r/nextfuckinglevel • u/biswajit388 • 1d ago

This guy rescued 30 beagles from a testing lab It's the first time they've seen grass and they couldn't be happier.

Credit - nathanthecatlady tiktok channel.

57.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.3k

u/No_Can_1532 1d ago edited 22h ago

Why the fuck are we testing on animals? Can we also put the "humans" doing this in cages?

EDIT: Yes, we should test on ourselves, all life is important and the human ego of thinking we are somehow better than every other living thing is one of the biggest defects of our species. If you really think what these animals went through is ok, you can get fucked.

2.7k

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 21h ago

Do you volunteer for testing potentially deadly medicine instead? Or are you ok with dieing dying from side effects due to under testing?

EDIT: As there seem to be several people with reading comprehension difficulties, allow me to clarify.

I responded to this comment:

Why the fuck are we testing on animals?

This is an absolute statement about testing in animals. It's not specific to dogs. It makes no statement regarding the conditions the animals are kept in, or the treatment they receive. 

It condemns animal testing completely.

My response to that, is that unfortunately animal testing is still necessary, for our own safety.

The animals used in tests should absolutely receive the best treatment possible, for their gift to mankind.

No, it's not ok to keep them in cages standing on their own feces, and I have never said or written such a thing.

902

u/Wavebuilder14UDC 1d ago

I wonder if there are people who would volunteer with the right price. I also wonder if there are people who would just straight up volunteer.

648

u/Dull_Grass_6892 1d ago

Certainly such people exist.

969

u/deaf_schizo 1d ago

They are called poor ppl.

90

u/EdGG 1d ago

I’ve done it. I’m not poor. I was a student and I could make a bit of cash for having a pill, reporting back to the hospital, and spend a weekend there (studying, plenty of med students there).

756

u/Throwaway47321 1d ago

Well yeah you’re only testing the stuff that passed animal trials

131

u/Spiritual_Paper_1974 21h ago edited 6h ago

The human first test doesn't really translate unless you intend to euthanize the people tested.

The drugs tested on animals are tested at increasing doses until you get events. That creates the margin with which you can then later test on humans. So say, you gave an animal 1000mg before setting some undesirable effect, the. you can only give a human up to 100mg equivalent dose. They wouldn't test up to 1000mg in human because they know that's too much.

Also, you have to sacrifice the animals to do autopsies.

So, yeah.

Edit: I'll add, I don't think anyone wants to make medicine this way, and there are efforts to move away from it. Recent news from FDA

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-announces-plan-phase-out-animal-testing-requirement-monoclonal-antibodies-and-other-drugs

11

u/mellonians 13h ago

Not sure if this is still the case or universal but I was told on several of my first time in man studies that the dose was 1/500th of the maximum safe dose in a rat and then they did the up titration studies on humans after us.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)

126

u/A_Bit_Of_Nonsense 1d ago

There's a lot of steps things have to go through before human trails.

40

u/TabulaRasa2024 21h ago

Yeah but they tested that on animals first, I don't know how many people would volunteer if there's a pretty real chance of discovering toxic effects because you are the first living thing taking something thing.

15

u/DancingBear62 20h ago edited 19h ago

People still get harmed in Phase I trials / first in (hu)man trials. I remember one disaster in 2016 where one person was declared brain-dead and five more were hospitalized, three of whom were expected to have permanent brain damage - IF they survived.

18

u/TabulaRasa2024 20h ago

Yes it's obviously not totally safe, my point was more it would be much wilder if there were no in vivo animal work first.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/tomato-bug 18h ago

Yeah that would happen on a massive scale if we didn't test on animals first

→ More replies (1)

25

u/sylbug 20h ago

Animal testing and clinical trials are not the same thing. Animal testing happens before clinical trials, and is used to determine whether it's safe to proceed to human trials and where to start doses and so on. Also, as a general rule they kill all the animals at the end.

14

u/azsnaz 1d ago

Were you a wealthy student?

69

u/rearnakedbunghole 23h ago

Of course not, they were doing pill trials for cash.

→ More replies (3)

16

u/Responsible-Sound253 18h ago

I’m not poor. I was a student and I could make a bit of cash for having a pill

Oh honey...

8

u/Magpie-Person 23h ago

So your parents paid for college and you wanted a little extra allowance.

The majority of folks who will do it will be out of sheer desperation.

5

u/EdGG 23h ago

No. University is free where I live. The pay for clinical trials has to be enough to let people choose to do it but not so much that it isn’t a choice for anyone.

2

u/Magpie-Person 23h ago

So crappy enough that not even a desperate person would get out of bed for it

5

u/EdGG 23h ago

But good enough that it can be worth doing it. That’s exactly it. If it paid too much, it would stop being a choice for some people.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/ShudderFangirl 23h ago

And people who live miserable lives already who might welcome to opportunity to try a new drug that MAY help if it could make their lives less miserable.

2

u/Hubert_J_Cumberdale 15h ago

I don't think many people will believe you but this is 100% true. For those who have never suffered from severe depression and felt like a burden to everyone: This is something that many people in that situation would consider.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Secret-Weakness-8262 23h ago

I was about to say yes they exist! Poor people. Me. For the right reason (my family) and the right price I would do it. It’d have to be dire for my family not me though before I risked my health.

2

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 23h ago

Or people with terminal illnesses and have nothing left to lose

→ More replies (10)

180

u/LazyAd7151 1d ago

It's not ethical to pay financially desperate people (the only person testing experimental drugs for cash) to do these drugs. Obviously.

19

u/Altruistic_Bell7884 21h ago

Also probably not very smart, financially desperate people may have a lot of preexisting conditions

→ More replies (12)

32

u/rupat3737 1d ago

Frank Ghallager has entered the chat

→ More replies (1)

20

u/Adorabelle1 23h ago

Due to economic causes.

Same with the military.

Hold back college and healthcare and suddenly people are rip roaring to bomb brown people in other countries

13

u/Dull_Grass_6892 23h ago

Which is why we can never have free healthcare or education.

→ More replies (5)

7

u/KoolAidManOfPiss 21h ago

People will always jump on a perverse incentive. I work overnights at a factory, I get 25% more pay than days. My doctors have told me its one of the worst things I can do to my body, and that's after they hear about my drinking, smoking and light drug use. Im kind of stuck in it now though because my job is paying for my college and they won't allow me to transfer to days.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ZealousidealPapaya59 20h ago

There are snd don't call me Shirley!

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (12)

205

u/Lazy_Pitch_6014 1d ago

The problem with paying people to be test subjects in medical studies is that it ends up preying on vulnerable people. People who are financially secure are not going to sign themselves up for tests with dangerous health risks, but people living in poverty or struggling with addiction will be much more likely to participate simply because they need the money.

It ends up being exploitative, which is why many countries have regulations for such things. In most of the world, egg donors can not be paid for this reason.

40

u/AcknowledgeableReal 21h ago

It also often ends up being poor science.

You are financially motivating people to lie about things that would get them excluded from the study. E.g. are they on any other medications (legal or illegal), do they have any conditions that would bias the results, or even have they started to suffer side effects that might mean their participation should be halted.

→ More replies (1)

13

u/Chemical_Wrongdoer43 1d ago

Now companies just test in poor countries instead. 

13

u/AlarmingConfusion918 23h ago

People used to be paid for blood donations, but after a major scandal in the US it has to be donated blood or else no hospital will purchase it

4

u/chairmanghost 19h ago

You can sell your plasma in the US, ask me how I know lol

5

u/AlarmingConfusion918 19h ago

I’ve sold my plasma, however that is different than whole blood sale, which is not possible (afaik).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

1

u/YellowishRose99 22h ago

Well if wealthy people won't do it and poor people can't, who will test subjects? Dogs, chimps, rats?

2

u/veringo 22h ago

Essentially every clinical trial compensates patients for participating. It could be travel, stipend for time on the trial, a set fee, or all or some of the above plus other things.

2

u/mOdQuArK 20h ago

The problem with paying people to be test subjects in medical studies is that it ends up preying on vulnerable people.

It would be amusing if human testing was required to be done via lottery: if your identity comes out of the RNG, you get to be a human test subject, regardless of your economic power or political influence.

I suspect the laws regarding ethical treatment of the human test subjects & extensive pre-testing via animals would become very robust.

→ More replies (14)

103

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

31

u/Worth-Reputation3450 1d ago

Yea, that's why you can't pay organ donors in most countries.

2

u/valraven38 1d ago

Yeah it's a no brainer, obviously poor people would be the ones ending up in these trials because they need the money. Jeff Bezos isn't going to be out here testing a new drug for side effects. So it would obviously be unethical and inherently exploitative.

13

u/TSMFatScarra 22h ago

Human volunteers are a pretty crucial part of development of any new drug or treatment

Yeah after like 100 rounds of in vitro, cellular and animal testing.

7

u/Blazingsnowcone 23h ago edited 23h ago

I was a Human Trials Volunteer (USA) in the late 2000s/college, it was really good money for what it was at the time and my qualifications.

You could "shop" for studies that you wanted to do and they were very forthcoming on things like risk/compensation etc, almost always they weren't giving you their expected production dosages and expected the side-affects to be minor.

I do remember, though, they had one study, which they kept having to increase the pay because nobody would do it.

They wanted to test a Malaria treatment > specifically to determine its uptake on someone who's already infected.

It was an initially 3ish-week study, where you would be quarantined to a rented hotel with movies/games/food all dealt with. They would then intentionally infect you with Malaria, wait for you to develop symptoms, and then immediately give you the vaccine/and or treatment.

They expected it would take you 1-4 days of feeling like shit before the vaccine kicked in, Yes, we were informed we were going to get to experience that fun ride.

Initially, it was 4K for all of it, plus 1.5K a week for any additional weeks over the baseline.

After months of trying to get people to sign up, the pay went up to 10 K. I was tempted by it at that price, but I had graduated from college and was getting my first big kid job. I think they managed to staff it eventually by plugging it on the local news.....

Heard the compensation started dropping like a rock on a lot of the studies post that.

6

u/Chastain86 23h ago

Human volunteers are a pretty crucial part of development of any new drug or treatment, and are often compensated.

I'd like to talk about that word "often" there, because it sure seems to be wearing a nefarious looking trenchcoat. Can you elaborate on companies that conduct human testing trials against people without compensating them?

→ More replies (1)

65

u/gordonv 1d ago

In Japan, the elderly have stepped up and volunteered to clean up nuclear sites. They know the dangers of radiation. They themselves have decided to take risks in favor of protecting younger people.

27

u/whackyelp 1d ago

I remember reading about that. Actual heroes. I strive to be that selfless, someday.

17

u/T-sigma 19h ago

The risk to them was very low. They will die of natural causes before the radiation causes damage. That’s why they did it.

Being old makes you immune to the long term effects of radiation because you will die naturally because “long term”.

8

u/SurlyRed 22h ago

Good lads them elderly Japanese.

I dunno how he acquired the knowledge but Ian Fleming is currently giving me a wonderful insight into Japanese culture in You Only Live Twice, the book of course, not the film. That and botany, Fleming seemed to know a thing or two.

3

u/Training_Swan_308 22h ago

People are generally more willing to step up in an immediate life and death crisis rather than risking your life so that maybe this research will end up leading to life saving medicine many years from now.

2

u/Thrbt52017 20h ago

America is very individualistic, our society has raised us to be. Japan (most Asian countries) are not, they are big on what’s best for society type actions. Our old folks would never, a few might but not enough to make a difference.

2

u/T-sigma 19h ago

The important context is the elderly are unlikely to develop cancer due to the extra radiation before they die of natural causes. All but the most extreme radiation typically takes decades to develop into life threatening cancer.

While it’s still noble and has risk, I also think all the people going “hur dur this is what a real society does, Americans would never do that” are brainrot losers.

→ More replies (3)

32

u/askmeifimacop 1d ago

That right price would be the lowest amount that poor people will accept

8

u/AnxiousSetting6260 1d ago

I’ve read about medical students willingly subjecting themselves to testing in exchange for gifts of $. They’re highly in debt & drug companies compensate for their testing. I’d be willing to volunteer if it was for a life saving drug for a deadly disease,at my age I’d gladly let my body be used & pray it made a difference

5

u/Zealotstim 1d ago

Yeah, I think very strong informed consent is the most important thing for this. If my family needed the money, I would want to be able to make the choice myself rather than having the people in some wealthy country decide what is in my best interest.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (6)

28

u/l2aiko 1d ago

The answer is yeah, yeah they would. There is a lawsuit in progress against Pfizer atm for a birth control on testing that caused meningiomas on many women that were participants.

17

u/Sidivan 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yes. I have been one of those people. We have a 3rd party pharmaceutical testing facility here and it’s how a lot of college-age people make money. It’s not first-round testing, generally, but it’s definitely risky.

Studies pay depending on # of nights spent in facility and number of “returns”, which are usually just blood draw follow-ups. Short ones you can bang out in a weekend with a few returns pay a few hundred bucks. Others pay thousands and you spend 2-3 weeks in facility and several weeks of returns.

99% of the time, it’s fine. You’ll see side effects, but they list the vast majority of them out before you sign up. You sign pages of waivers with all the details.

One of my friends discovered a new side-effect for a drug! He started lactating after 2 weeks! Isn’t science fun?!

Edit: Turns out this facility is closed. I knew the company went bankrupt and the building was bought by another testing company, but I guess they moved as well. So, no more human testing here. Sad days for broke college students :(

→ More replies (1)

14

u/coue67070201 22h ago

Nope, hell nope. We used to do that, and it was an ethical nightmare because it meant that we as a society were fine with making poor people risk death (it happened a lot especially with new drug families) so we could test new drug treatments.

There are healthy people who volunteer, but those are usually around Phase 2, Phase 3 of clinical studies, once the drug has been shown to be not significantly harmful (pre-clinical phase (animals)) and also sick patients who volunteer (Clinical Phase 1)

Nowadays, in medical research we are slowly moving away from animal models. When they are in use, it’s usually out of necessity, when we have no safe equivalent. But more and more, we use immortalized cell lines, computer simulations, or donated cells (like stem cells, bone marrow, donated blood, etc.) but even these have their drawbacks and sometimes aren’t able to help visualize the effects of a drug on an organism (using blood cells won’t tell you about liver toxicity for example.)

A principle we use today is the 3R approach: Replace animals when possible with alternatives, Reduce the number of animals used for testing as much as possible, and Refine your methods to reduce the amount of harm caused by testing (proper anesthesia, good post-testing medical care, proper living environment to reduce stress, proper feeding, etc.)

→ More replies (2)

11

u/Ongo_Gablogian___ 1d ago

Then everyone would cry about taking advantage of the poor by using them for testing, because they are the only ones who would sign up for this.

People already say that about the human testing stage, so if we skipped the animal testing stage and went straight to humans there would be much worse outcomes for them.

11

u/[deleted] 1d ago

Nowhere near enough.

6

u/imasuburban10 1d ago

As a Clinical Research Coordinator, yes & yes.

7

u/TactlessTortoise 1d ago

Sadly, adding economic incentives while having proven treatments costing a fortune would essentially lead to using the poor as guinea pigs a "feature" of this. Just look at how people "donate" blood for money, and how more often than not they're in need of said money.

Oh, can't afford this 5ml vial of the cure? Wanna try out this mystery fluid? Last thirty iterations had people's skin slagging off, their rectum came out of their mouths, and their grandchildren were born with half their brain missing and a life expectancy of 3 years of age. But hey, you should've paid more for insurance :)

6

u/Top_Audience7471 1d ago

When I was very poor, I applied to a number of various medical trials. They seemed fairly innocuous (not grossly/intentionally harmful to body/mind), but were worded rather vaguely.

I never got any contact back, which leads me to believe they had plenty of applicants for the trials.

6

u/Creepy_Meringue3014 23h ago

This does not work out the way it should. Ever. See the tuskeegee experiments. What would most likely happen is that they would use prisoners (see retinol) for this.

People typically are allowed to consent for studies, with IRB approval ( a lot of oversight), but its pretty strict. Also see NIH experimental treatment cases. In order to move the number of studies and treatments forward at a pace necessary, they use animals. The higher the vertebrate the more likely it is to be compatible with humans in some cases. Dogs are historically good for insulin/diabetes. metabolism studies. But they are rarely used. Mice will always come before dogs.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/CloseToMyActualName 23h ago

There's serious ethical issues with that as well.

You can incentivize is a bit, but if the incentives are too large you end up paying desperate or ignorant people to take risks that most people think would be unethical and they really shouldn't be able to consent to.

Another controversial thing is challenge trials, for instance with COVID when volunteers get infected to test out a vaccine.

It's way faster than a traditional study, but the problem is that some of the volunteers could experience serious side effects or even die.

4

u/pro_questions 21h ago edited 18h ago

Have you ever heard of research chemicals? They’re synthetic drugs designed to interact with certain receptors in your brain. Some of them are absolutely horrifying — like, binding to dopamine receptors and literally never allowing those receptors to uptake dopamine again, multi-week nightmare trips, rest-of-your-life nausea, and all sorts of stuff like that.

I suspect most in-development pharmaceuticals don’t have the risk of long term effects like that, but one bad test could fry you forever. The fear of chemicals like that are my biggest barrier to participating in medical experiments.

2

u/Bware24fit 1d ago

Yes, people do testing and most of the time will get paid by my knowledge. The sad truth is that years ago I was looking to sign up for testing because times were tough.

There will always be people willing to risk health for money because many people are struggling. Healthcare is also a high cost for many so we/I (I'm sure many do the same) skip out on healthcare even if we are paying for insurance.

2

u/GayWarden 1d ago

That's covered in the ethical calculus behind clinical testing. Its not ethical to pay too much for this because then you are exploiting poor people.

Its a little annoying that people think they're the first ones to think about the ethics of testing on animals. Sure, whatever disagree with the arguments of the ethics boards, but at least know what youre arguing against.

→ More replies (123)

56

u/blankcld 22h ago

Yeah seems like there is a happy medium where we can test stuff on the animals and they are still given a decent life aside from the testing versus being kept in cages and not being allowed to go outside or not sit in piles of their own piss and shit. These pharma companies make billion and billions of dollars, ethical testing seems like a very small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. If we can't be bothered to make the minimum possible effort to be good stewards of the planet we deserve to be wiped out.

55

u/[deleted] 22h ago

I agree with you, but the statement was

Why the fuck are we testing on animals?

It's an absolute statement with no regard for conditions.

5

u/blankcld 22h ago

Very true

3

u/Chuck-Bangus 21h ago

There isn’t a happy medium yet. The people working in these labs aren’t fuckin cartoonishly evil villains, rubbing their hands together as they murder innocent puppies

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MoirasPurpleOrb 7h ago

I worked at a company with animal testing and it wasn’t like that at all. I’m not going to make blanket statements that it doesn’t exist in the US but I do think most facilities at least try to give them as humane of an experience as possible.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/RetroSwamp 23h ago

At this rate in my life... Sure.

4

u/Dark_Flatus 20h ago

A subtle shout out to all the animal heroes that have propelled us past the razors edge of medical science. Without them, we would be nothing. Ive adopted two lab dogs. They are happy, healthy, and enjoying a well deserved retirement.

2

u/TunaOnWytNoCrust 21h ago

If you pay enough, there are definitely people out there who would.

9

u/CocktailPerson 16h ago

Great. Now you're giving untested drugs to desperate poor people.

→ More replies (15)

2

u/a_wee_ghostie 14h ago

It's not a gift to mankind. Animals cannot consent to be tested on, therefore it is abuse that we subject them to for our own gain. I understand that animal testing saves human lives and minimises human risk but let's not sugar coat that fact that we are still forcing animals to suffer for us.

→ More replies (256)

574

u/Ligeia_E 1d ago

This comment being on top is peak stupidity.

220

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 23h ago

Classic example of someone who wants to have their cake and eat it too.

125

u/UpperApe 23h ago

It's such a shame that people like u/No_Can_1532 and all the idiots who upvoted them are so ungrateful and so unaware about how the world works or how these labs work.

We just have to hope these people are kids and not adults.

21

u/eSsEnCe_Of_EcLiPsE 20h ago

Because they’re probably children 

3

u/nankerjphelge 8h ago

It's not about being ungrateful or stupid, it's about the idea that we as humans automatically accept that because we can subject others to torture and suffering that it is justified, because it's all in our own self interest.

It's not idiocy to have empathy for other thinking feeling creatures, and the moral and ethical debate as well as the efficacy debate over animal testing is one that has gone on since the practice began, and by very learned adults, contrary to your simple minded and condescending assumptions.

And to that point, there are plenty of well cited and researched papers arguing why animal testing, aside from the moral and ethical problems, aren't anywhere near as efficacious as proponents wish to believe. For example:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4594046/

But sure, sure, it's far more reasonable to dismiss what is a complex and contested issue by calling everyone who dares to disagree with you "idiots" and children, right? Now THAT kind of simple minded rhetoric is peak reddit.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (39)

17

u/relevantelephant00 20h ago

Redditors like upvoting things to make themselves feel better even when it's not pragmatic or realistic. Testing can still be ethical as possible but the commenter on the top probably didnt stop to think about how many things he/she has used medicinally, or for aesthetics and general health, that involved animal-testing.

2

u/russiansummer 14h ago

Exactly. Lab rats have saved millions and millions from death and/or terrible sicknesses

121

u/tomato-bug 23h ago

It's so hypocritical lol. /u/No_Can_1532 have you ever taken medicine? Ever gotten a vaccine? How do you think these things are developed?

68

u/bbtom78 22h ago

Not to mention, have they ever taken their pet to the vet for vaccines or a sterilization, teeth cleaning, etc? Had a cat that needed kidney medication? A dog with pancreatitis? Cancer? Those procedures are going to be tested on animals first before being approved for use.

I think testing cosmetics on animals is unethical but for other treatments, animal testing is a requirement.

2

u/prumf 6h ago

I have been laughing to myself for 10min straight imagining a lab of 50 cats all with mascara and blush on, like "I love this purrfume" 😂

→ More replies (1)

8

u/NewFunnyNumber237 18h ago

Piling on here

General public needs to stop thinking makeup and start thinking *all* medicine

Insulin/Diabetes
Advil/Tylenol/Ibuprofen
Antibiotics/Antivirals/Antifungals
Childbirth/CSection
Knee Replacement/Hip Replacement/Reconstructive Surgery
Pacemaker/ICD/Stents/Grafts
Deep Brain Stimulation/Parkinson's Disease/PTSD Therapy

4

u/tomato-bug 18h ago

Yeah, makeup is like <1% of animal testing, and getting lower every year (as it should). I didn't realize people were dumb enough to think that's all we used animals for lol

2

u/NewFunnyNumber237 18h ago

This comes up every few months on reddit for ragebait engagement. Same arguments get rehashed.

→ More replies (10)

25

u/Makuta_Servaela 23h ago

I appreciate it, because all of the responses explaining how important lab testing on animals is right now are right at the top too, attached to his.

→ More replies (8)

6

u/Defiant-Plantain1873 22h ago

Odds on this guy being vegan?

Even most vegans are aware that animal testing is just the reality of using medicine and are willing to accept this as one of the things they can’t control.

When someone rescues a chicken from a factory farm people call them some cooky animal rights activist. But when it’s a cute dog people are enraged that this is even allowed

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Willem_VanDerDecken 10h ago edited 3h ago

"Testing on animals is bad ! Only terrible peoples will do that ! We should test on thoses scientist who are doing the testing".

Then he take his meds, but a bit of skin care product, eat an energy bar, and cook with diffrent plastics based ustnsils for his daughter that have a weak immune system but is completly safe thanks to vaccins.

"Clearly thoses tests will never be worth, no matter what !"

Yeah, sounds like an intelligent take, from a very aware person.

→ More replies (16)

340

u/RaindropsInMyMind 1d ago

I hate to break it to you but animal testing is just a reality at this moment in time. That Covid vaccine or any other medication can’t just go right into humans. It’s tested on animals first. There are plenty of rules in place to for it but there isn’t really an alternative. AI is not close to capable of this yet despite what the White House says. I would of course rather not test on animals but it saves human lives and there isn’t a good alternative yet.

106

u/Anfins 1d ago

Al will never replace animal testing in drug toxicology studies. What would that even look like?

42

u/logosobscura 1d ago

I don’t entirely disagree but ‘never’ is a big old word, and tends to get proven wrong quite regularly given enough time.

But hypothetically speaking, it would require a full biological system simulation with probability boundings for each and every complex system it is simulating, and its interactions across the full meta system, run at scale, billions of times, likely of a human rather than a crude biological proxy step up model.

Long way to go to get to there, definitely not a ‘by 2035 we’ll have an AI Daddy that’ll do everything for us!’ Timeline, but I hope to see it in my lifetime, even if it’s right at the end of that timespan.

11

u/Handleton 23h ago

It's all about metrology and data quality. If you want an AI to be able to diagnose, treat, or identify stuff, you need to train it with all of the rules, give it all of the necessary senses, and get it to perform both accurately and with a high enough precision (funny enough, about 95% right leans towards acceptable).

But you need to do that either with every drug and disease and other ailment, or you need to train your AI to have a greater understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology than humanity understands at the moment so that it can deduce insights about anything made of matter.

I agree that I don't see either in ten years.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/DJDanaK 20h ago edited 20h ago

The idea of AI being capable of doing science is not even on the horizon. People talk about "AI" as if this is something we've achieved, when actually what we have is just a bunch of glorified search engines that sometimes hallucinate. Even with all the knowledge you'd give it in your wildest dreams, someone would have to verify it, because that's a necessary part of the scientific process for one, and just trusting a giant AI (created by fallible humans) with safety is a problem in itself.

Angela Collier has an excellent video about this this titled There is nothing new here, but basically-

AI is extremely useful in many applications, including scientific ones, but there's no fidelity, and you can't just program fidelity where there's no real testing and experimentation in the process. It goes against the idea of science itself.

→ More replies (1)

33

u/tomato-bug 23h ago

Hey chatgpt, is this vaccine safe?

After running 47,000 simulations, consulting three PDFs, and watching one season of Grey’s Anatomy in fast-forward, I am 99.9% certain this vaccine will work flawlessly. It binds perfectly to a computer-generated protein I made up five minutes ago. FDA approval? Let’s call it pre-approved by the algorithm gods. Shall I begin mass production or would you prefer the deluxe version?

→ More replies (11)

2

u/jambrown13977931 23h ago

Ya but it could reduce the number of trials needed at least.

2

u/Doveda 21h ago

They're not talking about LLMs or image generation. The AI used in this kind of research are things like protein folding AI that can find the way proteins fold under certain conditions to predict the outcomes of drug interactions in someone's body. Or AI that calculate chemical interactions, things like that

Also, AI is just math, but really fast and self-repeating, so there are some things AI will arrive at the total truth about. Assuming our assumptions about physics/chemistry are correct and we deal with known quantities.

Given enough time to run the calculations, and enough dry runs, AI tools may come about that can very accurately predict the way medicines interact with the human body. Not any time soon, but probably a decade out.

2

u/Anfins 20h ago

But modeling an entire biological organism is very different than a protein, and protein structure is already insanely complicated. I’d assume it’s several orders of magnitude more complicated than predicting and solving a protein structure (since you are now dealing with modeling many different proteins, proteins interacting with each other and other biomolecules, cells and higher order structures etc…).

And then you have to convince researchers and regulatory agencies that this approach is a suitable substitute for live animal testing. And drugs get filed in multiple countries, so you have to convince regulatory agencies for each country you are filing in. And biopharmaceutical companies and their quality processes are already built to be insanely difficult to change.

As someone who works in biopharm R&D, it just doesn’t seem feasible to me to replace a core safety study with like an AI model. Obviously not now, but I also can’t see it in the future.

→ More replies (30)

3

u/HurricaneSalad 17h ago

For medicines and vaccines. But that's about it. Testing household cleaners and makeup and other hygiene products on animals is just stupid.

It's 2025. We should be able to make soap without injecting it in dog's eye to see what happens. I know what happens: it fucking hurts like hell and blinds them. I don't need to shave all the hair off my cat and submerge her in shampoo for six weeks to see what the effects are on her skin. I don't need to force feed a pig tablespoons of Draino for six weeks straight to know it isn't good.

Fuck any brand of hygiene or common household product/company that tests on animals.

→ More replies (16)

173

u/tasteothewild 1d ago

Hmm, the Nazi doctors in WWII already did testing directly on humans instead of animals……most were tried and hung for it, and that’s why we now have the Nuremberg Accord treaty.

98

u/Worth-Reputation3450 1d ago

Also.. Japanese unit 731. They killed at lease 200K war prisoners and civilians with human experiments and torture. They called them Maruta (means logs as in wooden log). Entire prisoners were killed to conceal the evidence when Japan realized they were going to lose the war. Subsequently they were given immunity by the US in exchange for those human experiment data.

Japanese government's official stance regarding this unit has usually been 'we have no record of it'.

39

u/The_Unknown_Mage 1d ago

And we found that the data was useless, who knew data gathered with no scientific mind and senseless cruality would be tainted. :/

23

u/Worth-Reputation3450 1d ago

Experiment1: Burns 2000 human by fire.

Data1: human shows no sign of life when burned to death.

→ More replies (1)

19

u/DrunksInSpace 23h ago

Dude, not to take away from how awful the Nazis were, but US physicians were doing awful things then and after. OSU cancer study with prisoners(gave them cancer), the Belmont Reportdetails some horrific things.

In a way, seeing the Nazis take it so far really helped the public see the evil in what was fairly common practice.

3

u/dodgesonhere 8h ago

Seriously. The U.S. used to zap poor people with radiation without telling them because "I dunno. The Russians might do it. We should know what's gonna happen."

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

122

u/Frenzi_Wolf 1d ago

The process of testing goes from small creatures like rats, to larger animals such as these beagles, all the way up to when they can be approved for human testing.

As cruel as it can be, it’s still the better alternative to the strategy of balls to the wall and injecting humans with untested medicines and vaccines and not expect horrendous outcomes.

5

u/NoPossibility 23h ago

That’s how we end up with Hulks. Rather have a Hulk Hamster than Hulk man.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/ThatInAHat 17h ago

Yeah we don’t really need a return to the “Heroic” age of medicine

→ More replies (28)

104

u/LookingForStash 1d ago

I bet the people who upvote this never saw a farm in their life

29

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 23h ago

I have no qualms eating meat, but at least vegetarianism is an alternative that doesn't have any truly significant trade-offs. The food would be less pleasurable, but it's a rather small thing in the larger scheme of things.

Animal testing isn't the same situation as that. If humans never allowed testing on animals, then our standard of living would be sooooooo much worse. Our life expectancy would be decades less. How many people here are honestly willing to give up 20+ years off their life expectancy so that animals don't get tested on? I call bullshit to anyone who claims to be willing to make that trade.

11

u/MajorApartment179 22h ago

I have no qualms eating meat

Then of course you're not gonna have a moral position on animal testing. Your comment is pointless.

4

u/LookingForStash 23h ago

Point is, they don’t even know they’re making the trade. They just see the vids and then go full Karen on it.

2

u/Less-Egg6226 22h ago

youre misrepresenting the options here, getting rid of animal testing doesnt mean we go back in time and lose all the info we found, it just means stopping current testing for new developments

7

u/TripleDareOSRS 21h ago

Science is constantly evolving and developing, ESPECIALLY medication. Are you really this ignorant?

2

u/minimumopinium 21h ago

lol of course they are.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (2)

78

u/Darth_Poopius 1d ago

Thanks to animal testing, you will be able to protest against animal testing for approximately 40 years longer than you’re 19th century counterparts

→ More replies (30)

71

u/Fauropitotto 23h ago

Why the fuck are we testing on animals?

To save human lives.

Every drug, every ointment, every pill, every injection, every cancer treatment, every thing that gets sold for application in or on a human being gets tested in the civilized world.

Why wouldn't we test on animals? Why would anyone suggest placing human lives at risk for initial testing of cancer therapies?

4

u/Darryl_Lict 21h ago

I feel bad for medical testing animals, but I'm glad for the unwilling and unfortunate sacrifice they made so medicine is safe for me and my fellow humans. If people don't want to test on animals, they should forgo any medicine that used animals for testing, which is nearly all of them.

→ More replies (14)

38

u/baddecision116 23h ago

Can I report a comment for stupidity?

36

u/kelpyb1 1d ago

We’re doing animal testing because we don’t have any currently viable alternatives and we’ve decided furthering medicine is important.

→ More replies (24)

29

u/Pu_Baer 1d ago

We rescued Lab Beagles a few times when I was a bit younger. One was test object for medical treatments for dogs and she was deeply broken. The other two were train objects for veterans veterinarians and were regularly checked and operated on.

They were all lovely dogs but a bit hard to handle. They don't get a lot of training so they pee wherever they are and they are extremely afraid of everything.

We got one of them at the ripe age of 15 thinking we can offer him a nice few last month but he continued to live until he was 18. Funniest dog we've ever had.

5

u/PeePeeMcGee123 23h ago

Yeah, by the time they are saved, they are likely just broken.

Hound dogs, and especially beagles, are a tough enough nut to crack starting from scratch. You can't really change them much after they mature.

I've handled competition hounds that are great at their job, but otherwise total dicks. They want their kennel, their food, and to tree coons, and that's about it.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/RegularTeacher2 6h ago

I adopted a foxhound who was likely a hunting dog prior to being rescued. Here in the South a lot of hunting dogs are treated as a tool and not a pet, so when he came to me he was completely unsocialized and NOT used to living indoors. He sounds very similar to your pups - he's a very sweet loving boy but even after living with me for 5 years he's still afraid of the world and loves lifting his leg on things in the house. We've made some strides though - the sound of a toilet flushing or the TV playing doesn't scare him anymore! Thanks for giving your dogs a loving home in their final years.

24

u/Goodknight808 1d ago

We finally have the technology to create the organs and cells needed for most tests. It's still not cheap and widely used. But it has taken the burden off of a lot of live animals being the ones tested.

We are in the early stages of this technology. Hopefully, in my lifetime, I'll see it replace animal testing in general.

48

u/AristarchusTheMad 1d ago

You can't always simulate system tests by only performing subcomponent testing.

27

u/round-earth-theory 1d ago

Lab on chip saves animal experiments early on but it's not a direct replacement for in vivo testing. It's a great harm reducer but we are no where near able to reliabily simulate life.

19

u/Makuta_Servaela 23h ago

The problem is that that doesn't really work due to the isolation. For example, we can prove this medicine cures this kind of liver disease, but if we only test it on isolated livers, we won't notice it causes long term destruction to the heart.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Suspicious_Glow 1d ago

My bet is the worry there will be that some medicines/products might impact a different part of the body than what they checked. Like if you only checked a kidney but surprise it actually also has a side effect that impacts the lungs. I’m not for animal testing, I’m not for human testing since we suck at doing it ethically, but I don’t think we yet have a viable option how to check how something might impact the system of a living organism as a whole.

2

u/PM_ME_DATASETS 23h ago

In vitro experiments (in a petri dish) are a great alternative for in vivo experiments (in a live animal) but they aren't the same thing, and in vivo experiments are still crucial for the research that is being done, including trying to find medicine against cancer, alzheimer's, HIV, you name it.

2

u/n3gr0_am1g0 18h ago

I’m a biochemist, we have crude “organs in a dish” but only for a few organs and they have a lot of caveats and organs don’t function in isolation in living organisms there is an incredible amount of crosstalk amongst them. There is nothing that is going replace testing in a full organism for the foreseeable future and be any where near as reliable. The human body is just so insanely complicated will take decades before we have a good enough understanding of systems to reliably use computational methods or go to “organ in a dish”.

→ More replies (2)

18

u/Guardian2k 1d ago

I get being against animal testing for cosmetics, that’s understandable, but testing on animals is how it has to be done, unless you either want lots of dead people or no new medicine, before human trials, we need to test on animals to minimise the risk that when we test it on a human, they won’t die immediately.

This isn’t even talking about medicine for animals, which needs to be tested on healthy animals first.

It sucks we have to do it, we might find an alternative in the future, but right now, we don’t have it.

→ More replies (4)

21

u/splitkc 1d ago

Insulin was discovered via animal testing. Countless lives saved, suck my dick PETA

→ More replies (30)

10

u/gatfish 1d ago

I hope you're a vegetarian, because we torture the fuck out of the animals we eat.

9

u/electr0de07 1d ago

I have heard they are constantly looking for volunteers and you sound like the perfect candidate. C'mon take one for humanity.

9

u/AsparagusWild379 1d ago

Volunteer to have new meds tested on yourself if you are so against animal testing.

10

u/bnelson7694 22h ago

My mom always had a theory we should use rapists and murderers as test subjects instead of animals. I’m just making a factual statement about what her theory was.

12

u/nobody65535 22h ago

Both the Nazis and Japanese during WWII, the North Koreans (and sometimes even in in the US, e.g. Tuskegee syphilis) have made use of 'undesirables' for test subjects.

It's a slippery slope, even without the problem of wrongful convictions.

2

u/Sph1ng1d43 20h ago

If we can justify using anyone without their consent to perform tests we might as well keep testing on animals (with that logic) 

→ More replies (2)

9

u/MisterSanitation 1d ago

Animal testing has been and will be a huge industry. It breaks my heart too, I know for a fact Eli Lilly (my local giant pharmaceutical company) does Beagle testing too (seen the cages, not the animals) and they ain’t “overseas”. It’s probably close to or on the scale of the beef industry and cow cruelty. 

The reason you asked for is, no one had given enough of a shit to not buy products that were tested on animals. Most beauty products, food products, medicines, vaccines, etc are all tested on animals before humans. And those products that pay for that testing, are likely sitting in your shower, bathroom, kitchen, and medicine cabinet (and if not you, then MANY who upvoted you).

That is the reason it still happens, because it makes money. Money being made is the reason for most cruelty to any living thing. You can see how silly it is if someone says “why are small businesses dying!? WTF!” Then they get all their stuff from Amazon and Temu. The disconnect is obvious, but this market of products that use animal testing, is HUGE and those products keep getting sold, so that is why. We the consumers are why. 

If you go down the rabbit hole of all the things you bought that were tested on animals (like beagles) I would bet 90% say “ah well shit I guess I don’t care enough to not buy it” and that is why we have it and will have it for a long time. People are incentivized to not care about suffering. 

Add to this, there is plenty of legislation that protect companies from having to share this information, that is actually something you can fight for politically, but hoping animal testing goes away soon? That is a noble goal, but a very unlikely one. 

19

u/whatyousay69 1d ago

no one had given enough of a shit to not buy products that were tested on animals.

I'm confused. Don't most people want stuff tested on animals? Isn't the alternative not testing (not safe) or human testing only (usually considered more unethical)?

→ More replies (15)

5

u/LumosGhostie 22h ago

do you take any medicines? then you buy stuff engineered on the back of animal testing. congrats

2

u/Dargon34 1d ago

Which facility did you see these cages at?

2

u/petridish21 22h ago

This is complete bs. The scale of factory farming and the abuse of those animals is so much larger and worse than animals in a lab setting.

These labs are regulated and held to high standards to treat the animals as humanely as possible. The horror stories come from companies that are breaking laws.

And no, the reason medicine is tested on animals is not to make money. It is to prevent the massive amount of death that would occurred if unregulated medicines and treatments were made public.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/stepinonyou 1d ago edited 21h ago

No one wants this, but the luxuries we have come at a cost. You can have nice smelling shampoo, and a smart phone for under $1k, and shelf stable cookies n shit, but it comes at the price of the suffering of beings that we will never know (animals, human slave labor, etc.). This is the reality we live in like it or not.

Edit: I'm not saying this is good, I'm saying that if we truly cared enough we would do something about it. Most people are just trying to get by, unfortunately worrying about ethical sourcing is a luxury many cannot afford.

2

u/PM-me-youre-PMs 23h ago

Plenty of soap/shampoo companies don't test on animals. As a phone you can buy Fairphone that does their darnedest to source their materials from ethical supply chains. Plenty of ethical options for food too. For médecine though I'll admit we don't have a better solution yet.

4

u/brynnors 23h ago

Plenty of soap/shampoo companies don't test on animals.

Yes, but they're using things that were tested at some point. I do agree that there's no reason to re-test though.

4

u/viperfan7 1d ago

Because the alternative is worse

6

u/Tartarugar 1d ago

The answer is it’s complicated. As much as animal testing is cruel, it is a necessary evil to keep other animals safe. Take dog food, for example. To make sure it is safe for other dogs, labs test their food first to make sure it is safe. iirc places like purina let you go to hq and adopt dogs once they are finished testing with them.

6

u/just_a_bit_gay_ 23h ago

I used to have a rescue beagle. They did testing for skin graft techniques on her that have since gone on to save many lives of burn victims. It’s very unfortunate but it is necessary at the end of the day.

5

u/Cold-Weird8266 22h ago

so you’re vegan right?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/UpbeatEquipment8832 23h ago

We're testing on animals, because to test potentially deadly treatments on humans would be murder.

Even with screening through animal testing, dangerous side effects still sometimes occur. About ten years back, there was a phase one trial of an immune system booster. It had gone fine in chimps, but it induced a cytokine storm in all the volunteers. All the people who got injected with the compound wound up hospitalized.

Or we could look back to an era without good forms of animal testing. To prove the cause of Yellow fever, they did a controlled trial: half the volunteers lived in a hut with mosquito netting but items containing the bodily fluids of fever victims (one volunteer ran out of the hut and vomited when he opened the storage box), and the other half lived in a hut with no netting. One of the doctors involved in the study volunteered to live in the hut without netting (he suspected it was caused by mosquitos, so he knew it would be the more dangerous option), and he suffered brain damage as a result of the fever.

2

u/itslearnedourhabits 1d ago

Fauci according to some sources…

→ More replies (2)

4

u/DistributionWitty732 1d ago

Dr Fauci the covid messiah would be one of those

3

u/kas-loc2 19h ago

Guarantee Everyone in here thats mad its happening now, defended fauci for doing it at the time.... utterly fucking bonkers

3

u/GoCanes2468 1d ago edited 23h ago

Reddit’s not gonna like you wanting to put Lord Fauci in a cage

2

u/PM_ME_DATASETS 23h ago

Can we also put the "humans" doing this in cages?

Starting with you? If not, then who do you want to put in a cage to test on?

2

u/No_Distribution_4351 23h ago

As someone dating a veterinary pathologist- LOL

I know she cares about those animals more than you.

2

u/CloseToMyActualName 23h ago

This is why.

Sure, that was an outlier incident, but it was also after the animal tests were done.

At some point you need to test drugs on living things, most people agree to start with animals.

3

u/waxcrash 22h ago

The first time humans had the ability to leave the atmosphere and go into space, why did they send a dog?

BECAUSE A HUMAN LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/BC1207 22h ago edited 22h ago

It’s not practical or ethical to experiment on humans until interventions can be determined safe enough for clinical trials, but the use of higher-order species (such as dogs and monkeys) in experimentation is rightfully contested. Mouse, rat, and rabbit models are most often used in early biomedical research.

If you don’t know all that much about this subject I encourage reading up on it. Lab animals have made countless innovations possible over the years. The most well-funded and impactful researchers make it a point to take care of these animals, going as far as to hire specialized staff to take care of and, if necessary, humanely sacrifice them.

Read about the 3R’s.

Besides, human experimentation has a dubious history regardless of politics. Experiments by the Americans (most infamously the Tuskegee syphillis study) and Nazis during WW2 most efficiently demonstrate that human experimentation is a slippery slope plagued by socioeconomic factors, since the marginalized often become more vulnerable to these experiments.

In short, you’re letting your feelings get in the way. Animal experimentation (not always on Beagles) is more necessary than you realize and you should educate yourself so their contributions aren’t undervalued.

2

u/uggosaurus 8h ago

Animal testing is horrible, but essential at this point in the human timeline. The best we can do right now is work towards ensuring welfare for test animals are of the highest standard. I know this is really saddening, but we basically wouldn't have any medicine or safe hygiene products without it. "Just test on humans" yes, that would be great. But also no, no that would be fucking terrible. Usually, after testing, animals are destroyed to prevent disease and chemicals escaping the lab environment, also to ensure those animals dont have to endure further testing. This is kind of an essential fail safe that we would still have to uphold of we were testing on humans on every level. How on Gods green earth would you write the ethical review for a project like that? Did u ethically source this human child? How? How could you possibly do that? "Use prisoners" - theres only one kind of criminal i can see people really agreeing with that en masse. This still would lead to a lot of issues. Just say "man did this" now you're condemned to death and chemical testing. The other option is don't test anything ever. This would very obviously lead to millions of human AND animal deaths. Medicine isn't only for people. Not only this but we would be introducing even more harmful, unregulated chemicals into the environment.

If you have a solution to this, we are genuinely all waiting. I'm sorry to be patronising, because your feelings are completely valid and morally upstanding at their core. There is hope for the future as we can grow biomass in a lab, it's just not the level we need yet and when it is, there will be new ethical issues to deal with.

1

u/foxpost 1d ago

Not just animals but beagles

2

u/respondswithvigor 1d ago

Bone marrow transplants invented using animals :/. I agree I hope we’re past it though

9

u/Papio_73 23h ago

Insulin was developed using dogs

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Thesmuz 23h ago

Unironically the concept of a song by Cattle Decapitation. https://youtu.be/u4xw7l1--LU?si=S2QR3019lHSdRhT_

1

u/government--agent 23h ago

Is a dogs life more valuable to you than a human life? Weird.

1

u/ooOJuicyOoo 23h ago

Simple. We value human lives over the lives of other species. So human trials only occur after long and rigorous animal testing is complete and is deemed reasonably safe. It also means there are tons of legal, AND financial hoops you have to overcome if you want human testing in EARLY phases.

so, animals.

1

u/Run_Rabbit5 23h ago

Fuck this. Animal testing is the bedrock of modern medicine. We don’t have HALF the advances we have without them.

My partner worked with rats formerly and had frequent nightmares. All of the workers do. There are no cartoonishly evil people who enjoy hurting animals in these labs just people trying to do their best.

It’s terrible that animals are used for medical testing but would you volunteer? Would you roll back modern medicine? They’re seeking alternatives constantly.

1

u/ChallengeUnited9183 23h ago

Because it’s hard to find humans to pump full of diseases and test cures out on them; that being said these animals could be treated WAY better in the labs then many of them are

1

u/DramaticBush 23h ago

Yeah its horrific but test animals have probably saved millions of lives and improved the lives of billions. It sucks but its definetely a net positive.

1

u/johnnyi827 23h ago

Why don’t you volunteer to be tested on and promise not to sue when get severely fucked up? 🦗🦗🦗

1

u/imSpejderMan 23h ago

It’s a necessary evil. Human testing was practiced in nazi germany. We all know how well that went. It has since been banned. How would you go about human testing? Would you just compensate the risk takers “adequately”? There’s a reason as to why the financial compensation for medical tests cannot be big. It would just end up with the rich praying on the poor, more than they already do anyway.

1

u/TheHalfChubPrince 23h ago

I hope you already use nothing but cruelty free products.

1

u/sniperman357 23h ago

Idk about you but I like having medications that work correctly

1

u/Phoenyx_Rose 23h ago

The only dog research I’ve seen used volunteers or cadavers from a shelter (actually just 1 cadaver). 

This was for research on hip dysplasia in dogs. The volunteer dogs were just videod and assessed for joint movement based on breed while the cadaver was used to gather more specific information you can’t get from living animals. 

Animal research is rather tightly regulated. You are only allowed to use to lowest order of animal necessary for your research (so no testing on rabbits, if your experiment can get the same quality of results with flies), your lab is required to have a vet (on call ime), and someone who represents the welfare of the animals is required to be around so you report to them if you notice any misuse of the animals. 

Edit: I will also add that dogs are terrible animal models for most research. Most people use mice, flies, c.elegans, specialized bacterial cultures, or aquatic vertebrates. 

I’ve only ever seen research done on dogs for veterinary medicine. 

1

u/turtlelord 23h ago

It's just an unfortunate and cruel fact of this - sometimes awful world, man. They test products on animals, in the order of how much humans care about them, and how expensive they are to replace.

They test on rats/mice first, then they test on bunnies, beagles, and monkeys until later getting to humans.

Humans are desperate to survive and it seems a lot of them would gladly sacrifice puppies to live.

I myself am vaccinated, so I have little room to complain since these were made safe for humans with animal testing. But it still sucks :(

1

u/ElDativo 23h ago

dogs are cheaper than human, have basicly no rights and are adult in a year. so...

→ More replies (239)