Slashdot Mirror
Dye Used In Blue M&Ms Can Lessen Spinal Injury
SydShamino writes "Researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center have found that the dye used in blue M&Ms and other foods can, when given intravenously to a lab rat shortly after a spinal injury, minimize secondary damage caused by the body when it kills off nearby healthy cells. The dye is called BBG or Brilliant Blue G. Given that 85% of spinal injury patients are currently untreated (and some doctors don't trust the treatment given to the other 15%), a relatively safe treatment like this could help preserve some function for thousands of patients. The best part is that in lab rats the subjects given the treatment turn blue." The researchers are "pulling together an application to be lodged with the FDA to stage the first clinical trials of BBG on human patients."
No more selection by crushing strength!
Researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center found that when they injected the compound Brilliant Blue G (BBG) into rats suffering spinal cord injuries, the rodents were able to walk again, albeit with a limp.
Isn't it nice that they leave out the part where they break the backs of the animals first. Makes it sound almost like an animal hospital taking in injured creatures and saving them with the food dye.
Seems to me we should be contracting out mobsters as researchers. Because they also just 'happen' to find people who suffer spinal cord injuries.
Liberty.
medical marijuana. However, the hospital-industrial complex would prefer the higher revenues from dye
prescriptions.
Yours In Socialism,
Kilgore Trout
Gosh, you'd think something that's FDA-approved to be present in visible quantities in foods marketed heavily to children wouldn't need *additional* FDA approval for these clinical trials... you mean, blue dye might not be entirely safe? Who woulda thunk?
I prefer my chocolate to be chocolate-covered, thank you. Artificial chemicals are best left to things like debilitating spinal injuries or cancer treatment.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
"when given intravenously to a lab rat shortly after a spinal injury,"
In other words, psychopaths in white coats are getting their jollies by torturing animals. No video of their crimes? Of course not. The public might not approve if they SAW what these fucked up scumbags get up to every day....
"The researchers are "pulling together an application to be lodged with the FDA to stage the first clinical trials of BBG on human patients.""
I think they mean "doing EXPERIMENTS on HUMANS", don't they?
Hang on... I thought that animal experiments predicted human outcomes? Why don't they just take the drug straight to market, without any human experiments? Could it possibly be because this drug will FAIL in human experiments, like NINETY TWO PERCENT of other drugs do? You know, the drugs that PASS animal experiments?
I wonder if this drug would have a completely different effect in, say, a cow, or an elephant, or a chimpanzee, or a rabbit? What's that you say? Yes it would, like most other drugs? So which animal do we choose to be the 'human model' then?
How about none of them?
How about - it's all a big and obvious fraud?
Fool.
Not one single drug nor medical procedure came to the human market without HUMAN EXPERIMENTS.
The 'researchers' call them 'clinical trials', so the public (you, obviously) don't realise what they are.
We know that they are human EXPERIMENTS because 92% of drugs FAIL them - those are drugs that PASSED animal experiments...
What does that tell you?
As for - "worth the lives of millions of rats" - you are presuming that vivisection produces cures in human beings - it does not.
The HUMAN EXPERIMENTS do that, but they are hidden by the 'research' industry under the nomenclature 'clinical trial' so that they are protected when those experiments FAIL and kill or injure human beings. They then say "But we 'tested' the drug on animals", as if that means it's somehow safe for humans. There is no such thing as an 'animal model' for humans.
"I hope and expect that the researchers are aware of their moral obligations to the animals under their care"... Oh, I'm sure they are... I'm sure they care even less about the suffering, agony and pain of others, than you do. I'm sure they get their rocks off while they're watching their charges squirm and thrash in agony every day, because that's what vivisectionists do. If they were normal human beings, they would be doing real research involving human beings, tissue culture, etc. not torturing defenceless animals to death.
Okay then - the big question, which you have obviously never thought of in your entire life:
When did you choose to born as a human and not an animal?
What did you to make yourself be born a human being, and not an animal?
Do animals feel pain?
Is it wrong to cause pain and suffering to those who aren't hurting you or anybody else?
Some idiot below wrote: "but there has been substantial progress made through animal research."
Sure. Care to discuss that with Vernon Coleman? I believe he has a £100,000 prize for anybody who can prove what you just said is true...
mod parent down
Slipping shoelaces ?
There's nothing wrong with rats , there are just misunderstood.
Harming any animal , just to get a little more profit , is wrong , and everyone knows it.
But it is easier to close your eyes , and pretend it's not happening.
Slipping shoelaces ?