Would Christine Peckham still be partially paralysed, visually impaired and epileptic had Vioxx been more widely tested on animals before being taken by 20m people worldwide?
Is it possible that such cases will increase in frequency if animal rights activists are emboldened by their success in closing Darley Oaks Farm despite Police 'efforts' to the contrary?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Surely the real question to be asked here is whether in their pursuit of ever increasing profits, the pharmaceutical companies are cutting corners (and costs) and not testing their products fully before releasing them on an unsuspecting public.
I think this is a far more worrying issue.
Evidence for your conjecture, anonymous?
I have no evidence - it's pure speculation. Presumably if there's evidence to be found Ms Peckham's lawyers will be looking for it!
Besides, what's the evidence that the injuries caused could be related in any way to the level of animal testing?
Hard to say really. Would testing on animals really have revealed all side effects? Should there be human volunteers for this kind of testing? How else can these products be tested? There is obviously a demand for these drugs, otherwise people wouldn't be taking them. Which is better - to suffer without the drugs, or suffer the side effects of the drugs? I don't know which I would take.
Post a Comment