>>8046183
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research

Pretty much all of modern drug development relies at least to some level on animal testing for essential data to encourage cure development.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing
>Supporters of the use of animals in experiments, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way.

>>8046183
I don't know, but we've prevented the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands of humans by testing on animals first.

Most drug designs are complete failures that never make it to human trials.

a LOT of ageing related research is done with mice

>>8046200
Wouldn't we have prevented more deaths if we just would've tested on humans?

>>8046183
We figured out how scurvy worked by experimenting on guinea pigs

>>8046213
Why? You just would have had pig pile of dead humans rather than animals

>>8046213
Yes, but the cons of an outrage caused by such experiments would outweigh the benefits of faster drug discovery and development.

>>8046213
more years may have been added to life but far, far more life would have been taken from those years

>>8046183

"Never talk to me or my fellow test subject ever again."

"Because the shit you gave us will kill the two of us by tomorrow, while the other two over there will survive it, establishing that drug X has a mortality rate of 50 percent in canines in the surveyed sample."

>>8046200
Are tissues and cells really that bad for testing?