Edit: I also notice that you carefully avoided another answer that goes into much more details than mine. Yeah you’re not here in good faith.
I replied to yours first because it was shorter and easier, I was literally replying to them when you made your edit. You need to spend less time on the internet.
And here are the specific questions I asked which again, that sentence does not answer:
I would genuinely like to understand what the cost/benefit analysis was, what alternatives methods of research were considered, and why they weren’t viable.
So in general, research on animals is a step before research on humans. That’s as simple as that. It costs more to do experimentation on humans, and it’s also more dangerous (to humans). But you didn’t need the article for that, any simple research online would have given you that answer.
I maintain that you are not arguing in good faith here.
Other effective models don’t yet exist for this specific line of inquiry that connects the metabolic and cellular mechanisms that can lead to, or prevent, a heart attack or heart failure with non-invasive imaging techniques.
I maintain that you are not arguing in good faith here.
I maintain that you think that because you spend too much time on the internet and don’t talk to people in real life. Irl people have opinions that don’t all fall in lock step with the hive mind.
So in general, research on animals is a step before research on humans. That’s as simple as that. It costs more to do experimentation on humans, and it’s also more dangerous (to humans). But you didn’t need the article for that, any simple research online would have given you that answer.
Ironic that you’re complaining about me arguing in bad faith when you can’t answer of any of the very specific questions I asked, and keep hand waving them away with broad generalizations.
That is not a justification, that’s a hand wave. That sentence answers literally none of my questions.
It does, maybe it’s just not precise enough for you, but it does. Medical imaging for humans. What do you actually want?
I don’t believe you’re here to argue in good faith anyway.
Edit: I also notice that you carefully avoided another answer that goes into much more details than mine. Yeah you’re not here in good faith.
I replied to yours first because it was shorter and easier, I was literally replying to them when you made your edit. You need to spend less time on the internet.
And here are the specific questions I asked which again, that sentence does not answer:
So in general, research on animals is a step before research on humans. That’s as simple as that. It costs more to do experimentation on humans, and it’s also more dangerous (to humans). But you didn’t need the article for that, any simple research online would have given you that answer.
I maintain that you are not arguing in good faith here.
Edit: There’s a bit more information on this article from the CBC, notably with the following:
I maintain that you think that because you spend too much time on the internet and don’t talk to people in real life. Irl people have opinions that don’t all fall in lock step with the hive mind.
Ironic that you’re complaining about me arguing in bad faith when you can’t answer of any of the very specific questions I asked, and keep hand waving them away with broad generalizations.
I got an edit that you may have not seen. Just wanted to point that out.
Also, attacking my character with all that “too much time on the internet” is not the killer argument you seem to think it is.
Funny how I got this extra information with 1 online search, which you seem quite intent on avoiding.