AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

I'm no Neuroscientist buuuut...

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.

sciencesavvy89

I haven't posted recently, hopefully will be back soon!
Inactive Cam Model
Nov 14, 2014
46
147
33
34
Twitter Username
@sciencesavvy89
Chaturbate Username
sciencesavvy
Scientist have discovered that memory might not be stored in the synapses of the neuron after all! which is huge because we have always thought that once synapses are damaged so is the memory they held. A new study done with marine snails called Aplysia shows that all we thought we knew is fucking wrong, damn snails! According to scientist Glaznman (don't know his first name) "Long term memory is not stored in the synapse" he went on to say "That's a radical idea, but that's where the evidence leads. The nervous system appears to be able to regenerate lost synaptic connections. If you can restore the synaptic connections, the memory will come back. It won't be easy, but I believe it's possible."

This information gives scientist and researchers a positive outlook for patients suffering dementia and early onset Alzheimer unfortunately this does nothing to help me, the girl who can't remember where she left her keys that she literally just put down


this is why I'm always late!

You can read the whole story here http://www.iflscience.com/brain/long-te ... s-afterall I didn't want to bore you with how they did the AWESOME experiment on the snails, so you can read it on your own.
Follow me on twitter ]@sciencesavvy89to get more cool updates on current science...and boobs of course.
 

Attachments

  • iStock_000016558229_Medium.jpg
    iStock_000016558229_Medium.jpg
    44.9 KB · Views: 224
I've been kind of suspicious of memory storage theory for many years... I mean, when we think about the vast scale and detail of memories in even an average person, how could the synapses store them? I hope I live to see where they ARE stored. :)
 
Seeing as how vastly different animals are than us I am highly suspicious of anything they test on animals being true to us. Most every time you see some big discovery on a rat, or rabbit it 90%+ of the time does not transfer to humans and nothing comes of it. All that happens is a ton of animals being tortured for nothing in the long run. Not to mention the giant waste of money. As cool as this would be I doubt it counts for us.
 
90+ percent is a bit of a stretch and over the years scientist have made a great deal of progress in the safety and ethics of the animals used in their trials, I'm not at all saying it is perfect but a large portion of scientific and medical advancement has come from working with animals. Aaannnnd snails are closely related to humans, I think it's safe to say that scientists do a great deal to ensure similarities in species before doing test trials. These are, yes, still the early stages of the trail and like many experiments not all hypothesis will be proven correct, dare I say MOST, will be proven wrong and it will be a waste of some young PhD students time and research money but I don't think we can throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
sciencesavvy89 said:
90+ percent is a bit of a stretch and over the years scientist have made a great deal of progress in the safety and ethics of the animals used in their trials, I'm not at all saying it is perfect but a large portion of scientific and medical advancement has come from working with animals. Aaannnnd snails are closely related to humans, I think it's safe to say that scientists do a great deal to ensure similarities in species before doing test trials. These are, yes, still the early stages of the trail and like many experiments not all hypothesis will be proven correct, dare I say MOST, will be proven wrong and it will be a waste of some young PhD students time and research money but I don't think we can throw the baby out with the bath water.

Safety and ethics of the animals? Really? There is no safety or ethics when you're talking about a life being treated as such. Their ethics have never changed however some laws have. Safety is non existent however. Scientists have not progressed in any way for the animals, laws for the animals changed things alone. And we're way behind those laws as far as some of the world is.

A large portion of data has come from animal testing only because before testing on humans animals have to be used. Any animal species. Its a cheap step for them to get to human trials. While makeup is not required to have animal testing done it is widely used anyway cause its cheaper than using human cells. Things like weedkiller though IS required to have animal testing done. Does that even make sense? No. Drugs and food additives have close laws as well. Its still at the cost of innocent lives that is not necessary. Almost one million animals were used last year. One million lives living in horrible conditions and put to death for no reason after they served their purpose. And why? For nothing. If we went on animal testing results we would not be using penicillin right now !

I know some people are oh big deal it's just an animal but that animal has feelings, and wants, and needs to be happy. And putting it in painful and lethal situations where it feels fear, shock and terror on a constant daily basis until it's murdered is just cruel. Some for decades serving in multiple test trials. Add to the fact it's unnecessary is just icing on the cake. They arent dying for a purpose.

As far as 90%+. I stand by that.

Stated by Dr. Richard Klausner, former Director of the National Cancer Institute, “We have cured cancer in mice for decades—and it simply didn’t work in humans.”[1] Even chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives, do not accurately predict results in humans—of the more than 80 HIV vaccines that have proven safe and efficacious in chimpanzees (as well as other nonhuman primates), all have failed to protect or prove safe in humans in nearly 200 human clinical trials, with one actually increasing a human’s chance of HIV infection.
100% failure rate. How many primates do you think died for all of those tests?

The FDA reports that 92 percent of drugs approved for testing in humans fail to receive approval for human use. This failure rate has increased from 86 percent in 1985, in spite of all the “advances and refinements” intended to make animal tests more accurate. In addition, more than half of the few drugs approved are later withdrawn or relabeled due to serious or lethal adverse effects in humans.

In 2007, the FDA revealed that serious and fatal adverse drug events have more than doubled between 1998 and 2005.
I know we are pushing out drugs more and more for random crap and pharm companies looking for money for everything under the sun but the fact is these are required to be tested on animals and it obviously failed miserably and served no purpose. Human cell testing and others like it however would have prevented this stuff.

Rats, mice, and birds comprise over 90 percent of all research animals not because they are necessarily the best and most reliable animal models, but because, in comparison to many other species, they are relatively inexpensive to buy, easy to manage and maintain, and disposable without much public clamor or concern.
They dont care to much about how similar we are but how cost effective it is. It's been proven time and time again pharm companies want bottom dollar trials at bottom barrel pricing and costs.

only about 8% of drugs that pass tests on nonhuman animals also supposedly work on humans.
Supposedly because even what works on one human wont on another let alone what works on a rat or Beagle dog.

Anyway as I said this is all widely available info for anyone who cares to know what is really up when you see these tests and trials being done on anything other than another human. Utter and complete bullshit that 90%+ of the time you will never hear about again cause it failed to actually have any merit in humans.
Add in things like some animals are used repeatedly for test after test testing on them is even more unreliable and so is any data they get from them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACFFAN69
You used a few examples of testing in animals to result in a 100 percent failure rate but with that logic I can say the the testing done in Rats and monkeys gave crucial insight into the explanation of PTSD, certain psychiatric disorders, Parkinsons, blindness etc which in turn would be extremely beneficial in finding a cure for these things. (Brainfacts.org)

Don't get me wrong I do not agree with torture of animals and useless pharmaceutical testing and even listening to what you had to say gave me a little more insight about testing on animals period but to say that it has done little to no good is factually incorrect.

For one thing the study done with the snails in this case were not drug trials they were simply trying to understand how the nervous system works.

I ask this as least condescendingly as I possibly can, and the only reason I say that is because you don't know me, but what do you think a better real world solution would be? Something that is harm free for all parties involved, that will yield necessary results and that can be tested repeatedly.

Again not every hypothesis is going to be correct even if it does look promising. I have spent months in a particular dig site because I thought it would yield positive results and it did not but that should not discredit the findings I make after that.

I was trying to come up with a wrap up to this whole thing but it kept sounding like "But think of the bigger picture" which sounded so Nazi Germany-esc that I couldn't even bring myself to say it. This is why I am a fucking geologist I hate living shit!

UGH I have so many thought and feelings now! Thanks a lot Teagan_Chase, now I have to reevaluate my entire life over Christmas break!
 
With a 92% of approved drugs being a failure in humans and then another at least 50% of the ones approved being withdrawn or relabeled due to serious or lethal results I would never call animal testing doing any good. Those numbers really speak for themselves I think. That's a huge giant failure actually in my book. Where else in the world are lives taken into account (both human and animal) on those scales and no one truly blinks an eye at it and says it's acceptable. Keep in mind most experimenters rarely publish failed animal experiments so these numbers in reality are probably a lot higher in fact.

Yes I used some examples of completely failed experiments and could obviously do a lot more with such a failure rate. Wanna know how many treatments that passed animal testing for MS worked on humans? Zero. Every single trial done successfully on animals has failed on humans. Years and years and years for nothing. And im willing to bet that if research was done differently that would change. As well as others you mentioned like Parkinsons. As far as PTSD and psychiatric disorders animals will never truly help us with that. You can not recreate the human workings in an animal. Its why animal testing does not work. We can recreate things in animals to a certain extent at times but how drugs react and their own systems react can and never will react like a humans. So basically what has been learned here or there could have been done in much faster and better ways not involving animals in any way.

I know there are trials out there where there has been success here or there. However with such huge losses with little to show for it I believe it's really not a thing that should be continued let alone the standard anywhere. Its truly sad to think of all the animals lost and disposed of, and then the humans that have been effected by trials as well. Also the numerous drugs that have proven successful in humans but were severely delayed due to not being proven in animal testing. Penicillin as I said was one example but there are a ton more. How many I wonder just didnt get through but truly could do wonders in some way. Think of where we would be without Penicillin still. If it had to go through trials now it would never pass. The doctor gave it to someone cause he had nothing else to try even though it failed to do anything to rabbits and surprise it worked. Just a crap shoot of a chance. If a doctor did that nowadays he'd have his license stripped and be put in jail.

That said I do know testing does have to be done. How else will we know what can actually work. For one you need to throw out animal testing completely. It's useless and garbage and does no good for them or us. Second people need to get over their religious crap and approve stem cell research already. Lies about aborted babies need to stop and the research needs to move forward. It, to me at least, is our only chance of actually curing diseases we have now but in the future as well. The future where we have started creating mutated forms of things due to antibiotic overuse and just general evolution of things. To me that's the real world solution. No animals are harmed, the research is sound and solid by using human cells, and the results can be tried and tested. Now of course some people will still react differently to things so reactions will still happen, that will never change no matter what you do though. Like i'm allergic to penicillin while others arent, that's just humans. But that said a lot fewer would suffer as a whole this way.

Until stem cell research is opened up and animal testing is outlawed will some real answers actually happen for us. Now just to get out the lawmakers who are nutty religious who arent following separation of church and state to start the process :)


Edit: Really wasnt trying to make you reevaluate your life :) Nor did I take anything you said as condescending at all ! Im sorry if I came off that way at all or as some super crazy animal nut. I love animals but I just see animal testing as a huge waste of time and money that could be going elsewhere to actually get results is all. I feel like we have wasted years where instead breakthroughs could have been done all this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACFFAN69
Teagan_Chase said:
Wanna know how many treatments that passed animal testing for MS worked on humans? Zero. Every single trial done successfully on animals has failed on humans. Years and years and years for nothing. And im willing to bet that if research was done differently that would change.

5 minute google search.

Interferon Beta for Multiple Sclerosis
http://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis/interferon-beta-for-multiple-sclerosis
Why It Is Used
Interferon beta is used to treat people with MS who have relapses followed by periods of recovery.

How Well It Works
Studies have shown that:

Interferon beta decreases the number of relapses in relapsing multiple sclerosis.
People who take interferon beta have less disability and fewer areas of damage (lesions) on the brain as seen on MRI.
Treatment with interferon beta may reduce the number of attacks and slow disease progression in people who have clinically isolated syndrome and relapsing-remitting MS.
Treatment with interferon beta may also reduce the number of attacks and slow disease progression in people who have secondary progressive MS.

http://www.mismr.org/educational/multiplesclerosis.html
Animal research must continue to find new and more effective treatments. In the last few years new forms of therapy tested in animals have quickly found their way into the clinical setting to help MS patients. An example is the use of beta interferon, a substance that has been shown to be effective in reducing the number of exacerbations (episodes of worsening) of patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

I could go on to wipe out pretty much everything you said but I'm half drunk and I'm thinking there's not much point in trying to sway your thinking. The simple fact is animal testing has saved countless lives in all of our lifetimes and its continued use is needed. I personally have no problem with using them. But you appear as locked into being against animal testing as I am at thinking fuck all the animals if it saves human lives, which it overwhelmingly has across the board in every field known to medicine.

So I'll just let this guy have my last thought on the matter.

Sir John Vane (the guy who figured out how asprin actually works at relieving pain)
http://www.animalresearch.info/es/a...charlas/animal-research-and-medical-progress/
Any comparison between life at the end of the last century and life at the end of this one would highlight the enormous advances in medicine which many people nowadays take almost for granted. Certainly, an immense reduction in the death rate from infectious diseases had been achieved by 1900, principally by clean water and good sanitation, but there was still very little that medicine could do for sick people. There were no antibiotics, no vaccines, no insulins, no pharmaceuticals to treat high blood pressure, ulcers, cancer or mental illness. Surgery was severely limited by the serious toxicity of the only anaesthetics then available: ether and chloroform.

All the medical advances of this century have been the product of both basic and applied research. Although this research has relied on the full range of techniques available, it would have been impossible without animal experiments. Indeed, if one reviews the history of medical science, it is clear that every major medical advance has depended on animal experiments. The crucial test for an antibiotic is the mouse protection test - simply testing whether the drug will protect a mouse against an inoculation of virulent microbes. Almost every vaccine used by humans had to be first tested on animals to ensure that it would be safe and effective. Insulin, which has saved millions of diabetics from an early and painful death was discovered through research on dogs and, until relatively recently, the only way to test for insulin during the purification process was to inject it into mice and monitor the effect on their blood sugar. Lithium, one of our most successful pharmaceuticals for mental illness, was originally discovered by a researcher who observed its calming effect on animals. Veterinary medicine owes an even greater debt to animal experimentation. Obviously, all veterinary treatments, prophylactic measures and diagnostic techniques have to be tested in animals.

Whilst there are some who clearly regard any use of animals in experiments as controversial, there is little realistic argument about the critical role that animal studies have played in medical progress. Specific advances in medicine are based upon an understanding of the biology of the body system affected. This understanding is the result of an enormous mountain of fundamental research produced over many centuries. For instance, we would never have been able to develop treatments for high blood pressure without the discovery by William Harvey of the pumping of blood by the heart around our veins and arteries. In his historic "De Motu Cordis" published in 1628, Harvey refers to work on over 30 animal species including man and all this has led to our present understanding of the physiological basis of blood pressure control. Crucially, the same biological principles arc shared across many different species. Animals that are billions of years older than man in evolutionary terms, such as the limulus crab, share fundamental similarities in their biology and physiology.

Many important advances in fundamental medical research, including the discovery of vitamins, the immune system and the endocrine system, have been the result of work on animals.

Animal experimentation also plays a vital role in applied medical research. All new medical treatments have to be tested on human volunteers before they can be licensed for medical use. However, ethical considerations place substantial limits on the ways in which human subjects can be used in such testing. Before giving a potential new medicine to a human volunteer, we must be confident that it will not cause them any harm and that it is likely to be an effective way of treating the disease in question. These two tests of safety and efficacy are the basis of developing new medicines. The only way to be confident that a new medicine is likely to be both safe and effective is to understand how that medicine behaves in a living system. That understanding can only be obtained from animal studies.

Laboratory animal research has its limitations - such work only provides models for the human patient - but they are much better models than any non-living system. Currently, the available treatments for rheumatoid arthritis do not affect the underlying pathology of the condition. Whilst they may be effective against the symptoms, they do not modify the disease process itself. To develop such new medicines, we first need to understand the pathology of the disease, a complex, long-term interaction of the immune system and cartilage growth and degeneration. This cannot be modelled in non-living systems. Even the most sophisticated tissue culture systems do not begin to reproduce these multiple interactions, which can only be observed in the living animal. There are several animal models of rheumatoid arthritis and they have revealed much important information about the cause of this condition.

Whilst arthritis is a very painful condition with severe effects on quality of life, it is rarely fatal. Cardiovascular disease, on the other hand, remains the most common cause of death for almost all of the developed world. Coronary heart disease often affects men and women in their most productive period of life, when they are working and raising a family. There is ample evidence to show that coronary heart disease builds up over decades. If we could develop a treatment to prevent this happening, hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved each year. Once again, living animal provide the best models to study this condition.

There are many other serious diseases which we cannot yet treat adequately: AIDS, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, many cancers and inherited diseases such as muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis. They produce a huge burden of suffering, diminished quality of life, dependence on others and death. The history of medicine shows that by directing medical research at the cause of the disease we can understand the process better and develop effective treatments. There is every reason to believe that the same holds true of the diseases we now face. However, if we are going to address these diseases and develop the treatments, we will need to be able to use all the available research methods, including studies on animals. They continue to form an essential part of medical research and testing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sciencesavvy89
"Scientists interested in human development have been studying animal development for many years. This research yielded our first glimpse at a class of stem cells that can develop into any cell type in the body. This class of stem cells is called pluripotent, meaning the cells have the potential to develop almost all of the more than 200 different known cell types. Stem cells with this unique property come from embryos and fetal tissue." This is a quote from them National Institute of Health. This was what I was trying to say about animal testing, scientist discovered that using stem cells was a viable option by doing research on animals, I was never referring to drugs just a better understanding of how the fudementals of life work, cells, neurons, the heart which are extremely similar in species different than us. Now I can get behind you and agree that now that we have a more viable option we should move forward but this is a clear example of how animal research was useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACFFAN69
Interferons have been around for years so that is nothing new. They simply changed a formula a bit to give it a try for MS. Avonex which is one of the interferons used now only has an 18-38% at best chance of decreasing relapses. Thats not exactly a great number to me. And no where near a cure or preventative measure for it. So I stand by saying that if we allowed testing on actual human cells and volunteer humans we could do much better than that. Animals arent humans, even genetically close still means drastic stuff is different and that's just proven seeing as how so many tests just fail so bad. Opening that up to humans means cures, it's a simple fact. I really dont see how anyone can argue how animal testing is better than human.

As I said i do know there have been times animal testing has worked. Im not arguing that. But the numbers and facts dont lie that with a minimum of a 90%+ failure rate that human cell testing would be better. If testing on animals was more effective or actually worked even a majority of the time I would say fine to it. Give the US a chance to catch up on stem cell in the mean time before switching over, but that's just not true. So pushing for human cells to be approved is just a must if we have any hope. It's great we have cured cancer in mice but that's just not transferring really to humans. Human testing however would mean giant strides as the testing and results would give actual accurate results. Instead now were wasting years in laboratories and money on things that are not working. That's peoples lives wasting away in the mean time. That's unacceptable to me. To call something that has just been so much a monumental failure needed is just laughable to me. Maybe in old times we needed it but knowing what we know now about the differences and the results of such it is no longer needed in any way. We have better, there is no reason not to do it. Animal models will never be able to accurately replicate what happens in humans.

As far as what you posted about the guy who figured out how aspirin works:
Even data collected from experiments on aspirin could not be accurately extrapolated from animal studies to humans, as it causes birth defects in mice and rats, but is harmless to the human embryo. Had we relied on animal testing as it is conducted today, we would have rejected aspirin based on its potential to induce adverse effects in animals. In fact, it has proven to be widely beneficial for multiple uses including: pain management, preventing strokes due to blood clots, and even cancer prevention.
So had we relied on animal testing yet again we wouldnt even have aspirin today as it would have been rejected. Along with Penicillin like I said before. And the vaccines? Do you know what the first Polio vacs did to people despite the animal testing being positive? Death and cripplings. It had to be modified for humans greatly. Back in the day animals were all they had really so I can not fault them but today we have a better and more reliable solution and testing process available. The fact that we arent using it is insane.

As far as insulin:
Physicians in the late 18th century first linked the disease with characteristic changes in the pancreas seen at autopsy. As this was difficult to reproduce in animals, many scientists disputed the pancreas' role in the disease. When they removed the pancreas from dogs, cats, and pigs, the animals became diabetic. But their symptoms led researchers to conjecture that diabetes was a liver disease, throwing diabetes research off track for decades. In 1922, outraged scientists spoke out against the animal experiments that many were claiming had proven the existence of insulin:

"The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of [animal] experiments."

They pointed out that human autopsy had in fact shown the pancreas to be the vital organ in diabetes, and that in vitro research had isolated insulin - not animal experiments.
Years and years of wasted research and money. And only when it was done in vitro did actual facts come out to help humans.

Insulin is only a treatment for diabetes, not a cure. The exact biochemical process through which insulin regulates blood sugar is yet to be discovered.
If we were able to be testing on human cells instead of animal this may be rectified.

Anyway i could go on and on ripping that article apart but I have a busy day and it's not worth my time really. If you think animal testing is better than human cell testing go right ahead doing so. One day maybe when you get a disease like cancer or something you might wonder if human cells were used instead if you could be cured. I'm in no way wishing this happens to you so please dont take this wrong, just an example. I know when my dad died last year of cancer the thought went through my head as it has many times before that the way we research and test really needs to get with the times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACFFAN69
sciencesavvy89 said:
"Scientists interested in human development have been studying animal development for many years. This research yielded our first glimpse at a class of stem cells that can develop into any cell type in the body. This class of stem cells is called pluripotent, meaning the cells have the potential to develop almost all of the more than 200 different known cell types. Stem cells with this unique property come from embryos and fetal tissue." This is a quote from them National Institute of Health. This was what I was trying to say about animal testing, scientist discovered that using stem cells was a viable option by doing research on animals, I was never referring to drugs just a better understanding of how the fudementals of life work, cells, neurons, the heart which are extremely similar in species different than us. Now I can get behind you and agree that now that we have a more viable option we should move forward but this is a clear example of how animal research was useful.

Agreed that animal testing has at some times worked. I just feel it is only because we have such rigid laws in human testing and really has done more harm than good overall. Had we not put such laws in place the strides made in medicine would be very different today. Allowing human bodies and cells is just necessary and we have the ability to do it right now. I mean it used to be only corpses that were legal to use were from people put to death and dissection by courts. There wasnt enough to go around even so people robbed graves for bodies to study on. Its all they had at the time. That's so stupid to me. Imagine had bodies been allowed to be used all along where we could really be now. Even today human testing is so restricted and only cause of that are animals even used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACFFAN69
Status
Not open for further replies.