> "most of what works in other species doesn't work in humans" (see: 99% of drug trials)

Isn't the point of doing animal trials that they are "close enough" for most things to deliver good results? I.e. "if you can't do it in mice, dogs and pigs with your proposed medication, you probably won't be able to do it in humans". They're close enough that xenotransplantation is actively considered. "Humans are so special, everything we learn about anything that isn't human does most likely not apply to humans, so don't you dare even suggest that" just sounds strange to me.

We haven't found anything better to replace animal trials yet, but they aren't close enough to deliver good results.

Animal trials precede the first (Phase I) clinical trials in people.

93% of drugs that make it past animal trials and into Phase I clinical trials fail to make it all the way to final approval:

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2019/05/09/th...

It's also not clear how many drug candiates we're missing out on because animal models give false positives for toxicity in humans. Compounds that are extremely poisonous to experimental animals may be tolerated much better in humans.

Humans survive exposure to TCDD at levels that would be more than 50 times higher than the lethal dose in guinea pigs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodiox...

Acetaminophen is a deadly poison to cats even at modest doses.

It's impractical and unethical to try novel druglike compounds in humans right away, so we may not know how many premature rejections come from animal models until/unless we're able to grow whole human organs for drug testing.

In terms of false positives, the story of Guinea pigs and penicillin comes to mind. IIRC Guinea pigs were more susceptible (might have been that their gut microflora leaned gram positive and that led to toxic effects after penicillin administration? Dont recall exactly off the top of my head).

"It works in a close animal" is a necessary though far from sufficient condition for "it" working in humans. The point of doing animal trials is to filter out drugs that don't even fulfill that condition. Look at the "in mice" twitter account. How many potential Alzheimer treatments and cures for cancer have been touted in the last decade that proved effective in mice? How many of them turned out to be promising in humans? You need to keep that ratio in mind whenever you feel like conjecturing something.

And keep in mind we're talking here about behavioral differences driven by possibly the most complex organ that diverged the most from other animals'.

One thing to consider is that with the alzheimers trials, the mice might be so different that what works in humans might not work in mice. We dont yet have the tools and infrastructure to deal with that hypothetical, though there is some promising work with lab on a chip and brain organoids that could solve that sort of problem of it turns out to be the case

Who said anything about humans? My original comment certainly didn't.

I don't know what you're talking about then. But plenty of comments in this thread did.

I don't think you know what a conspiracy is. People don't speak up precisely because they are alone and don't want to be shunned by the echo chamber. If you've heard about it so many times, why do you think you know best and deny the observations of others?

I also happen to work with biologists and I found no such thing as you describe. People aren't afraid to talk about sex differences. There's no hidden truth that everyone speaks in undertones about and is scared of mouthing out loud. People don't mindlessly transpose what they know about their model organisms to humans. People don't buy into evopsych crap either. (There's a reason evopsych papers have trouble even making it into PNAS.) The community isn't filled with Damores either. So maybe you could clarify what you're talking about because I seem to have lost you there.