And how right he is!

The university/company research status quo is an outdated dinosaur, filled with lazy minds that keep doddering along in the same rut & making the same mistakes.

Not to mention, there are too many greedy researchers performing useless, repetitive experiments that prove NOTHING and help NO ONE (except themselves and their bank accounts!)

We have drugs released that "passed" animal experimentation, but now are killing or harming people.

When will these idiots expand their horizons and actually move society forward?

Posted by: kelly | July 20, 2007 01:02 PM

Sir Paul McCartney is a great Gentleman! Since years I'm his fan - because he does everything with his heart! I'm so proud and happy to read these lines with his personal statement! I love you, Sir Paul and your lovely daughter Stella! You are a tree who brought us really a top fruit! Thank you for everything and GOD's blessings!!!

Posted by: Sacred Cause | July 20, 2007 02:30 PM

Sir Paul has a big life experience and he travelled also to India - so he actually is the personification of 'AHIMSA' - non violence. I got three big teachers in my life: Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer - the Dschungle Doctor from Lambarene, who never refused to give also animals his medical assistance exactly in the same way as for humans - and the third example: Sir Paul McCartney! These three personalities truly bring the sunshine into my life!

Posted by: animalfriend | July 20, 2007 02:58 PM

this i call real courage - surely he shall again be insulted and reproached by the pharma industry and other animal experiment organizations who always try to intimidate and ridicularize the famous animal rights activists - but as far as i know not one of them was afraid but they make it like sir paul: their message is loud and clear: stop abusing animals!!!

Posted by: kaori yamanaka | July 20, 2007 03:09 PM

I am very impressed with Sir Paul. He has such compassion for animals!!! Thanks Sir Paul!

Posted by: Jaclyn | July 20, 2007 05:07 PM

In this day and age, Sr Paul is surely one of the best friends that animals on this planet have. I cannot think of any other high profile person, alive, who has done so much for them. Actually makes me proud of being a Brit.

Posted by: Maureen | July 20, 2007 07:41 PM

Paul, THANK YOU.

Posted by: robert | July 20, 2007 11:35 PM

him and Stella are angels. i love you both <3

Posted by: emma | July 21, 2007 12:24 AM

<3 (heart)

Posted by: K | July 21, 2007 01:15 AM

We can always count on Sir Paul to lead the way with his compassionate actions. Wouldn't it be a wonderful world if everyone behaved as he does?

Posted by: Patsi | July 21, 2007 06:59 AM

I'm posting here on Sir Paul's site because he deserves my whole attention! I prefer to spend some more time with him rather than on the Vick blog, because in the world we got millions of Vicks - but just one Sir Paul! With his great spirit and compassion he is UNIQUE!

Posted by: Vitalis | July 21, 2007 10:32 AM

I don't agree at all. And no, I don't think cows are cool. They are rather ugly and their only value is as meat and leather.

Posted by: James | July 21, 2007 10:53 AM

Biomedical research will progress a lot faster once we leave the incompatible and misleading animal model behind. Humans themselves vary widely genetically, so why are we wasting our time and dollars on other species? Anyway, many thanks to Paul for using his celebrity to make the world a better place---and he's a pretty good musician too ;)
Besides stopanimaltests.com, other great anti-vivisection websites are www.curedisease.com, and, speaking of Brits, www.vernoncoleman.com is a great site.

Posted by: Mike | July 21, 2007 10:56 AM

i still wonder how all of you petaphiles are such experts on science and biolgy... or is is the fact that you read all of peta's propaganda and repeat it like parrots.... and it is too bad that sir ( i have no mind of my own) paul would listen to peta over the medical experts...
that is truly a scary thought!!!!!

Posted by: steve | July 21, 2007 05:02 PM

Steve, you have really got to get a hobby, besides trying to debate with animal rights activists on their own site - it's getting pretty old! And we have yet to see you come up with an original thought... PETA does not come up with their information out of thin air - they actually do base their statements on real research from scientists - they even have their own medical experts on staff. PETA is the largest animal rights organization for a reason, and they have helped save the lives of billions of animals with their education and other programs. So why don't you just FUCK OFF!

Posted by: Michele | July 21, 2007 08:50 PM

I'm no medical expert (neither are most doctors), but no amount of scientific evidence will convince me that humans have the right to use, abuse, torture and kill other sentient beings for our own (dubious) benefit. How is it that we are somehow more worthy of comfort, contentment and life than other creatures? Is it because of our capacity for language? Other animals have that ability, too. Is it our intelligence and ability to reason? If that were the case, the labs would be full of involuntary human subjects.

The only quality I can see that humans have over animals is our capacity for mercy and compassion. If only we would exercise it more often.

Kudos to Sir Paul McCartney and all who stand up against the status quo... THAT is the way to progress.

Posted by: Nancy | July 22, 2007 01:59 AM

This is a great move by a Great person, Sir Paul McCartney! It is one thing to support the idea of cancer research, but many dont know that nearly all drug research uses animal models and cancer research orgs are heavily invested in that. I admit there have been some advances in cancer treatment (not really proportional to the billions spent on research though) but think about it, is it really meaningful to sacrifice animals even if animals were a good human research model? What makes us more entitled to life?

Posted by: Amanda | July 22, 2007 11:56 AM

Okay Steve, please disprove just a single item of PETA's "propaganda". Instead of speaking in vague, dismissive generalities, come up with a specific refutation (referenced, of course).

Posted by: Mike | July 22, 2007 12:45 PM

ok mike..... developments that led to Nobel Prizes involved animal research, including the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplant (dogs), and work on polio to a vaccine (mice, monkeys).... insullin
and the heart - lung machine that saved my nephews life.... that just names a few advances that the animal extremist world loves to ignore and i suppose your comment was detailed and not vague.....

Posted by: steve | July 22, 2007 09:49 PM

I've never been a big Beatles fan, but I have recently become a huge fan of Mr. McCartney's compassionate principles. Not only is he a lengendary music talent, but unlike some others, his heart shines like gold.

Posted by: Alexandra | July 23, 2007 10:12 AM

No Steve, you wrote "...all of peta's propaganda and repeat it like parrots.... and it is too bad that sir ( i have no mind of my own) paul would listen to peta over the medical experts...". All I'm asking for is a specific quote directly from a PETA website that you can disprove with substantiating references. You're accusing PETA of disseminating misinformation. Fine, give me a for instance.

And your pro-vivisection examples you've already mentioned before in other posts. Is that all animal research has been able to come up with spending billions of dollars and years of research? I do intend to verify your claims, but I don't have time today.

And if you can't name and post a single good thing that PETA has done, then you are a PETA-bashing extremist, and I seriously question your motivation for posting here. While posters here may disagree amongst themselves, or with PETA's stance, most are working toward a better life for animals. What's your motivation for being here?

Posted by: Mike | July 23, 2007 01:58 PM

Question...I recently went through IRB training (Institutional Review Board) to be certified to work with human subjects. During the training video, it was mentioned that scientists are REQUIRED to test on animals before testing on humans. If this is true, then we need to start change at the VERY TOP, with the FDA! Could someone clarify this point for me?

Posted by: BullyDawg | July 23, 2007 02:17 PM

BullyDawg,

It basically all started after the thalidomide tragedy ("Spurred by demonstration of teratogenic effects of thalidomide in humans, the Harris-Kefauver Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was introduced in 1962. The act mandated preclinical animal trials before the testing of drugs in humans and the demonstration of drug efficacy for a specific use before market release"), with the mistaken belief that testing drugs on animals would ensure no subsequent harmful side-effects in humans.

"Animal testing became legally enshrined in response to the thalidomide tragedy. The UK Medicines Act 1968 followed the US Kefauver-Harris Act, which was implemented in 1962 in the midst of the thalidomide furor to ensure that the FDA received proof of safety and efficacy for all new drugs. The intention was good but the reliance placed on animal tests to ensure safety was tragically ill-informed."

Posted by: Dr. Do-a-lot | July 23, 2007 05:12 PM

BTW, I did the training so that I could do survey research--yes, even to "just ask questions" you have to be IRB-certified! No worries, you won't see me testing on animals, ever!

Posted by: BullyDawg | July 23, 2007 05:16 PM

Now I heard they delayed giving penicillin to humans because it killed the guinea pigs that the researchers were using for tests. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but animals and humans were not built the same. You cannot give dogs chocolate because it could kill them, yet we humans eat it with no problems. Also, we know cigarettes are bad for you, but why are we still forcing animals(beagles) to inhale this smoke. The world needs to change, before humans destroy it. I love you Sir Paul, please keep speaking out for the animals.

Posted by: JC | July 23, 2007 07:33 PM

Thankyou and God bless you sir Paul.... and steve go away

Posted by: coffeemaster | July 23, 2007 09:20 PM

Thank you BullyDawg - you are asking some good questions, and that is very refreshing after reading the various postings from people who automatically disagree with anything said by PETA just because the information is being presented by PETA.

It's true that there are still laws in place (I know for sure they exist in the US and Canada, not so sure about other countries though) that require animal testing even though there have been so many examples that show how ineffective and even dangerous this "proof" can be (I also don't have time to go into it all, but Vioxx is one recent example). And there are so many non-animal methods of testing now, so companies are just wasting billions of dollars (taxpayers $ and from people who make donations for research) on pretty much useless results. (not to mention the billions of animals who have to suffer in the name of research - it is just utterly shameful that supposedly intelligent beings can cause such horrific cruelty)

I once wrote a letter to Colgate-Palmolive about animal testing, and their form letter mentioned how in addition to the required testing, they do extra testing so that they can give their customers confidence in knowing they are getting a safe product. Give me a break! It's all about covering their asses at that point, so even if a product turns out to cause adverse reactions, they can say "well we even went beyond what the law requires for testing, so we're really, really sorry that we hurt you, but you can't sue us because look how conscientious we were!!" FUCK THAT!

Posted by: Michele | July 23, 2007 09:39 PM

Dr. do,
It's all very well to say "tragically misinformed" but there weren't the same options before computer modeling and tissue tests. How can you be sure that current drug developments, or surgical treatments are safe beyond mere theory. Seems like common sense to try a drug on a mammal prior to a human, even if the results are not definative.

Posted by: rojo | July 24, 2007 07:07 AM

WE LOVE YOU PAUL!!!

Posted by: WEDEL ENTERTAINMENT, "Your Band Connection" | July 24, 2007 02:02 PM

I absolutely adore Paul McCartney, and this is one of the reasons!
Good on you to both PETA and Sir Paul!

Posted by: Isabella Marks | July 25, 2007 08:17 AM

Steve,

If you're going to basically plagiarize (you paraphrased slightly) directly from a web page (animal-testing.info), like I do sometimes, at least put the info in quotes, to indicate it's not your original writing.

"Dr Albert Sabin, the inventor of the polio vaccine, swore under oath that the vaccine ‘was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of [it] in monkeys.

Penicillin, the world’s first antibiotic, was delayed for more than 10 years by misleading results from experiments in rabbits, and would have been shelved forever had it been tested on guinea pigs, which it kills. Sir Alexander Fleming himself said: ‘How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a licence, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised."

(Above from: http://www.theecologist.co.uk/current_issue/animal_testing.htm)

" In the early 1920s two scientists, J. J. R. Macleod and Frederick Banting were given credit for isolating insulin by extracting it from a dog. For this they received a Nobel Prize. Macleod admitted that their contribution lay not in discovering insulin (for which they are often credited), but in providing evidence from the animal lab. (BMJ Aug 2, 1923 pp165-172).

Macleod and Banting were not obligated to extract insulin from a dog, because certainly there was ample tissue from humans. J. B. Collip, a biochemist in Macleod's team said the administration of the dog insulin (to a 14-year old diabetic) was "absolutely useless".

Even Banting's and (Charles) Best's supporters said they were "unqualified to do good work" (Bliss, Michael. The Discovery of Insulin).

It was concluded that Banting and Best's dog experiments had not been vital. It was the chemistry of Collip and Macleod that had isolated and purified insulin using in vitro (non-animal) techniques."

(Above contains excerpts from Sacred Cows and Golden Geese by the Drs. Greek).

Posted by: Mike | July 26, 2007 12:51 PM

wow mike, i'm so impressed....
you forgot to mention about my nephew's life being saved by the heart lung machine...what no fancy quote about that,,,
you know what.... if i or my family's life needs saving.... i'll do whatever it takes and how ever it was derived...
you and your petaphiles can sit on your moralistic high horses and make sure you only get treated with non-animal tested advances.... and if there are none, i guess you can protest by just dying.....

Posted by: steve | July 26, 2007 09:46 PM

Rojo,

The problem is that animal tests are not reliably and consistently predictive, and weren't in the early days. Part of the idea of animal testing was to try out potentially dangerous drugs on animals first, thus potentially sparing human lives. But we don't know what reactions humans will have to animal-approved drugs and these subsequent reactions can be lethal. So we are still the guinea pigs, and even then, each human will react differently to a given drug (thus the importance of microdosing, pharmacogenomics, etc.).

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association adverse drug reactions are one of the leading causes of death in the United States.
So, animal drug testing is not only not predictive, but it can be detrimental and deadly. On the positive side, animal testing gives drug companies some legal protection in case you try to sue them.

Posted by: Dr. Do-a-lot | July 27, 2007 04:38 PM

Okay Steve, I couldn't find much out in cyberspace about the creation of the H-L machine. So, provide me with the info (referenced so I can confirm it) that the heart-lung machine development was dependent on animals, rather than just parroting verbatim from a pro-vivisection website. The ball's in your court. You made the statement, now back it up.

Read Dr. Do-a-lot's post of July 27 on the number of human deaths from animal tested-approved drugs. I'm happy for your nephew, but what about all these other people dying unnecessarily? It's got absolutely nothing to do with being on a high horse. Animal testing (unless for vet purposes) is not reliably predictable for human beings.

Posted by: Mike | July 31, 2007 03:22 PM

I don't believe in animal testing myself there are other ways animals don't have the imumne as humans.

Posted by: Joan Faszcewski | August 2, 2007 06:44 PM

Sir Paul, you are a fantastic human being.

Posted by: Donna Stevens | August 2, 2007 07:18 PM

thank god someone as big as sir paul in our society ,is making a point that must be made on all of these cons,not charities.many of the charities are having the public think it is for research in a lab on little trays and bottles.when in fact as the great man with a heart as said (sir paul )its for even more agony on poor little innocent animals .and these monsters dont even p.t.s. peacefully ,they continue to make them suffer ,unbearable fear, stress, agonies.and the final end for them is to be dumped or slung on a cold blood/vomit flooded floor left to die alone no love ,care ,just pain.the billions these companies have and are making,and its too much to give the animals a humane painless death.other charities are alzimers, deaf, cancer,(all catorgeries of cancer) the british heart foundation and even thomas cook travel .the public should be made aware of all of these rouges ,cruel, vile, evil ,ones at that.i think by law all of these companies and ANY company etc.that have any form of animal experiments ,tests ,whatever we choose to call it,should pay the cost of humane p.t.s.injections and no more than two tests if at all any (but that is asking too much i suppose)and in any case why after all of these years has no one ever thought and asked if the products need to be tested then some ingrediant is harmfull to humans.so why put it in the products?take money away from the horrific oicture and less than 20% of these tests etc would not even be happening.but again it the poor innocent animals that pay the long agonising torture to make there abusers the cash ,and they have no say,taken and bred for this purpose only.what a sad ,cruel, evil, monsterous world we have became.keep bringing these greedy cash grabbing monsters to our notice,sir paul.i hope you every success and hope in the course of you save thousands of the little innocents all over the world. and ideally ban the tests in all forms on all animals forever. i for one can do without most of the items that are killing the animals in tests society does not deserve to be conned any more .make these cons public and give them all massive fines so there cant continue.but the goverment will still continue to pay as there get a big chunk of the murderous cake.

Posted by: kathleen turnbull | August 2, 2007 07:21 PM

I now love Paul Mcartney....Even as a child i could never understand why they would put shampoo into rabbits eyes and still do to this day. It never helped the sting then and it doesn't now. Together we can stop this useless cruelty. XXX

Posted by: stefan ireland | August 2, 2007 08:50 PM

Thank you Paul McCartney. It is rather wonderful to see someone such as yourself dedicated to a wonderful cause.
GOD BLESS!!!

Posted by: Ranjini Murthy | August 2, 2007 08:53 PM

We love you Sir Paul!

Posted by: Diva | August 2, 2007 10:32 PM

It is good to have an advocate with such popularity on our side. May all animals be free from suffering.

Posted by: John Mooter | August 2, 2007 10:58 PM

Maybe I'm amazed....but maybe I shouldn't be! Thanks and blessings to you, Macca!

Posted by: Linda | August 2, 2007 11:07 PM

to the jack--f james who wrote cows are ugly and useless, your a real ass---e, i hope karma gets you, its folks like you who i wish would see the inside of a slaughterhouse and its cruelty, i wish you could feel how that cow felt in fear, throat cut while still conciouse and hanging from a metal chain alive, james i could only wish it was a narrow minded ignorent person like you hanging from that metal hook in an unkind slaughterhouse, its folks like your kind who deserve to suffer, sir mcartney and his daughter are the best kind of people in the whole universe, so pi-- on your kind and you james, and your ignorence of animal cruelty and their suffering, your going to feel the karma someday

Posted by: nico | August 3, 2007 12:25 AM

About ten years ago my mom and I was watching a tv show about animal testing, and they showed this little kitten...well, I won't go into detail because it only makes me cry. I am a huge fan of Paul McCartney's, and I loved Linda, and this only makes me love Paul more. There has to be another way so animals don't have to go through this horrible pain. Thank you, Paul for your compassion for animals. You are special beyond words.
cindy

Posted by: Cindy | August 3, 2007 12:38 AM

We should respect every kind of life.There's no ugly,or cute animals,EVERY KIND OF ANIMALS HAVE RIGHT TO LIVE!
God bless You Paul,You are great.
Sincerely
Anna Mincberg

Posted by: Anna Mincberg | August 3, 2007 02:20 AM

Hey, Steve,

You still haven't explained what the hell you're doing here as you clearly don't give a dam about animals. Just go away and tell your pro-vivisection rubbish to someone who cares, so we can ignore you in peace.

Posted by: Georgina | August 3, 2007 05:50 AM

WE LOVE YOU, YEAH,YEAH, YEAH !

Posted by: barbara | August 3, 2007 06:16 AM

Thankyou Paul. Gentleman like yourself are very few.
It feels so wonderful that we are not alone in fighting to bring an end to animal cruelty and abuse, but have gentleman like yourself on our side to help us win the battle.... x

Posted by: Rose Bellamy | August 3, 2007 07:27 AM

While I don't agree with testing on animals for cosmetics and household products, a lot of medicines have been developed because of animal testing. Also for diabetics, using human insulin has given them horrible side effects whereas pig insulin has been good.

Just face it that some horrible things have to happen for the greater good. Only sickos revel in animal cruelty, but I'd put people over animals any day.

Also, meat eating is natural. It's been going on forever and I agree that organic, properly reared meat is better than factory farmed, we need it for iron and B vitamins.

Not to mention that I'd rather turn my attention to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, which is real cruelty in action.

AS a massive Beatles fan, I heard about this Paul McCartney thing and found this link. But I think he's wrong on this one. Also, I haven't heard his views mentioned in any newspapers or TV, so it's not getting the publicity you people would like anyway.

Posted by: Aernold | August 3, 2007 07:32 AM

So, we hail another 'celebrity', in this case Paul McCartney, for his caring ways.

Did the silly man not realise at the time his wife died that what keeps cancer charities in business, big business, is the cruel and often repeated tests on animals?

I despair, I really do.

Posted by: Lesley Robinson | August 3, 2007 09:13 AM

Yes, Sir Paul is wonderful person. This steve guy, on the other hand, is a moron. Hey, steve, why not leave the task of commenting on these boards to people who aren't braindead.

Posted by: :) | August 3, 2007 09:16 AM

Yeah, yeah, yeah - way to go Paul. You're the best. As for animal testing and experimentation, there are plenty of two-legged subjects available and they're called rapists,child killers, cop killers, serial killers - use those miserable excuses for humans for experimentation instead of giving them free room and board in prison for years on end at the public's expense!

Posted by: Gayle Murphy | August 3, 2007 09:20 AM

Nobody in this thread addressed embryonic stem cell research. Could this be (I hope, I hope, I hope) that PETA is also going to start saving the baby humans? Or that most of you simply realize that embryonic stem cell research has not turned up any promising avenues?

I eat meat and eggs(from LOCAL farmers - not factory farms). I am the human parent of two grown men and two rescued cats.

I rabidly avoid beauty products that employ animal testing. However, even veterinarians have to dissect animals, in order to learn how to treat them. Not ALL animal research is bad. Most of those used in research would have wound up feral, starving, diseased, and miserable. Humane euthanasia, as distasteful as it may be, is necessary.

Posted by: Sue Florez | August 3, 2007 10:05 AM

Sir Paul is my hero. I follow the PETA montra "Animals are not for us to eat, wear or entertain us". I no longer eat meat, wear animal products or attend any "entertainment" that includes animals. It may seem strange to some, but I would take animal companionship over a human. Years ago I worked at UC Medical Center and many times I fainted when I witnessed animals being experimented upon. I never visited the "animal tower" but heard the dogs barking from morning till night. I know there were medical advances, but at what expence to our animal companions? I will always support PETA and Sir Paul you are a true animal guardian. Thank you.

Posted by: Kathy Ostram | August 3, 2007 11:04 AM

Paul has always been the same wonderful, kind, caring soul - and the facts that he's greatly talented and gorgeous don't hurt either. He'd been with Peta forever, and never afraid to speak out against injustices. I hope he continues him magic for many years to come.

Posted by: Carole | August 3, 2007 11:59 AM

Thank goodness there are a few celebrities that care about vivisection. I just wish everyone would stop using the word alternative because that word implies that vivisection actually works but is just not ethical. Paul, if you read this please wirte me at CoryCatLady@aol.com. I would like to talk to you about my lawsuit I represented myself in against UCLA vivisectors. I didn't win my case (I am not a lawyer). However, UCLA vivisector Dario Ringach quit on the same day I told UCLA I finally hired a lawyer (who changed mind later). That day was August 4, 2006. I can prove it with my deposition copy and Ringach's email. Currently submitting story to newspapers. Thank-you Paul, I look forward to meeting you someday. Keep up your efforts for lab animals and humans that need REAL research, not fraud.
Luv,
Corinne Titus

Posted by: Corinne Titus | August 3, 2007 12:13 PM

hello, have always loved sir paul. and yes!! I agree there are other ways to do medical research and leave defenseless animals alone!!!is it just a human condition to pick on something more defenseless than us! I think so. so, sir paul long may you stand up for the rites of animals! and steve, you are a mental pygmy!

Posted by: linda s. glover | August 3, 2007 01:37 PM

Paul and his daughter are both wonderful people who use their celebrity in very positive ways especially when it comes to animals!!! They are truly awesome!! love you both and thanks for all you do!!

Posted by: Kris Shulfer | August 3, 2007 04:02 PM

Aernold, if you really put people before animals as you write, then you should be opposed to animal testing.

"Although some adverse drug reactions (ADR) are not very serious, others cause the death, hospitalization, or serious injury of more than 2 million people in the United States each year, including more than 100,000 fatalities. In fact, adverse drug reactions are one of the leading causes of death in the United States." (Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Journal of the American Medical Association Apr 15, 1998; 279: 1200 - 1205.) These are drugs that have ALL passed animal testing with flying colors.

Also, what about drugs that are forever discarded because of negative animal tests that might have turned out beneficial to humans? It's a good thing we didn't test chocolate on dogs. It can kill them.

Animals are not surrogate humans, and as such are not reliably predictive for what may or may not be effective for humans.

Posted by: Mike | August 3, 2007 05:40 PM

The thing is, Mike, I would really like the believe there was a nice, kind way to do thorough drug tests without using animals, but the fact is that scientists say it's necessary. I'm no scientist and nor are PETA, I believe the experts.

One thing that annoys me about PETA is the whole "Vegans good, meat eaters bad" thing. Hitler was a veggie and Mother Theresa ate meat. Go figure! Nothing wrong with trying to stop (unnecessary) animal cruelty, but comparing factory farms to Auschwitz and seeming to care more about animals than people is not going to wash with most people. Not to mention the publicity stunts which often backfire.

Posted by: Aernold | August 4, 2007 06:13 PM

Sir Paul not only you are compassionate ..you are simply unequivably the "BEST". You are sunshine in our lives!!

Posted by: a canadian | August 6, 2007 08:10 PM

Aernold, the whole point is humans are always the guinea pigs anyway. And even humans differ among themselves in reactions to different drugs. Thus the importance of pharmacogenomics, microdosing and other technologies that take into account your own unique genetic makeup. Every dollar wasted on animal tests could be used to avoid debacles like Vioxx. Many scientists oppose animal testing for those reasons.

Not that it really makes a difference, but Hitler was not a vegetarian.

Dione Lucas, a European chef, was an eyewitness to Hitler's meat-eating. In her Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964), Lucas, drawing on her experiences as a hotel chef in Hamburg during the 1930s, remembered being called upon quite often to prepare Hitler's favorite dish, which was not a vegetarian one. "I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab," she writes, "but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often."

Posted by: Mike | August 6, 2007 09:00 PM

he is amazing. it takes a lot to give something up like that!

Posted by: daniella | August 7, 2007 06:39 PM

I have been reading all the info everyone is putting in. I also love animals - but for all the "you can't use animals for experiements, etc" I don't seen anyone putting down alternatives?? What would you do? Get humans to volunteer? Look what happened in London with those 5 people who almost died by being "guinea pigs"? Now I realise that those drugs had probibly been tested on animals first but what about the number of tests that didn't work on animals? Should they have been tested on you first? Who is going to volunteer? I certainly wouldn't - would you? It will become like the movies where people start to go "missing" being used for experimentation. I don't agree with animal testing for cosmetics, but I do understand that for medical advances unless someone comes up with an acceptable alternative (and I haven't heard any) this is a necessary step before human testing. Cancer research as you and Sir Paul put it is done largely by experimenting on animals first - are you saying that should you, partner, family member or friend be diagnosed tomorrow with cancer you would not be first in line for treatment - you would opt to let someone close or yourself die on principle? I am sorry but with the hard reality of death in front of you I would find that very hard to believe. I do not wish Cancer on anyone and I only hope that Sir Paul's family don't get diagnosed again to put his theory's to the test!

Posted by: Cheryl | August 7, 2007 07:38 PM

THANK~YOU SIR PAUL~
YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I HAVE LOVED YOU AND YOUR MUSIC SINCE I WAS A YOUNG GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KEEP IT UP FOR THE ANIMALS~
I WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT I DO FOR ANIMALS~
YOU DO THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"A LITTLE HELP FROM YOUR FRIENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Tucker

Posted by: Tucker | August 8, 2007 07:23 PM

Cheryl, you can test drugs on animals till you're blue in the face. The tests give absolutely no guarantee the drugs will be safe on humans. But they do waste precious time and funding. Look at Vioxx. Safe on animals, unsafe for humans. Like dark chocolate? Safe for humans, can be deadly for dogs.

Animals are not humans, and they react differently to drugs than you or I (though, in fact, we may react differently to them ourselves). There are new non-animal technologies---microdosing, pharmacogenomics, etc. Research has to move toward personalized medicine if you want the cure to be less deadly than the disease. A great book on the subject is "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" by the Doctors Greek. You can buy it or get it at the library.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | August 9, 2007 09:50 PM

Cheryl, you can test drugs on animals till you're blue in the face. The tests give absolutely no guarantee the drugs will be safe on humans. But they do waste precious time and funding. Look at Vioxx. Safe on animals, unsafe for humans. Like dark chocolate? Safe for humans, can be deadly for dogs.

Animals are not humans, and they react differently to drugs than you or I (though, in fact, we may react differently to them ourselves). There are new non-animal technologies---microdosing, pharmacogenomics, etc. Research has to move toward personalized medicine if you want the cure to be less deadly than the disease. A great book on the subject is "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" by the Doctors Greek. You can buy it or get it at the library.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | August 10, 2007 05:44 PM

Yay, Paul McCartney! ♥

Posted by: Sandy | August 10, 2007 06:11 PM

As much financial donations have been contributed to cancer research throughout the years, by now there should be a cure for it all. How much progress have the intelligent minds duing the research uncovered? How much progress does one million dollar actually make in the discovery cures for cancer? For every million significant amount of information should be presented, then otherwise what are the researchers actually doing if not coming up with the good news: cancer is preventable & curable with what process now? Otherwise refund the money if it is not proving to be worth what is expected & then find some scientist researchers who are intelligent enough to come up with every cancer cure now. Right? Respect the animals & respect other human beings & yourself. Sincerely Gabriele

Posted by: Gabriele | August 19, 2007 02:10 PM

good on you Sir Paul, I too stopped donating to charities involved in animal research years ago, thanks to PETA for pointing out who these charities are. I would rather burn my money than give it a charity to fund animal suffering!

Posted by: Simon | August 19, 2007 09:20 PM

Paul, please always stay on the side of the animals. We animal rights advocates need you. As for Steve, we should use you for testing...oh wait...you are cold-blooded, with no heart, you have sh_t for brains and you are one giant assh_ _e! Oh, forget it, it will never work out. Thank God for animal rights groups like PETA. They have done so much for animals and continue to do so. God is on their side.

Posted by: Rosemary | September 8, 2007 05:31 AM

I think its cool that Paul believes in a no animal testing world! It really is cruel and how do we even know that the skin of a bunny that hasn't been hurt by our testing of products will do the same for our skin?

Posted by: Hallowmere | November 28, 2007 03:21 PM