Poor predictors of human outcomes

From an LTE in response to Monday's article on primate testing at SNBL:

My last complaint is with Meyers' claims of good science. Even if we ignore the USDA violations for the moment, something few would be willing to do if the details had been reported, the science is dubious. Readers deserve a realistic view of what the so-called "good science" really achieves.

The FDA itself has reported that over 90 percent of drugs tested in animals eventually prove to be unsafe or ineffective in human trials. This figure doesn't even include drugs that get approved and then later get recalled. Let's not forget that Vioxx was tested in monkeys and went on to be a disaster. Recent independent studies published in highly respected medical journals, JAMA and BMJ, reported that animal tests were poorly designed and executed, and utterly miserable at predicting outcomes for people.

Click here for full letter - Animal Testing: Poor predictors of human outcomes