one show i will not be watching tonight, page-9

andy, "But drug development would stop dead in its tracks so there are consequences."
This is a view predicated on a) humans are more important than animals b) that we cannot learn by any other means and c) that prior to this huge proliferation of drugs humans suffered more.
All three of these have been and still are, discussed in many noteworthy forums. The most salient argument delivers an unequivocal "no" to all these three predications.

There are drugs that were used earlier in our history that were provided totally by nature and by progressive experimentation on humans which were also totally effective. Those natural chemicals have been replaced by "products," the main purpose of which is to enhance the coffers of corporations rather than to eradicate pain and suffering. Of the drugs that are used on animals few are now of any important, life-saving use. In fact the number of such drugs are getting exponentially fewer. We would lose little if we had stopped animal experimentation.