry is commercially reared,  anywhere,  without 24/7 access to a/bs.  The clue is in the word 'commercial',  as without the permanent lacing of foodstuffs,  so any enterprise would collapse.  80-90% of those birds reared would die before their due date.

Alec.

eta,  and just to underline the use of the word 'Permanent'.  It means just that,  Antibiotics aren't administered as and when their needed,  all feed is medicated,  'permanently' from hatching to the abattoir.


----------



## JFTDWS (21 April 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			No poultry is commercially reared,  anywhere,  without 24/7 access to a/bs.  The clue is in the word 'commercial',  as without the permanent lacing of foodstuffs,  so any enterprise would collapse.  80-90% of those birds reared would die before their due date.

Alec.

eta,  and just to underline the use of the word 'Permanent'.  It means just that,  Antibiotics aren't administered as and when their needed,  all feed is medicated,  'permanently' from hatching to the abattoir.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps the industry should collapse.  The current system is unsustainable.

Or perhaps we should, as a nation, be prepared to pay a fair price for animal products, and produce them somewhat more ethically.


eta - Sweden have the right idea, I think: http://www.iatp-web.us/iatp/files/64_2_72931.pdf


----------



## Alec Swan (21 April 2016)

JFTD said:



			Perhaps the industry should collapse.  The current system is unsustainable.

Or perhaps we should, as a nation, be prepared to pay a fair price for animal products, and produce them somewhat more ethically.

&#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

Explain that to those who are on benefits who barely manage to feed and cloth themselves and their families.  50 years ago we had chicken on Sundays if then and turkey at Christmas.  Today,  both form the basis of our staple diet,  it seems to me.

And no,  I don't have an answer to the problem! 

Alec.


----------



## JFTDWS (21 April 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			Explain that to those who are on benefits who barely manage to feed and cloth themselves and their families.  50 years ago we had chicken on Sundays if then and turkey at Christmas.  Today,  both form the basis of our staple diet,  it seems to me.

And no,  I don't have an answer to the problem! 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Well there are cheaper things to eat than meat - and there certainly ought to be.  I'd suggest they increase their relationship with Mr Lentil his friends, who can be obtained cheaply and (I believe?!) ethically.  There's no need for meat every day of the week, but folk do seem to expect it these days!


----------



## conniegirl (22 April 2016)

JFTD said:



			And the drugs which do make it to market have to cover the costs of every drug that has failed safety or efficacy testing - because pharma companies are businesses and do have to make ends meet!
		
Click to expand...

Forgot about that bit!


----------



## ester (22 April 2016)

Alec Swan said:



			No poultry is commercially reared,  anywhere,  without 24/7 access to a/bs.  The clue is in the word 'commercial',  as without the permanent lacing of foodstuffs,  so any enterprise would collapse.  80-90% of those birds reared would die before their due date.

Alec.

eta,  and just to underline the use of the word 'Permanent'.  It means just that,  Antibiotics aren't administered as and when their needed,  all feed is medicated,  'permanently' from hatching to the abattoir.
		
Click to expand...

And despite all that we are still on a hiding to nothing trying to reduce the incidence of campylobacter because people can't cook and handle food properly .

We're just developing our first pure antibiotic resistance assay (carbapenem) (we have a human TB assay which includes some too) and overall although not great it really isn't practices in this country we need to worry about increasing resistance.


----------

