studies about mice should be banned or include a #mice hashtag.

[gravesen]

Sorry but i consider the continuous posting of mice studies here as an outright spam and a waste of time and attention for all readers. We don't give a **** about mice for many obvious reasons :
1: ) it rarely leads to **** getting done for us.
2 : ) we aren't mice.
3 : ) mice aren't the (main) target of this forum.
4 : ) even a balding mouse won't give a **** cause he have already so many solutions available for him.
5 : ) everything work for mice so there is no reason to believe that new study is special unless you give specific reasons ( other than 'tested on mice' )

please stop doing that.

 

[hellouser]

I like the hashtag idea.

 

[KiNGTyreZe]

What if the cure is working for human but not for mice?

Running in vain.

 

[bilboswaggins]

that will never happen unless mice r doing experiments on humans

 

[bushbush]

Sorry but i consider the continuous posting of mice studies here as an outright spam and a waste of time and attention for all readers. We don't give a **** about mice for many obvious reasons :
1: ) it rarely leads to **** getting done for us.
2 : ) we aren't mice.
3 : ) mice aren't the (main) target of this forum.
4 : ) even a balding mouse won't give a **** cause he have already so many solutions available for him.
5 : ) everything work for mice so there is no reason to believe that new study is special unless you give specific reasons ( other than 'tested on mice' )

please stop doing that.

There are a multitude of good reasons why scientists carry out preliminary work on animals, and in particular, mice. Perhaps these reasons are not so obvious to you (as an unqualified lay person)---but this does not make them any less valid---nor should it mean that they shouldn't be open for discussion by other people here. Since this forum is dedicated to 'New research', a more appropriate motion might be to ban scientifically unsound posts .

 

[zdm632]

There are a multitude of good reasons why scientists carry out preliminary work on animals, and in particular, mice. Perhaps these reasons are not so obvious to you (as an unqualified lay person)---but this does not make them any less valid---nor should it mean that they shouldn't be open for discussion by other people here. Since this forum is dedicated to 'New research', a more appropriate motion might be to ban scientifically unsound posts .

Well, did you read this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12734505

Wtf, so the same "Scientists" did what?
They took a balding man and a mouse.
They took 1 miniaturised follicle and 1 healthy follicle from the balding man and grafted them to the back of the mouse.
After only 3 or 4 months, what did happen?
The miniaturised dying follicle not only that recovered completely, but grew THICKEr(in diameter) than the healthy follicle!!!!!, if you can believe that.

This practically discredits further mice studies.(assuming it's correct)

 

[abcdefg]

I think a lot of animals like monkeys would be better for all this since they resemble humans so much more genetically. I dont know how closely the genetics of a mouse resembles humans but it seems like they would not be that similar.

 

[alscarmuzza]

I didn't read it that way. I thought that the regeneration after transplanting to mice was related to their use of immunodeficient mice. Perhaps this has more to do with the inherent lack of immune response in the mice. Hair loss is an auto immune response?

 

[Dikek]

They use mouse because they are cheap , not because it's the best animal for testing stuff before human trial

 

[crankyhair]

I agree with the hashtag idea. Yes, they need to use mice for these studies, and one day a treatment will come out of these studies, but it's become an ongoing joke on these forums, people posting mice studies that go nowhere and ultimately mean nothing. I would love to not waste my time clicking on links that turn out to be research vapor. There are several stages that come after mice studies that we can take more seriously.