quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Is there an article about what Walter took before he belted on the sausage and became the witch doctor?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

The experiment was the brainchild of two doctors at the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine, Louis Jolyon West and Chester M Pierce, and Warren Thomas, director of the zoo, who wanted to learn more about LSD's pharmacological properties.

... they simply noted: "It appears that the elephant is highly sensitive to the effects of LSD."

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The experiment was the brainchild of two doctors at the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
That Doctor should have been charged with animal cruelty.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
That Doctor should have been charged with animal cruelty.

Think about what you say--

So not knowing the "dose" of an experimental compound is cruelty?

Does this then imply that all animal experimentation in science is cruelty?
(Which is the current position of Peta and many other organizations. )

So should we ask only for human subjects to volunteer to test and develop knowledge of compounds?

Or, is it that only bad outcomes are "cruelty" ?

And how does your position on this differ from using a new bullet design "to Test" on a Hunt?

Slippery , slippery slope---

Animals are just that--animals, a resource ; as are fish, trees, and other life forms.

Are we then cruel in our utilization of any living thing??

Again , many say yes.

I sincerely doubt the scientist involved desired such an outcome, nor did he desire to create suffering as his goal.

Knowledge it is said comes at a price, we have since 1962 learned much, yet there is much more to learn.

quote:

My problem here is that he used a very high dose to start with. I can assure you that is not the scientific method. You always start low and move up in dosage as indicated by the animals reaction. That is the cruelty part in my opinion.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by daleW:
LSD is a synthetic compound and its structure is based on fungal alkaloids.

LSD side effects on humans besides the psychological and hallucinogen properties may include increases in heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature.

The truth is that no one knows all of the true side effects of any drug between males, females, pediatric or elderly humans. An identical drug reacts entirely different for the above groups. In addition, combination of more than one drugs can create unknown side effect(s).

Pretty scary? Think twice before taking any drug.


Inter species can have completely opposite effects of drugs. Example: There was a case years ago were a lion in a zoo was injected with morphine in an attempt to sedate it. The thought was the morphine would act as a central nervous system (CNS) analgesic as it does in humans, to the contrary the morphine acted as a CNS stimulate and the lion went berserk and ripped off an arm of one of the zoo keepers.


Tusko may have had an allergic reaction? Possible toxic levels of the drug? Induced heart failure?

There has been experiments were elephants have been given LSD orally via in water and there were no deaths or permanent damage reported.



dale

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

My problem here is that he used a very high dose to start with. I can assure you that is not the scientific method. You always start low and move up in dosage as indicated by the animals reaction. That is the cruelty part in my opinion.

465H&H

It is unfortunate but drug companies are not know for the scientific quality of their studies. I hesitate to call them reserch. Apparently, the standards for the veterinary and wild life fields are much higher.

465H&H

Not true, I'm afraid.
Particularly in older LD/ 50 studies,( which this one was not) or older side-effect profile studies.

Many short studies were based on single dose calculations.

Procedures ,especially in the 1960's, differ among laboratories and individual authors.

One study I conducted for a "huge" concern even specified the starting dose. (which BTW was far above our calculations)

Rationale in studies is often "not good" as you call it.

It is after a reproducible result is confirmed that rationale can then be assessed.

So if an experimenter considers the aspect that an animal subject may die ,be injured or suffer pain ,in your opinion this is not a part of the investigative process, but simply cruelty?

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
It is unfortunate but drug companies are not know for the scientific quality of their studies. I hesitate to call them reserch. Apparently, the standards for the veterinary and wild life fields are much higher.
465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Makes me wonder if acid was the real reason that Dumbo could fly.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
It is unfortunate but drug companies are not know for the scientific quality of their studies. I hesitate to call them reserch. Apparently, the standards for the veterinary and wild life fields are much higher.
465H&H

Research is in many cases funded by grants. These grants arise from foundations, governments,corporations and even individuals.

Many research programs involve proposals for both human and veterinary end usage.

Most major pharmaceutical companies have veterinary divisions.

As far as" not being known for the scientific quality of their studies":
after initial development most studies are carried out in multiple labs under multiple directors to ascertain reproducible and factual data.

I truly fail to see this in any manner as being of an impaired quality standard or suspect protocol.

I am truly interested in your perspective on the following :

"So if an experimenter considers the aspect that an animal subject may die ,be injured or suffer pain ,in your opinion this is not a part of the investigative process, but simply cruelty?"

quote:

Morphine rage in felines has been known for many decades.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
You are taking my opinion on one case and extending to others. In the case of using a dose so utterly high on a the subject animal without working up in dosage is cruelty as well as professional malfeasance. He should get the Darwin award. By the way how often are Drug Company results reported in peer reviwed Journals? That is the true test of whether the scientific method was used. Drug companies wouldn't be sued so often if they did use scientific methods and reported the reults accurately.465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by RREESE:

quote:

Morphine rage in felines has been known for many decades.

What the Hell??????????

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
DuggaBoye,
Are canines particularly sensitive to spasm of the Sphincter of Odi? Morphine may cause abdominal pain in humans too, by that mechanism.

Some humans get really goofy on Morphine too, agitated, paranoid, etc. Do those humans share some neuroreceptor chemistry with felines?

As for the Elephantine LSD dose:
That was a Walterism. Not science.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
You are taking my opinion on one case and extending to others. In the case of using a dose so utterly high on a the subject animal without working up in dosage is cruelty as well as professional malfeasance. He should get the Darwin award. By the way how often are Drug Company results reported in peer reviwed Journals? That is the true test of whether the scientific method was used. Drug companies wouldn't be sued so often if they did use scientific methods and reported the reults accurately.465H&H

You are indeed entitled to your opinion, however, when you cast your aspersions do not expect unsupported and even slanderous statements to be left without challenge. What makes you think and assume that I don't expect to be challenged? In fact, I encourage it.

If you would recall, almost always,some news service, WSJ,AP, Reuters, etc, will break stories about drug research. Such research information is found in in journals. True, but not always peer reviewed journals.

If you spend any time around the courts system you will understand that lawsuits are rarely based on poor scientific methods, rather, they are most often based on greed playing on emotion. That may be your opinion but do you have any data to support it?

As far as taking your opinion and applying it broadly , it generally follows that one postulating a statement has reasons to do so and those reasons are rarely limited to a singular instance. Making genmneralizations to prove your case, in this case proves your statement is wrong.


With respect to animal subjects in science I am sincere in my interest as to your response to the following:

" If an experimenter considers the aspect that an animal subject may die ,be injured or suffer pain ,in your opinion this is not a part of the investigative process, but simply cruelty?"

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Makes me wonder if acid was the real reason that Dumbo could fly.

Probably more the acid taken by those beleiving they saw Dumbo fly.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Makes me wonder if acid was the real reason that Dumbo could fly.

Probably more the acid taken by those beleiving they saw Dumbo fly.

You are way out of line.



I have seen Dumbo fly.

And I can assure you that I have never dropped so much as one tiny little tab of acid.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

The experiment was the brainchild of two doctors at the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine, Louis Jolyon West and Chester M Pierce, and Warren Thomas, director of the zoo, who wanted to learn more about LSD's pharmacological properties.

... they simply noted: "It appears that the elephant is highly sensitive to the effects of LSD."

Walter is to blame for this too.