Join the discussion below, or Read more at Florida Times-Union.
#22 Oct 2, 2006
It is good to know there are still those who care enough about these innocent creatures to speak on their behalf.(Paul McCartney). Wake up Mr. "I hate stupid people!" Your "ends justifies the means" attitude is a dangerous one. I'd personaly rather see you and those who think along your lines being experimented on rather than helpless animals.
#23 Oct 7, 2006
I am very happy that he is trying to help! I do not want to live next door to Covance or any other animal testing facility. Animal testing does NOT help us AT ALL. Do your research animal testing does NOT help any of us!
#24 Jul 2, 2007
yeah right on
#25 Jul 2, 2007
Animal testing be played out, pointless, wuss and dumb.
la prova dell'animale è giocata fuori, superfluo, wuss e dumb.
die Tierprüfung wird heraus gespielt, sinnlos, wuss und stummes
L'essai d'animal soit joué dehors, injustifié, des wuss et sourd-muet.
la prueba del animal se juegue hacia fuera, insustancial, los wuss y mudo.
testar do animal seja jogado para fora, pointless, wuss e dumb.
het dierlijke testen wordt beeindigd, stomp, wuss en stom.
#26 Jul 3, 2007
Setting the record straight: no matter what anyone's thoughts are about pro-animal testing, here are the FACTS:
1. Animal testing began in ancient times. We are now millenimums away from ancient times, and civilization has developed modern, accurate methods of testing, without the need for animal testing, which is uncivilized, arcahaic, and barbaric.
2.Animals do NOT have the same physiology as humans. Therefore, testing on them is highly inaccurate AND is the reason why some pharmaceutical companies have been able to put drugs out on the market that have caused illnesses and fatalities...and then had to take the drugs quickly off the market.
3. Anyone knowing the torture those animals have to go through so needlessly, and can still come away thinking in favor of animal-testing, is incapable of having compassion for the most helpless and voiceless.
4. Instead of those slamming Paul McCartney and all the compassionate people who care about innocent animals, who are a part of life, should be slamming the mad lab scientists, and the animal-testing companies for using your consumer dollars for such needless barbarism...and be wary of those who have a limited compassion, if any, those who wouldn't think twice about torturing another feeling being. Torturing animals is not far removed from the Jeffrey Dahmers.
5. Life-saving drugs and medical procedures were NOT and are NOT the result of testing on animals. It is ultimately when the drugs or medical procedures involve humans.
#27 Jul 6, 2007
McCartney ,mind your own bus,about calling kettle black , worry about your own ex she looks like a real Dog ,save her ugly ! lets go back to old day ,with our 45 cal henrys ! thankyou! bleeding heart wussies !
#28 Jul 25, 2007
First off, rats, mice, dogs, rabbits, cats and even primates are not genetically identical to humans. Therefore the test results are truly irrelevant and mere speculation as to how the drugs will effect humans. In fact, animal testing is complete scientific fraud. The tests that are done with rats, for example, would equate to giving a human consuming a 5 pound pile of some new drug or artificial sweetener twice a day. Honestly, if they forced you to eat two 5 pound piles of say, aspertame or sucralose a day, don't you think you might develop some health conditions. Also, well known medical facilities like UCLA's medical department perform torturous tests on primates that have been performed over 180 times in previous studies and have resulted in ZERO useful data yet... they continue to accept private and government grant money to continue these pointless, archaic and horrifically cruel tests. I'm sure that most Americans think that animal testing is valuable but scientifically it actually proves NOTHING! The ONLY WAY TO PROVE THE EFFECTS OF DRUGS AND OTHER PRODUCTS ON HUMANS IS TO TEST THEM ON HUMANS!
#29 Jul 25, 2007
LOGICAL, I AGREE WITH YOU 110%!!
It's obvious that you are well-informed and well-educated on this issue, while those who are not, are comparing rats and mice to humans!
And I will add: forcing toxins down a cat's or dog's throat, then gutting them open while still alive -just to see how the toxins affect their organs, is babarically INSANE!...let alone pointless!
Pouring toxic chemicals into rabbits' eyes just to see if they go blind -well, I can't even go on about those mad "scientists" nonsensical STUPIDITY!!!
Meanwhile, yes, we, the consumers are paying for these needlessly cruel inaccurate tests, while modern, accurate methods have been developed and are not being utilized very much YET because of govt. "sweetheart" deals!
Thank goodness for organizations like the PCRM (Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine) and for people like Paul McCartney who not only have common sense, but also the respectable decency to expose and advocate abolishing this FRAUD!
As usual, the uninformed typically spout off things that they don't even know what they're talking about!!!!! Comparing rats, mice, dogs, cats, rabbits, and primates physiologies to humans...how naive can they be?????!!!!!
#30 Jul 25, 2007
The one that really tops the list of naive is PHARMA QA.
I have a medical education too, worked in a hospital for almost 20 years until I became permanently disabled. I worked in every specialty unit,ICU/CCU/Respiratory, as well as all the different med-surge nursing floors, OB and Peds.
For the life of me, I can't even imagine looking into the face of a dying patient - and thinking or saying to them that experiments on rats could have saved your life! Neither could I imagine the same on the Pediatric floor!
LOVE FOR ANIMALS, YOU ARE RIGHT! ALL of creation is God's creatures, who are sanctified because He created ALL of us as He breathed life into us with His eternal spirit. He gave us stewardship/dominion over the animals, and stewardship/dominion does NOT mean torturing and killing. Therefore, we are not to destroy or disrespect what God has created.
In fact, St. Francis of Assisi, noted as "the" greatest saint, referred to the animals as our "brothers and sisters."
If some are non-believers, that is their choice, however, I know some non-believers who have more respect for ALL life than some believers do.
#31 Sep 7, 2007
I don't know much about animal testing but I sent an e-mail which put forward various arguments on the issue against it! Here it is and here is the pro-testing dudes "intelligent" reply:
I sent an e-mail not long ago questioning why volunteers are not used more
than animals and your argument is that although humans are vital it would be
immoral for them to participate in all experiments, especially the ones that
we know will result in death. Please can I hear your views on my argument?
In the last e-mail I posted, you defended testing on animals because humans
are more intelligent than animals so deserve more rights, or are
"fundamentally more important". I am not going to go into too much
philosophy regarding this but I don't see why this makes a being more
deserving of life. However, shouldn't a human's intelligence (with their
consent) be used for the benefit of the experiments? To explain what I mean:
You claim it would be immoral to test on humans because it is not ethical
for them to be experimented on if we have knowledge that the experiments
will result in them either dying or in serious pain or permanent
disfigurement. Fair enough.
However, if studies are correct, apes and other animals you claim are
required to conduct in experiments have been proven to have the same, if not
greater, mental faculties as toddlers. If this is correct, testing on an
animal would be like testing on a toddler and both these (regardless of
species) will be put through pain and fear for our benefits and not
If we humans volunteered and I am certain many would, we would know why we
are suffering and would be able to chose to for ourselves, because animals,
like toddlers cannot make these decisions! Therefore it would be more
immoral to test on animals than intelligent and sophisticated humans because
of their "greater cognitive abilities" as you quite clearly claimed!
Furthermore, Pro-test supporters claim that some animal charities slow down
cures for human's diseases by being against animal testing. However, would
it not speed up these cures if humans could exercise their rights of freedom
and choice and to volunteer in 'all' experiments? Firstly, the tests would
not need to be conducted repeatedly on the different species? Secondly, the
money used to feed and care for animals could be put towards the research!
This would obviously result in a massive law reform which people would see
as expensive and time wasting where as others would see it as social
... and his reply:
Every new drug which is developed will have been tested on about 8 times as many humans as animals by the time it gets on the market. If animal research was stopped, people would start dying in large numbers in clinical drug trials. People would stop volunteering for clinical drug trials. All drug trials would stop - new drug development would stop!
Oh wow yeah really tackles my argument right down to the last word...not! They arn't as brainy as you think!
#32 Sep 8, 2007
It is obvious to me that the people who are agaisnt animal testing on this board are more in love with animals than with humans. When you all become scientists and come up with a solution that both protects animals lives AND yet still produces safer drugs for humans then and only then will I actually feel willing to listen to your anti human rage.
#33 Sep 9, 2007
Well Andrea, it is obvious that the people on this board who are [for] animal testing are ignorant enough to think that!
Firstly, we are not in love with animals more than we are humans. Why? Because that would contradict the whole argument. We argue that animals can feel pain and fear and suffering and boredom [as much as] humans so therefore both have rights.
Secondly, why would we animal lovers "all become scientists" anyway, you know we'll never test on animals. So I guess that means your never willing to listen to our arguments again, even if they're good? No, No, we have to be scientists first!
Or is this just another way of saying 'I'm not going to listen to your arguments anyway because I don't want to be philosophical (puts fingers in ears) la la la.... I'm not listening'.^_^
...and lastly, read the above letter... if your still there... or are you not willing to listen until I'm a scientist: it clearly shows how these pro-test supporters don't take into consideration a whole argument (like you) and just the bits they can answer.
Could you answer it better please?:)
#34 May 14, 2009
Same here. I work in the industry. Most of what is being said is naive at best. The organization that has propgated most of the anti-animal testing rhetoric has created the videos themselves. Specifically in the case of Covance, a PETA agent jot themselves hired, performed the animal cruelty situation, video taped it, edited the footage to spin it for their cause, and released it to the public as fact. Covance dropped their charges against PETA because the FBI had an on-going blanket investigation regarding TERRORIST activities under the Patriot Act. Apparantly, PETA was sponsoring groups such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), that killed a couple people here are overseas. Don't take my word on it. Google it.
All animals used in drug testing are raised in controlled environments specifically for drug testing. They are cared for by passionate people that care about them so much that, personal experience, they have to leave on vacation when the animals are euthanized because of the emotional ties that are created. There are plenty of studies that show the purpose and place for computer models versus animal testing. Typically, animal drug testing is performed in tandem with computer models. What we've found is that the computer model shows that a drug should theoretically work, animal drug testing reveals one ore two standard deviations of dangerous side-effects not found in computer models. Even then there are usually two to four rounds of human clinical drug trials after the animal testing before the drugs are permitted in the public. Even then, the process isn't fool-proof.
The comment that Sir McCartney is two-faced because he apposes animal drug-testing and yet uses drugs that were tested on animals prior to their use in humans is true. It is also true of most all of the celebrities that are against animal testing. They are welcome to their opinion; however, they should admit to using drugs that were developed using animal testing, or just SHUT UP. That would be fine, too.
Now, there is a debate about quantity vs. quality of life. The simple fact is that if we save every human from every disease there will not be enough resources to sustain life on the planet. The studies, while often biased towards one political camp or another, are pretty clear on this. Which ever way you lean on the subject, I don't see what that has to do with Sir McCartney's comments.
#35 Jun 3, 2009
Knock Knock and all others, Mccartney is a resident of Arizona, has a home there, his wife died there, he has many friends there. I think he qualifies to have an opninion, haters.
#36 Jun 3, 2009
a lot of these drug companies start testing drugs before there is even a disease for it. can you say AZT? drug companies are the scourge of this planet. more people have cancer now than ever. diabetes is out of control. autism, etc. now the great Obama (lol) has sold us out for national health and, boy, hundreds of billions $$ later they need us to be sick. they're not testing on animals to make us well, they testing to see what kills. this is a soft kill world we live in. now go drink your high fructose corn syrup or aspartame, eat your McDonalds, take you swine flu vaccines, buy into this ultra corrupt govt we now have in the USA and eat your Nancy Pelosi.
#37 Apr 20, 2011
I am behind Sir Paul 100%.
#40 Sep 7, 2013
the best free on line dating website ever!! send and receive messages, flirts, and video chat all for free!! check this one out. http://tinyurl.com/lwgdptw
Add your comments below
|1 in 2 Canadians will get cancer, 1 in 4 will d...||Jun 20||Anonymous||2|
|Walk of Hope set for Sept. 11 to help battle ov... (Sep '11)||Jun 20||less hope now||5|
|Psychological intervention reduces fear of recu...||Jun 6||Humanspirit||1|
|Why Suzanne Somers loves bioidentical hormones (Jun '09)||Jun 5||AmerPie Gorilla||96|
|I'm scared I might have male breast cancer =(!(... (Oct '06)||May 28||John Harrington||886|
|Hopkinsville to get downtown labyrinth (Oct '08)||May '17||Getready||4|
|More Asian American women getting breast cancer||May '17||Sapluster||2|
Find what you want!
Search Breast Cancer Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC