Why do some people conclude that because animal testing does not accurately predict an effect in humans, it is not worth doing at all?

Surely some information is better than no information?

Given the choice between a drug that has not been tested and a drug that has been tested on animals, is there anyone who really would choose the untested drug?

Go to any pharmacy and you'll see hundreds of drugs that do save lives.

All of them have been tested on animals before testing on humans.

It's a deliberate act of misinformation to suggest otherwise. I can only assume that Gillian Whitty and Amanda Morrison (Oxford Mail, March 21) do not know anyone with asthma or diabetes, for example, and that they have never had high blood pressure.

If they are so certain that animal testing has produced no 'cures for human diseases', I have a challenge for them.

I think they should confirm that they advocate refusing medical treatment if their doctors ever prescribe it.

I challenge them to carry cards that say "don't treat me with medicines that have been tested on animals".

I wonder if they will.

Alison Eden, Lime Walk, Headington, Oxford