RC question

[manda]

So are these drugs the type that are tested on people to find the effects and the lethal dose level? (LD 50)
(Fun- not 4 me!!!)

[fnord]

no rc's are just chems that are not that well understood,while there are unknown risks,there not tested on people for LD50% research

[manda]

Oh, well that's a f-ing relief. I'd hate to think of some kid wanting to get high, being tested on, and dying.

But that's hard to believe. Because any drug before it goes on the market has to be clinically tested on people.

[manda]

Am I the only one here who finds that scary? After they test on animals, they do use humans...

Reputation Comments on this post:

humans suck! animals rule!

[Abrad]

I'd find it more scary if they released new drugs without testing them on people!

[Psych0naut]

The name research chemical is also often used for drugs that are slightly different chemically from existing older drugs to circumvent the law.

[manda]

Yeah, but sometimes the people being tested on die- that's not too cool. But I agree for sure they should test them on people first. The drugs that save lives.
What about the drugs that don't save lives? Are they worth a human dying for?

[manda]

Hi Abrad!

[Abrad]

What about the drugs that don't save lives? Are they worth a human dying for?

So in your opinion, what drugs are worthy of clinical trials?
Cancer drugs, painkillers etc.?

[manda]

I would defineately say anything that can prolong life or cure major illness. Nothing that would just be a high is worth anyone dying for. I've seen enough death from drugs in my own life.

[Abrad]

So what about pain-relief? This neither cures an illness nor prolongs life but certainly can increase the quality of life in terminal patients.
Should it be allowed?

[manda]

Hell, yes!!!! I work at a medical office, and seeing pain medicine used can quiet a room that was before filled with sounds of agony. Those sounds aren't easy to hear. I work with animals.

[Abrad]

So we agree

[manda]

4 sure! That we do, my friend.

[nanobrain]

well, while my first impulse is to say that LD50 for new pharms is rarely established via human testing these days, the question got me 'athinkin.

availability of these substances to a fairly wide and virtually captive audience willing to self administer highly potent and little researched psychoactives - and pay for this - while the legislature lags ever so conveniently a couple years behind surely does allow for a fairly complex pharmacological profile to be delineated, should there be such interest, LD50 and all...

[Nacumen]

Research Chemical is a term used to describe subjectively new psychoactive chemicals which have only a short history of human use and side-effects that are largely unknown.

[manda]

You guys really think. All I thought was when I heard about LD50 was how horrid that sounded!!!

[AuraithX]

They don't actually pump a human full of drugs to determine the LD50.

They determine it in mice or rats and then using certain formulas they can work out what it would be in humans.

[fastandbulbous]

there not tested on people for LD50% research

Nothing is tested like that on humans (dosing people to see how much kills them is the sort of thing that only the likes of Hitler & Stalin allowed). Human LD50s are determined from cases of accidental fatal poisoning or from suicides. Estimates are made from animal LD50 testing, but there are so many factors that can be different that it's not going to be accurate (sometimes way out).

Personally I find LD50 testing rather unneccisary. By all means carry out toxicology studies, mechanism of action research etc on clinical drugs for safety's sake, but finding out how much kills a certain species seems unwarrented unless they're specifically manufactured as pesticides as differing metabolic pathways, rates of absorbtion from the gut etc mean that it's at best estimated guesswork and at worst unwarrented suffering of animals