A new U.S. law has eliminated the requirement that drugs in development must undergo testing in animals before being given to participants in human trials. - The pharmaceutical industry have argued that animal testing can be ineffective and expensive and cut into their profits. | Poal: Say what you want.

Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

88

•

A new U.S. law has eliminated the requirement that drugs in development must undergo testing in animals before being given to participants in human trials. - The pharmaceutical industry have argued that animal testing can be ineffective and expensive and cut into their profits. (archive.md)

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

“…animal testing can be ineffective and expensive.”

But human testing is totally effective and inexpensive!

link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

If the subject dies, they don't have to pay them.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

And (presumably) clinical trial candidates all actually give informed consent ...

parent
link

[–] • -1 pt

Human or animal

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

....we are no longer the consumer..we are the product.

link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

just goes to show they have no respect for the individual.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Saved a few beagles.

link

[–] • 0 pt

That’s fine. When we take the country back we will just test them on Jews and pedophiles. Most drugs are for treating other shit Jews do to people.

link

[–] • 0 pt

Great idea. Just go straight into human trials. Meanwhile, I'll be way over here, drinking beer and watching from a distance. With scant interest but no small amount of amusement.

Questions: If niggers aren't really human, do they count as animal testing? How effective can a drug tested on niggers be for actual humans?

link