User talk:Tsailand

Welcome!

Hello, Tsailand, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Jytdog not accepting that the replaced statement is inherently flawed. Living organism...animal organism...or human organism? What is the point of that section? You have removed an essential key message that even the partial human system test is better than the whole living animal test. That revertion twice is totally uncalled for. Tsailand (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog needs to stop reverting people's contribution. Please stop editing until you've answered the questions and answer it well.

Unfair accusation from Jytdog as Jytdog started the edit war, reverting and reverting more times than me without addressing my concerns. It is clear Jytdog is unwilling to have the new information published. One can also easily search the web of the truth behind what I was trying to post. There are so many incidences of what I stated.

What are those "incidences"? That would be helpful. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would smother the article with things you will probably remove as well. First of all, why did you allow the "as of 2014" animals testing is still the only...."??? Why aren't you as hard of that person as you are on me? How is their article better than my source, and have you really read the whole report??? You haven't answered me. From your arguments, it seems you haven't really absorbed and appreciated it. One can easily surf the net for all the different companies already working on organ chips, or simply human in-vitro iterations. Kindly please remove the "as of 2014" posting if you wouldn't even take my contributions. Tsailand (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking you to tell me here. Am curious what you are seeing out there. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hey

you can't do stuff like this - you don't change other people's comments on talk pages. please read the talk page guidelines to see how we talk to each other. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see

I do not know how to contact or respond, so it was a mistake. Didn't know how to add a section. To answer your question. I will work on satisfying your curiosity. This has taken a lot of my time. In the meantime, please do feel free to investigate and learn before dismissing people. I gave you one example which you deleted, but perhaps you may find out via the active pages on the web. My earlier source was unfortunately no longer active. Info is out there. Don't dismiss just because you haven't gotten around to seeing them all. Also, don't fall for lame tautological assertions. I tried to remove it but you wouldn't see it. Tsailand (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is guidance for everything here - again you can read WP:TPG to learn how to use talk pages.

back to the tox subject... i am pretty aware of what is out there for tox testing; i asked you what you are looking at that makes you believe that lab-on-a-chip tox testing is viable today -- as i wrote at the article talk page if you look at the literature, people have been talking about this for years and trying to start companies to make such products but none of them have been able to show that they are as good as animal testing... so far. so i am curious what you are looking at. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I am looking at are all the failure in animal testing. Would you like me to post those? I am curious what you mean by "not viable." It seems it could stem more from the intransigence of old regulations than on the actual results generated. How do you know it is not better, and who said it is not better? Where is your source for that statement "as good as animal testing" and is that source a self-promoting animal testing agency? I have read too many proofs of animal testing being not good. Even chimps don't work for human drugs. I think this page requires people who know all the problems of animal testing, not people who just don't question it and keep calling it good. I'll have to give you so many sources of animal data being debunked over and over, species by species...and so many poor animals killed for nothing. Tsailand (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone who opened a section, you put one colon ":" in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yep, everybody knows that animal testing is not perfect. no big news there. the question is what comes closest, most consistently, to what happens in people. kind of like that thing they say about democracy - it is far from perfect but the best thing we have. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked briefly at the 2007 document and I don't see how it can be used to support the claims. Even the final pie in the sky testing goal does not envision being able to completely eliminate animal testing. See my comments on the article's talk page. Without exact page numbers I'm not going to look at it in more detail. Meters (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Jytdog, which animal is the best thing we have? These generalizations don't sound convincing. Just because it's been there before doesn't make it the best. Was the best comparison picked before or after the real test - on us? Tsailand (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

toxicology is an actual field that people get PhDs in and learn more even after they get started; the correct animal model depends on route of exposure and what kind of effect you are looking for. tox grew up along side medicine and there are tons of studies comparing methods of predicting what will happen in people. also... you seem to only be focusing on things like drugs and cosmetics where the product will be used on or in humans, but all kinds of things get tested on animals in labs, to see (for example) how they might effect birds or fish or other wild animals. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refractorng

I reverted your edit on User talk:Jytdog and replaced your comment at the bottom. Please be more careful in how you place your comments so you don't remove someone else's comments. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]