Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Professor,
I stand in awe of the work you are doing.I am sure many people have
benefited,will benefit enormously from the work
you are doing.
My question centres on the validity of extrapolating the
findings of animal experiments to the level of intervention on humans.Do
such findings(on"the animal model")actually FIT
the human model?And if they do FIT the human model,why would they
necessarily fit?
Some may say that animal findings should FIT the human because we
supposedly share a common ancestry.Others might say that such findings
might FIT because we have the same
Designer.However,we all know that our blood groups certainly do not all
FIT one another.Some would say that we
FIT the animal experiments purely by chance.
The problems with the supposition that we share a common
ancestry with "the animal model"are twofold.
Firstly,"our"chromosome numbers do NOT FIT an evolutionary
chain(please see www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm )
Secondly,the mechanisms of meiosis(which absolutely require the synapsis
of homologous chromosomes,which requires a degree of absolute homology
between the respective members of the respective chromosome pairs)preclude
the possibility of the acquisition of new chromosomes and their
transmission to successive generations,and therefore preclude the
possibility of evolutionary appearances of new species.
Thirdly"chance" -chances that we share similar tissues and similar tissue
responses cannot be quantified(?).
The only feasible basis on which to assume that our tissue responses would
FIT"the animal model" is that we have the Same Designer.
I am interested to know your thoughts on this matter,if you have the
time to consider it and the time to reply.
Thank you
Dr A.N.Jackson
Remember Cinderella
Dear Professor,
I stand in awe of the work you are doing.I am sure many people have
benefited,will benefit enormously from the work
you are doing.
My question centres on the validity of extrapolating the
findings of animal experiments to the level of intervention on humans.Do
such findings(on"the animal model")actually FIT
the human model?And if they do FIT the human model,why would they
necessarily fit?
Some may say that animal findings should FIT the human because we
supposedly share a common ancestry.Others might say that such findings
might FIT because we have the same
Designer.However,we all know that our blood groups certainly do not all
FIT one another.Some would say that we
FIT the animal experiments purely by chance.
The problems with the supposition that we share a common
ancestry with "the animal model"are twofold.
Firstly,"our"chromosome numbers do NOT FIT an evolutionary
chain(please see www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm )
Secondly,the mechanisms of meiosis(which absolutely require the synapsis
of homologous chromosomes,which requires a degree of absolute homology
between the respective members of the respective chromosome pairs)preclude
the possibility of the acquisition of new chromosomes and their
transmission to successive generations,and therefore preclude the
possibility of evolutionary appearances of new species.
Thirdly"chance" -chances that we share similar tissues and similar tissue
responses cannot be quantified(?).
The only feasible basis on which to assume that our tissue responses would
FIT"the animal model" is that we have the Same Designer.
I am interested to know your thoughts on this matter,if you have the
time to consider it and the time to reply.
Thank you
Dr A.N.Jackson
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests