34 thoughts on “591

  1. Certainly scary, and rather gross sounding. Though this was a paid experiment, wasn’t it? Obviously the risk level was not expected to be this high, but I still can’t call them ‘victims’. +/

    I do hope they reverse the effects…

  2. I think taking a drug (in an attempt to help the world) that’s gone through years or decades of testing that’s presumed to be safe and having your head swell up until you die makes you a victim, regardless of what happens to your bank account.

  3. My uncle works in (read: sold his soul to) the pharmaseutical industry. He makes money hand over fist. A few years ago he quit over some things he had an ethical problem with. They made him sign a non-disclosure agreement, then proceeded to drag his name though the mud. Now, apparantly attracted by the money, he’s back at it, doing more stuff he’s not allowed to talk about for a different company.

    If you work for a company that’s supposed to help people be healthy, but you have to sign non-disclosure agreements, that should tell you right away that you’re about to get into some evil shit.

  4. While I do agree that some objectable things happen in the pharmaceutical industry, a “disclosure agreement” per se is not a sign of some “evil shit”, it is standard in all technology fields (pharmaceutical or otherwise) so as to protect the intellectual property rights of a company. Public disclosure of a new invention (be it mechanical, electrical, chemical, etc.) voids the right worldwide (with the exception of a 12 month grace period in the US, Canada, Mexico and Australia) of the company to obtain patent protection for that invention. It’s simply an economical protection mesure. If you make a disclosure about anything unlawful the disclosure agreement would not hold in court as any kind of contract cannot be used as protection against the law.

    Humm… sorry, too much information I guess…

  5. It went through animal testing, as in other species, not the human animal. Animal testing doesn’t prove human safety and it never has. I am just sickened it isn’t the people who did the testing on animals who were forced to suffer this. These people took risks the developers should have taken, if they felt it was safe, they should have tested it on themselves first.

  6. I understand that reasoning for it. Perhaps I should have worded it better… By partaking in the secrecy, you leave yourself vulnerable to partaking in very evil activity.

    What I’m trying to get at is that researchers don’t step back and ask “should I be doing this?” often enough. When the research is being done behind closed doors, third parties aren’t able to say “Hold on a minute, there are ethical/moral implications to what you’re doing.” From Naked Ape to Superspecies by David Suzuki covers this more thoroughly and eloquently than I can.

  7. In addition to animal testing, it also goes through simulation testing, protein testing, human culture testing, and a whole host of non-animal tests designed to screen out these kinds of reactions. The reason this is news is because it is so extremely rare for a drug to appear fine in all other tests, but react in the opposite fashion when it actually comes into contact with a person. Animal testing doesn’t prove human safety, but human culture testing and human simulation testing usually does.

    …not that I’m arguing with your last statement.

  8. Good morning! What a way to start the day, open my computer up to a world of depressing awfulness that is not shocking at all. All this really does it further my belief that all of humanity should be extinguished. I just have to find a way to poison the water supply or peel the earth like a giant orange.

    Anything good happen today Jiggwai?

  9. because quite honestly most people rarely if ever give consideration to the animals they are testing on or that drugs have been tested on.

  10. David Suzuki is celebrating his 70th birthday soon and the staff of his organization have set up a secret email account for people to send their well wishes to him. They’re going to surprise him with what ought to be a skillion emails on his birthday. Shh!

    Hmm. Two thingies about Suzuki on this page.. you can tell he’s my hero :)

  11. Well, protionics and other simulations are so in their infancy that I wouldn’t rely on those technologies for anything yet. Human culture testing tests on set of tissue in isolation and cannot deliver any accurate results as it doesn’t just neglect other types of tissue in isolation, but also ignores the feedback from all cells in a complete organism. So, in that sense, those types of tests are really there to reassure stockholders, rather than to give true assurences.
    The only thing that actually gives results that are something to rely upon are the human trials.

    This is all opinion of someone who would be lucky to aspire to the label of dilettant. As it is opinion, it is not truth or reality, but simply a model and set off assumptions I have the audacity to work under for now. I’ll be just as correct when at another point I say these drugs work because the gods are in them, and they caused swelling (in an anti-inflamatory, if they live they have GOT to see the humour in that. No, really, they have too…..) because they didn’t make the right sacrifices and eat the right foods. Your milage may vary ;)

  12. Don’t get me wrong, I’m as much against animal testing as vanessa vy apparantly is. I just haven’t lost my compassion for my fellow human to that extent yet, though I don’t think we’re responsible enough to be the dominant species on the planet. No living creature deserves to suffer the way those men in Britain are suffering.

  13. From someone on a message board who is much smarter than me:

    “Who the fuck let this trial go foreward? The details of regulatory T cell biology are poorly understood in humans (it turns out, there are substantial differences between human and mouse, which is unusual for immunology), and using anti-CD28 to selectively activate them is like performing surgery with a baseball bat. Every T cell lineage expresses CD28, and it’s a central player in T cell activation. It’s not surprising at all that these people are dying of overwhelming immune activation. The families are going to have a good case against this bullshit.”

  14. Well, I do have to admit that “scientists” see things as a “challenge” and most often deliberately choose not to think about the ethics involved. The famous line of thinking that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and “if I don’t do it, somebody else will”.

    As far as I’m concerned I’d get rid of all the religion classes crap, which devides people and does not evolve with society, and replace them with morals and ethics classes.

  15. So I guess the answer to who would let this for forward is “people who honestly only care about money, and that is it.”

  16. That is terrible. If you above post is correct, the victims (if still alive) will have quite the case against the university.

    Terrible…watching your love become debilitated and mutilated must be horific at that.

  17. While I really do wonder about the anti-CD28 part of the causality of it, I’m also curious as to how big a pool of people were involved in this clinical trial.

    Moreover, the person who swelled really big was the pharmaceutical equivalent of a drug mule. He takes part in lots and lots of clinical drug trials. If indeed there were only six people who fell critically ill, how many of them are also career drug mules?

    It’s a terrible thing, I agree. However, this underlines the possibility that the people who run these trials may not always act in the best faith of the people involved if they allow people to continually take on a series of clinical trials.

Leave a Reply