Board index › General Discussion › Autism Politics, Activism, and Media Representation

PETA on mice models for autism research

Page 1 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,815
Location: Long Island, New York

04 Nov 2021, 8:02 am

What a Surprise: Experiments on Mice Did Not Benefit Autistic Children

Quote:
We’ve long known that animal experimenters are still living in the dark ages—after all, they imprison our fellow animals in laboratories and subject them to cruel, useless experiments before killing them. In one egregious example, experimenters have been using genetically manipulated mice as “models” for autistic humans.

In a recent major clinical study, a hormone tested on mice, which was thought to promote social bonding, was found to have “no meaningful impact” on autistic children.

The study was called a “major setback,” but it was doomed to fail from the start—children are not mice. It shouldn’t take countless failed clinical trials to prove that experimenting on mice will not produce anything of value for autistic humans.

Using mice in experiments to “cure” aspects of autism is speciesist and ableist.

In their failed attempts to replicate autism in mice, experimenters genetically modify the animals, inject them with chemicals, damage their brains, or manipulate the bacteria in their stomach, causing them to have fewer social interactions and produce unusual vocalizations.

These experiments aren’t just cruel to mice, who have meaningful relationships, complex emotions, and interests of their own. They also harm neurodivergent humans by treating autism like a problem to solve.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

05 Nov 2021, 7:40 pm

Why is anyone taking PETA seriously anymore?



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,692
Location: Right over your left shoulder

05 Nov 2021, 7:43 pm

PETA's statement is entirely reasonable, but because they're PETA people will pretend like it's outrageous.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
They have a name for Nazis that were only Nazis because of economic anxiety or similar issues. They're called Nazis.


Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

05 Nov 2021, 8:47 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
PETA's statement is entirely reasonable, but because they're PETA people will pretend like it's outrageous.


Well, I remember when they tried to say that drinking milk caused autism.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,692
Location: Right over your left shoulder

05 Nov 2021, 8:58 pm

Ettina wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
PETA's statement is entirely reasonable, but because they're PETA people will pretend like it's outrageous.


Well, I remember when they tried to say that drinking milk caused autism.


How are their previous statements relevant to whether or not this statement is reasonable? Even if it's just the broken clock phenomenon there's nothing outrageous about this statement being referred to in this story. It's one of many examples of research involving oxytocin not showing any benefits.

PETA can make a very mild, highly agreeable statement and people will try to discredit it based on other, completely unrelated earlier statements they've made in regards to unrelated issues. They say plenty that's disagreeable, but this isn't one of those things.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
They have a name for Nazis that were only Nazis because of economic anxiety or similar issues. They're called Nazis.


Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

06 Nov 2021, 7:22 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Ettina wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
PETA's statement is entirely reasonable, but because they're PETA people will pretend like it's outrageous.


Well, I remember when they tried to say that drinking milk caused autism.


How are their previous statements relevant to whether or not this statement is reasonable? Even if it's just the broken clock phenomenon there's nothing outrageous about this statement being referred to in this story. It's one of many examples of research involving oxytocin not showing any benefits.

PETA can make a very mild, highly agreeable statement and people will try to discredit it based on other, completely unrelated earlier statements they've made in regards to unrelated issues. They say plenty that's disagreeable, but this isn't one of those things.


Just because it seems reasonable doesn't necessarily mean it is. I'd rather get information from a source I believe is unbiased than a source that I know for certain is biased. Sure, broken clock phenomenon can happen, but you wouldn't look at a broken clock to tell the time, even though it could be right once in a while.



carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,030

06 Nov 2021, 10:14 am

Ettina wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
PETA's statement is entirely reasonable, but because they're PETA people will pretend like it's outrageous.


Well, I remember when they tried to say that drinking milk caused autism.


I wouldn’t trust PETA either and also thought the hormone therapy being tested was an example of NT scientists not understanding Autism and a complete waste of time.

Social problems with autism are simply the symptom of everything else that goes on with our brains not the cause.

But PETA`s milk theory may have some truth in it, cow’s milk contains FR1 autoantibodies that can block folate to the brain in certain susceptible people maybe causing autism.

Some parents have these blocking / binding antibodies too that they pass on to their baby.

Some scientists say if parents with these antibodies take folinic acid (not folic acid) for 3 months before conception and avoid milk products, the child will have a greatly reduced likelihood of severe autism.

This isn’t quackery but real science many papers have been produced on this.

Quote:
Interestingly, the human folate receptor cross-reacts with folate receptors
contained in human, bovine (cow), and goat milk. In 2008, Ramaekers and
colleagues14 demonstrated that a cow’s milk-free diet significantly reduced
the level of FR1 autoantibodies and that re-exposure to milk significantly
increased FR1 autoantibodies. Furthermore, some of the children with
autism were found to have marked or partial improvements in attention,
communication, and stereotyped movements when placed on a milk-free
diet


https://rossignolmedicalcenter.com/wp-c ... cy-ASD.pdf


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,692
Location: Right over your left shoulder

06 Nov 2021, 11:24 am

Ettina wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Ettina wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
PETA's statement is entirely reasonable, but because they're PETA people will pretend like it's outrageous.


Well, I remember when they tried to say that drinking milk caused autism.


How are their previous statements relevant to whether or not this statement is reasonable? Even if it's just the broken clock phenomenon there's nothing outrageous about this statement being referred to in this story. It's one of many examples of research involving oxytocin not showing any benefits.

PETA can make a very mild, highly agreeable statement and people will try to discredit it based on other, completely unrelated earlier statements they've made in regards to unrelated issues. They say plenty that's disagreeable, but this isn't one of those things.


Just because it seems reasonable doesn't necessarily mean it is. I'd rather get information from a source I believe is unbiased than a source that I know for certain is biased. Sure, broken clock phenomenon can happen, but you wouldn't look at a broken clock to tell the time, even though it could be right once in a while.


I'm not saying you need to accept it as truth because PETA said it, I'm just saying you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because PETA said it, especially when they're just repeating what the study showed and adding their generic boilerplate about why they oppose experiments that require animals.

You can play that game about it only seeming reasonable, but if you want to insist it's not reasonable you might need to actually make a counter-argument instead of just claiming it's not reasonable because of your own personal feelings about PETA.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
They have a name for Nazis that were only Nazis because of economic anxiety or similar issues. They're called Nazis.


Ettina
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,971

09 Nov 2021, 12:17 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Ettina wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Ettina wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
PETA's statement is entirely reasonable, but because they're PETA people will pretend like it's outrageous.


Well, I remember when they tried to say that drinking milk caused autism.


How are their previous statements relevant to whether or not this statement is reasonable? Even if it's just the broken clock phenomenon there's nothing outrageous about this statement being referred to in this story. It's one of many examples of research involving oxytocin not showing any benefits.

PETA can make a very mild, highly agreeable statement and people will try to discredit it based on other, completely unrelated earlier statements they've made in regards to unrelated issues. They say plenty that's disagreeable, but this isn't one of those things.


Just because it seems reasonable doesn't necessarily mean it is. I'd rather get information from a source I believe is unbiased than a source that I know for certain is biased. Sure, broken clock phenomenon can happen, but you wouldn't look at a broken clock to tell the time, even though it could be right once in a while.


I'm not saying you need to accept it as truth because PETA said it, I'm just saying you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand because PETA said it, especially when they're just repeating what the study showed and adding their generic boilerplate about why they oppose experiments that require animals.

You can play that game about it only seeming reasonable, but if you want to insist it's not reasonable you might need to actually make a counter-argument instead of just claiming it's not reasonable because of your own personal feelings about PETA.


One study finds that one treatment that works on mice doesn't work on humans, and they pounce on that to say "animal research is unhelpful for humans", because they're PETA and they'll twist whatever vague evidence they can find to discourage people "exploiting" animals.

Meanwhile, in the field of depression, many valuable medications were discovered based on their effectiveness on depressed rats and mice. But they make no mention of that. Because they're PETA and they'll ignore any data that doesn't fit their narrative.

It's not really productive to try to pick through a garbage source to find whatever glimmers of maybe-reasonable stuff they might say. You want to know about how useful or not studies on mice are for humans? Look at stuff by actual scientists, not an activism group known for distorting science to serve their agenda.

If it's so reasonable, someone other than PETA will be saying it, too.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

16 Nov 2021, 1:46 am

Lab mice have contributed to saving millions of human lives since WWII. PETA will have an uphill battle convincing regulatory authorities to ban using lab mice



rowan_nichol
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jul 2016
Age: 61
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 774
Location: England

23 Nov 2021, 2:44 pm

A gentle observation from my virology course lectures : "Mice lie and monkeys exaggerate, and cell cultures give fake news", reminding students that animal models are not humans, and are approximations, and may not give accurate prediction of what happens in humans.
Examples - mice and humans have the ace2 enzyme, but mouse ace2 is sufficiently different that Sars-CoV2 will not bind in mice. Rabies virus is 100 percent fatal in humans but bats and Rabies seem to have some sort of equilibrium together.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

23 Nov 2021, 4:05 pm

rowan_nichol wrote:
A gentle observation from my virology course lectures : "Mice lie and monkeys exaggerate, and cell cultures give fake news", reminding students that animal models are not humans, and are approximations, and may not give accurate prediction of what happens in humans.
Examples - mice and humans have the ace2 enzyme, but mouse ace2 is sufficiently different that Sars-CoV2 will not bind in mice. Rabies virus is 100 percent fatal in humans but bats and Rabies seem to have some sort of equilibrium together.


This is true, but mice/animal models > no models



rowan_nichol
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jul 2016
Age: 61
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 774
Location: England

30 Nov 2021, 4:11 pm

But approximate models only.

I suspect there are sleepless nights when a drug or vaccine moves from the lab to the first (Safety) trials in humans.

Another little observation from the same course - in the technical Language, signs and symptoms are different things - signs are the things others can observe or measure - eg temperature, swelling, culturing virus or bacteria from a sample, while symptoms are what the person feels ( I feel sick, I feel light headed, my leg aches, my head feels about to expload). Animal models can only give signs

Thinking to an example from looking at autism. From the outside a researcher can see A Sign, for example " The person remained aloof from the others, as if there was no social instinct" but won't be able to know the symptoms "So many people, I don't know how to work this, my anxiety levels are through the roof, how do I even start without coming over as odd and getting put down...".



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

01 Dec 2021, 12:36 am

rowan_nichol wrote:
But approximate models only.
.


Correct, animals models are fuzzy



Cunfuzed
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 15 Sep 2021
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 39
Location: Texas

04 Dec 2021, 12:08 pm

I seem to have some ideas and research material noone even wants to ask me about that may provide some better clues about autism. I stumbled across a few things I found interesting based on reading a few things about my family history and a few things related to Hans Asperger's observations of autistics, but apparently I am the only one that finds them remotely relevant.



carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,030

04 Dec 2021, 3:30 pm

Cunfuzed wrote:
I seem to have some ideas and research material noone even wants to ask me about that may provide some better clues about autism. I stumbled across a few things I found interesting based on reading a few things about my family history and a few things related to Hans Asperger's observations of autistics, but apparently I am the only one that finds them remotely relevant.


Im interested in what you have to say, type away


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw