anisha_zaveri

• anisha_zaveri 14 Jun 2021 21:50 UTC

  15 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: An­i­mal Test­ing Is Ex­ploita­tive and Largely Ineffective

  For example, van der Naald et al. looked at seven years’ biomedical research using animals at the University Medical Center Utrecht and found that only 60% of the studies lead to one or more publications, and that of the 5590 animals used in the studies they looked at, only 26% ended up in published research.^[25] (For small animals, which made up the majority of those used, the number was a mere 23%.^[26]) The main reasons for not publishing were “lack of statistical significance, technical problems and objections from supervisors and peer reviewers”

  
  How many studies that use non-animal models end up in published research? Lack of statistical significance leading to non-publication is an issue that is not specific to research on animals, but fairly widespread.
  

  
  He notes that very few drugs that make it through animal trials also succeed in human trials. That is usually not because they end up being unsafe for humans, but because they end up being ineffective

  Again the counterfactual is really unclear. If we didn’t use animal models even fewer drugs would succeed in human trials.
  

• anisha_zaveri 7 May 2021 13:58 UTC

  5 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Three char­i­ta­ble recom­men­da­tions for COVID-19 in India

  Thank for you this! Donated today based on your recommendations!

• anisha_zaveri 11 Oct 2020 22:31 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: In­tro­duc­ing Land­slide Coal­i­tion, an EA-themed giv­ing cir­cle for sup­port­ing Democrats in the 2020 US elections

  Have you considered David Shor’s donation recommendations?

  https://​​twitter.com/​​davidshor/​​status/​​1314950031443714053?s=20