UGHHH, there both so horrible!
I'm casting my vote for Carl Keen, but Robert R's horrid too.

Posted by: Anna Lawes | September 28, 2007 04:57 PM

They're both scum that you wipe off the bottom of your feet, but my vote has to go to Robert Rucker.

Posted by: Quwen Quiola Qyiz | September 28, 2007 05:35 PM

There is no point to any of their experiments..I hate the both of them but I pick Carl Keen.

Posted by: Tracy | September 28, 2007 05:41 PM

Two ugly pieces of crap.
They are as ugly inside as they are outside.
How can this be allowed to take place?
Carl Keen is my choice.

Maher and Newkirk
2008

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | September 28, 2007 06:24 PM

vivisection is painfully mindboggling to me.
these monsters are equally sick and their contributions to society equally despicable to me.

is MARS the only candy culprit that tests on animals?

with all the available progressive alternatives and public awareness it is incomprehensible that vivisection on live animals is so rampant
and financially supported to excess.

Posted by: 007 | September 28, 2007 08:19 PM

Robert Rucker has won my vote. If you can call it a win...

Posted by: Sophia | September 28, 2007 08:52 PM

Robert Rucker has my vote.

How do people think up these things?

Posted by: Trish | September 29, 2007 01:57 AM

Rob Rucker is a the #1 Fucker. He's a little bit on the pudgy side to. Maybe someone should starve him for 10 days and show him what it feels like to the mice.

Posted by: Janet Fitgerald | September 29, 2007 04:09 AM

They are obviously both disgusting and I don't get how either experiments have anything to do with chocolate bars...my vote goes to Robert Rucker. When I first read the report on Mars and animal testing there was just something about putting baby mice in a chamber and submerging them in water that sent chills through me. So there is my vote!

Posted by: Marianne | September 29, 2007 04:59 AM

This one is dead even (so to speak).

Please send a letter to Mars Inc. (linked above), and boycott their products.

There is no justifiable reason for these experiments, other than to keep a couple of low-life academics in business. It's beyond me how Mars can justify this stuff to their board and shareholders. What on earth are they thinking???

Posted by: The Good Steve | September 29, 2007 09:05 AM

I'll go with Carl. YUK.
Trick or treat, Mars! May your goodies all contain razor blades!

Posted by: Susannah S | September 29, 2007 09:49 AM

My vote goes to Rucker. Thinking about the suffering of these intelligent animals is just too horrifying to dwell on because it takes one to a dark, scary and souless place where people like Keene and Rucker dwell.

Posted by: Maureen | September 29, 2007 11:34 AM

THESE MEN ARE MENTALLY ILL AND SADISTS--NO MORE MARS CANDY FOR ME--THEY ARE ALL GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST INNOCENT ANIMALS--

Posted by: mary peterson | September 29, 2007 11:50 AM

They're both deserving of the title of friendly neighborhood sadist. But after scooping my cat's litter box, the remains most resemble Rucker. As Judith pointed out, the ugliness inside is, well, ugly. A compassionate person, on the other hand, will always be inwardly beautiful.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 29, 2007 12:03 PM

Robert Rucker has probaly been involved with discovering the vitamins that many of you use or your children;

Dr. Rucker's research interest focuses on the role of nutrients in early growth and development (emphasizing extracellular matrix relationships) and the physiological roles of quinone cofactors derived from tyrosine, such as pyrroloquinoline quinone.

Selected past honors and activities include: President, American Society for the Nutrition; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; also American Society for Nutrition; Chair or Co-Chairperson for FASEB Summer Conferences on Micronutrients; service of Program Committees for ASN and FASEB, (e.g. planning committees for Experimental Biology meetings); Plenary Speaker at International Nutrition Congresses; service as on the Executive Committees for ASN, Exp. Biol. Med. And committees for USDA, NIH and FASEB; Editorial Board service: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Journal of Nutrition, Exp. Biol. Med., Nutrition Research, Annual Reviews of Nutrition; recipient: UC Davis Medical School Oettinger Research Award, American Society for Nutritional Sciences – Bordon Research Award. Over the past 25 years, he has also served as Chair of the Nutrition Department and in various positions for the Graduate Group for nutritional Sciences. Although his research program remains active and funded, he is no longer taking on new students.

Distinguished Professor Emeritus
School of Medicine
Department of Nutrition
Nutritionist in Agricultural Experiment Station

Carl Keen;

Dr. Keen's research group has three main areas of activities. The first concerns the influence of diet on embryonic and fetal development. A major theme in his laboratory is that a significant proportion of birth defects are the consequence of embryonic and/or fetal malnutrition. Thus, the correction of nutritional deficiencies during early development should result in a marked reduction in pregnancy complications. A second research theme in his group is the study of gene-nutrient interactions, with an emphasis on how subtle changes in cell mineral concentrations influence the expression of select genes. The third major research theme in his laboratory is the study of how diet influences oxidant defense systems, and as a consequence the occurrence of cellular oxidative damage.

The above research themes are integrated, and approached through a combination of in vitro and in vivo models, including the study of human subjects.

Posted by: Mars | September 29, 2007 01:39 PM

QUESTION:
Do these assholes get off torturing little animals? They look like the types who would molest and torture little children so since that's illegal, they have to take their shit out on whatever that is legal. Dumb fuckers!!!

Posted by: alisa | September 29, 2007 01:46 PM

Mars, you are, like, SO smart! What an awesome demonstration of your ability to copy and paste. LOO-ZER!

LMAO

Posted by: Michele | September 29, 2007 02:04 PM

How about if others experiment on them so that we can identify genes for insensitivity and cruelty!
then we'll be able to ensure that they don't get their hands in innocent beings.

Posted by: Rena | September 29, 2007 02:19 PM

Gee, a lack of nutrition could affect the health of an unborn child. I couldn't have figured that one out. Killing animals would have given me the answer.

Vivisection is an abomination and so are these two crapheads. Mike Q., I think my cats' litterboxes look better than both of these sadists! Difficult to make a choice but I will vote for the sadist turd Rucker ( gee, his name rhymes with f#cker).

Posted by: Ana | September 29, 2007 02:50 PM

"Gee, a lack of nutrition could affect the health of an unborn child. I couldn't have figured that one out."

Be honest with yourself. The only reason you have such knowledge is because someone told you and that knowledge came from these experiements.

"What an awesome demonstration of your ability to copy and paste. LOO-ZER!"

So when presented with facts this is all you can come up with?

Posted by: Mars | September 29, 2007 05:34 PM

Mars,

There's nothing wrong with commending your (invaluable) ability to copy and paste. I don't care about his resume. Someone who would torture an defenseless animal in that manner is really twisted.
It's time to explore whether those experiments are necessary. If we would lead healthy lifestyles we wouldn't need to subject animals to such torture. What if you were that animal? How do you feel when you go to the dentist or the doctor? How fun is pain?

Posted by: Ben | September 29, 2007 08:36 PM

No Mars, because many, many of us animal rights people on these blogs have TRIED to patiently and clearly explain the facts to you (not just info copied from a site that has a financial interest in providing exaggerated and quite frankly misleading "facts", but from a variety of resources provided by non-profit organizations - not just PETA - who have been able to expose the horrors of the factory farming and vivisection industries), and you clearly do not want to hear them. You respond with ridiculous, circular arguments, with a "you're wrong because I said so" attitude. That is why you are a LOO-ZER.

If you really wanted to know the truth, you would look more carefully at the animal testing industry, and you would then realize that animal testing has wasted billions and billions of dollars, and has killed millions of humans.

Oh and rojo, I came across a VERY interesting tidbit of information on the heart/lung bypass machine when I was reading "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese". Interestingly enough, the results gleaned from animal tests actually resulted in human DEATHS. It was not until the medical professionals and scientists did further studies of HUMANS that they were able to create a machine that helped instead of harmed people. So your nephew benefited from studies with real people, and not from the unfortunate animals that were tortured in the name of science.

Posted by: Michele | September 29, 2007 11:28 PM

Mars,

The point, as always, is results from animals cannot be reliably and predictably extrapolated to humans. If these guys are really trying to do human-beneficial research, then they should concentrate their research on humans.

Humans themselves vastly differ. Why complicate matters further by introducing species differences. I was talking about drugs with my local pharmacist and he said one's medications should never be shared with someone else. The results could be fatal. Personalized medicine is the only way to go.

Research should be focused on our own specific genetic make-up (pharmacogenomics, etc.). Maybe then the obscene number of human deaths and amount of suffering from adverse drug reactions (from animal-approved drugs) could be reduced.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | September 30, 2007 11:48 AM

both of these men are DISGUSTING!!!! im glad i cant eat candy bars, i wonder how many of the blissfully unaware would eat them too if they knew the goings on....

Posted by: stasya berber | September 30, 2007 12:08 PM

oh yeah -- an MARS -- stop acting all stuck up and simply refute or accept the fact that these men are needlessly cruel to animals -- CASE CLOSED

Posted by: stasya berber | September 30, 2007 12:11 PM

MARS - you didnt present the facts - you avoided them.

Posted by: stasya berber | September 30, 2007 12:13 PM

Is that what M&M are short for? Murder and Mice? Why don't you go to Disneyland and conduct your cruel testing on Mickey Mouse and see how many people are offended! It's the same thing! There is ALWAYS another way to test that doesn't include using animals...or even humans for that thought! That's why we gave you science freaks microscopes!

Posted by: MeL | September 30, 2007 03:24 PM

Mars

Killing innocent animals did not teach me about nutrition. My children were born healthy from my healthy diet which included rice and beans, broccoli, avocadoes ( and this is just a typical dinner meal). Oh, and yes, no animals were killed for my meals. When I had a serious sports injury ( a few years ago), the doctor gave me Vioxx to take. Being that I hate these medications and I avoid as many as I can I took only about 4 pills and decided to stop taking them. Safe, right? Vioxx was tested on innocent and tortured animals but it was safe for human use--NOT!!!! It was removed because it causes heart attacks and a number of people had died from taking Vioxx or their hearts were impaired severely by the drug. People sued the manufacturer of Vioxx. Vioxx even mailed me a letter to stop taking it; the company was running scared just like the poor animals they have tortured in their labs. Safe, huh? Physical therapy helped me without the benefit of "safe" tortured animal-tested drugs.

Posted by: Ana | September 30, 2007 03:28 PM

hi Michele, I didn't know I had a nephew, but if I had one in that position I would prefer to think that a sucessful transplant was a realistic possibility. By completing the procedure on an animal successfully you are able to progress. Do you think the first human transplantees that died had a better chance having no precedence whatsoever?

Posted by: rojo | September 30, 2007 06:01 PM

ana, vioxx was tested on 5000 humans before approval. It had serious side effects for 1 in 400 people, the size of any trial to discover this statistical anomaly would have been huge. The real shame of vioxx was that it wasn't suspended from the market when side effects were first noticed in humans. Those 80million people were the real test.

Posted by: rojo | October 1, 2007 01:21 AM

mars, mars, mars...

your deliberate intent and mindless motives to reason away every compassionate truth is wearing thin and so pathetic!

however, let me ask...

SINCE WHEN DOES A GLOWING RESUME JUSTIFY ANY TYPE OF CRUELTY?!!!!

how shallow of you to be so impressed with and blinded by the two morally bankrupt sickos' credentials that you felt the need to post them in making a lame point and to impress others. CLEARLY, no one's impressed.

Posted by: 007 | October 1, 2007 05:10 AM

Rob gets my vote.

Posted by: Sam | October 1, 2007 05:29 AM

" What if you were that animal? How do you feel when you go to the dentist or the doctor? How fun is pain?"

The fact is that Iam not an animal. A fact you and murders have the inability to know there is a difference between humans and animals.

"The point, as always, is results from animals cannot be reliably and predictably extrapolated to humans."

Yes they can with a vertain amount of accuracy. As Ana mentioned with Vioxx, animal testing may not catch everything but it gets most and there's no better method other then human testing which is also done.You also don't understand what animal testing is supposed to do. It's not to find out if a drug or product is safe but to find out if it is unsafe.Passing an animal test does not mean something is safe and further testing, sometimes on humans, follows. However if the product fails animal testing then it is unsafe and the product discarded.

Posted by: Mars | October 1, 2007 08:01 AM

Dear Mike Quinoa,
What does your statement have to do with inflicting pain on mice and killing them for answers with chocolate.
Are these procedures necessary. Maybe instead of forming these procedures on innocent animals, maybe we should inflict pain on those in jail who committed murder.

Posted by: Michelle | October 1, 2007 10:34 AM

"The real shame of vioxx was that it wasn't suspended from the market when side effects were first noticed in humans. Those 80million people were the real test."

Rojo, I agree. Humans are always the guinea pigs. Animal tests give no more assurance of human safety than the flip of a coin. They do however provide a legal shield for the pharmaceutical companies, thus delaying removal of harmful drugs from the market. As I stated above, science (through human-safe microdosing and other technologies) has to stress personalized medicine. It is the only way to go. What works for me, could be lethal to you.

Mars, I think you're the one that doesn't understand what animal testing is supposed to do (though it doesn't really do anything except waste time, taxpayer and charitable dollars, and human lives). You state yourself that there is no better method than human testing. Can a lab animal vocalize to a researcher that a drug gives him/her a headache, backache, nausea, dizziness, upset stomach, apprehension, heart palpitations, et cetera?

How many potentially invaluable drugs have been discarded because of unpromising results on animals?

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."

Animals are not humans, and results derived from animal tests cannot be extrapolated to humans. Had they "tested" dark chocolate on dogs (who can be killed by it), humans would not enjoy it today.

I used to vaguely and naively believe in the "necessary evil" of vivisection myself, until I read "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" and "Specious Science". If you have an open mind, you should check them out.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 1, 2007 11:25 AM

Mars,
you are dramatically wrong! My father arrived at his 89 birthday because i observe everyone of his reactions towards a medicament or food i give him! I don't give the food or the medicament first to my dog! In the same way my dog arrived at his 14th birthday because i'm surveying everything i give him! I don't give it first to my father and then to the dog! People have completely different reactions from animals concerning everything but specially medicaments - for this most of the medicaments have to be taken back after they have been administered to humans because first they have been tested on animals!

Posted by: La San Felice | October 1, 2007 11:42 AM

"Oh, and yes, no animals were killed for my meals."

Oh yes they were! The animals destroyed to make the farm to grow your veggies to the animals destroyed by the factories that made your plate, utensils, cups,ect. to the animals destroyed by the mining to get the materials to make them and the animals destroyed for your house and where your employed that gave you the money to buy those products and the animals destroyed to produce the material and manufacture of that money.

Posted by: Mars | October 1, 2007 01:23 PM

Rojo, sorry about the nephew reference - there was somebody else a couple of months ago that talked about the heart/lung bypass machine and how it saved his nephew's life - for some reason I thought it was you.

Anyway, the point is that the humans died as a direct result of extrapolating the results from the animal tests. They had to start over with human testing and observation, because of the differences in physiology. I guess they cannot say for sure whether or not the people would have died anyway, but the tragedy is that scientists keep trying to rely on animal test results, and they spend years and millions of dollars with animal tests, when they could have spent the money on tests that would be applicable to the human species. They may have been able to create a better heart/lung machine much earlier, saving lives of people who died while the animal research was being conducted. The problem with drugs like Vioxx (and Thalidomide, as well as the substance asbestos) is that because animal tests showed they were safe, they continued to allow humans to use them, until the evidence was just too overwhelming to deny how dangerous they were to humans.

Mars, you keep talking about animal testing and how helpful it has been, but just because you think it's right does not make it so. You keep demanding facts from the animal rights supporters on these blogs, but you will not even attempt to understand the facts when they are presented to you. Read "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" - it has nothing to do with PETA, nothing to do with animal rights or animal abuse.

Many animal tests "failed" that ended up being proven to be safe and effective in humans (penicillin being the biggie here). In today's litigious society, penicillin would never make it to market because it would have been scrapped right away. The only reason it "passed" was because the legislation in place today ostensibly to "protect" humans did not exist back then. Some treatments were determined to be safe when a particular researcher took the drug himself, and then went on to further prove that it was safe for all humans.

I have seen figures suggesting that over 90% of medications that "pass" in animal tests end up being unsafe for humans. That is a pretty dismal success rate. Scientists have shown that using clinical observation, "in vitro" testing, and newer technologies like human skin that is "grown" using cells, have a better rate of predicting a drug's safety and effectiveness than animal testing can ever hope to achieve. One researcher likened it to a "crap shoot".

Posted by: Michele | October 1, 2007 01:24 PM

Ben: " What if you were that animal? How do you feel when you go to the dentist or the doctor? How fun is pain?"

Mars: "The fact is that Iam not an animal. A fact you and murders have the inability to know there is a difference between humans and animals."

Me: You did not answer Ben's question. He said "If."

Secondly, according to wikipedia, "when the word 'animal' is used in a biological context, humans are included."

Posted by: Melissa | October 1, 2007 02:39 PM

mars:

are you for real?
WHAT is your problem?!
no kidding! I'm beginning to feel sorry for you.
it's so obvious you don't really know what you're talking about.

facts off, contrived rationale, and weak arguments...
unbelievably presumptious, too, of you to say that I, and concerned others, do NOT understand what animal testing is suppose to do... and YOU do?!
your supercilious superiority complex is in dire need of a reality check!

insurmountable evidence proves it is NOT as accurate, effective, or necessary as the many greedy unscrupulous mad scientists and companies would have you believe it is!

Posted by: 007 | October 1, 2007 02:51 PM

Mars,
it's soooooooo great that you are the only one on these blogs who understands at last that animals are destroyed for everything - they are the victims of everything and everyone! So just you have to shut your mouth behind a white cloth and you are the perfect jain-monk! - my felicitations!!!

Posted by: AVATAR | October 1, 2007 02:51 PM

Hi Michelle,

Not sure which comment you're referring to. Can you please supply time and date?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 1, 2007 03:40 PM

Michele,
Lot's of info,great post.
Judith

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter | October 1, 2007 03:59 PM

"What does your statement have to do with inflicting pain on mice and killing them for answers with chocolate."

Worked to find out that chocolate is fatal to dogs and why.

Michele, penicillin is now useless as a drug because disease has adapted to it and within the next decade or so the variants of it will also cease to work.That's fact. Ask your MD.

"I have seen figures suggesting that over 90% of medications that "pass" in animal tests end up being unsafe for humans. That is a pretty dismal success "

So what? You honestly believe that doing nothing would have been better? You think that skipping those tests would have resulted in a safer vioxx? Sounds like you would sacrifice millions of humans to save a few lab rats that would not exist in the first place except for the need for the tests.

"Scientists have shown that using clinical observation, "in vitro" testing, and newer technologies like human skin that is "grown" using cells, have a better rate of predicting a drug's safety and effectiveness than animal testing can ever hope to achieve."

I guess you skipped over this part of their "resume".

The above research themes are integrated, and approached through a combination of in vitro and in vivo models, including the study of human subjects.

Posted by: Mars | October 1, 2007 05:20 PM

What horrible men! I cannot believe I have to pick just one.

My vote goes to Robert. They both look pretty creepy though!

Posted by: Ashley | October 1, 2007 05:21 PM

Mars-

Thank you for kicking off this discussion! Now THAT's more like the old Mars we've grown to love on this site. Although, I must say, I didn't think you'd be so impressed with academic c.v.'s.

I could go on about the futility of using animals to model human physiology, or the alternatives to using them, but Michele and Mike Quinoa have handled that rather well.

I originally blew off casting an actual vote, but here it is: Robert Rucker. Something about freezing water and force feeding and starvation just doesn't sound like the best way to make a better candy bar to me, Regardless of how long his resume is.

Posted by: The Good Steve | October 1, 2007 06:59 PM

Mars: Thanks for all that impressive info on the mad scientists - fortunately I don't need cruel and needless experiments to tell me that a candy bar is unhealthy!!!

That said, there's no need to waste our time over comments posted by Mars. He most likely works for Consumer Freedom, which is financially backed by the restaurant and food industry. PETA is their top campaign.

Posted by: Michelle | October 1, 2007 09:04 PM

Although this may dismay the surgically adept Dr. Keen
I must vote my conscience…
I am sure without doubt, and beyond all question, that Dr. Rucker is the more evil the two cocoa worshiping acolytes. Only a fool could believe that an individual with a record like his could be actually be trying to help human kind and improve health…
Yeah - all for the betterment of science and food for thought – literally!

Posted by: Quercetin Rules | October 2, 2007 12:55 AM

I was persoanlly trained to do the above mentioned heart punctures when I worked for the SPCA when euthanizing unwanted shelter animals.

We performed this procedure because after we euthanized an animal we wanted to make sure it was dead before throwing it in the trash can. We could have waited until the animal's bodies were stiff but it was considered unsanitary.

I know for a fact, from attending euthanasia workshops, that sticking a needle in an animal's heart is considered absolutely, positively unacceptably inhumane to perform on a conscious animal. We were required to wait until the animal's reflexes were not present to do this procedure.

The only reason they are allowed to do this on concious mice is because they are not covered under the same federal or state humane laws that other animals are.

I beleive the other animals not covered under this law include starlings and pigeons, but I'm not sure.

Maybe PETA could start a campaign to change this law, not that it will automatically solve the problem.

I vote for Carl Keen because of the cardiac puncture, but rest assured, I'll never give money to that company either way!! Thank you for the alert, PETA.

Posted by: Maya | October 2, 2007 12:07 PM

Mars,
they should put you in vitro and then i would like to look at you: the incredible shrinking guy - a vanishing point - and a world without mars! Yeah!

Posted by: King Kobra | October 2, 2007 01:47 PM

What a pair of fucking wankers. What are all these so called tossers trying to prove. Life is just a gamble, if we carried out all we read none of us would walk a step. I have been reading about the badness of sugar, on experiments carried out on worms. I give up. Humans are just crazy.

Posted by: keith | October 2, 2007 02:15 PM

if a rodent gets in my house, it's dead or will be soon. they are diseased. same with any insect, except spiders, cause they kill the insects. although I don't think spiders are really insects. I catch and release the spiders outside. guess that's like catch and release fish, except I don't release fish. even the junk fish, as they can be used for bait. recycle and reuse.

Posted by: Jake B | October 2, 2007 02:27 PM

Mars, it has nothing to do with what I "honestly believe" - the s***load of scientific info that has been examined is what tells us that animal testing has been HARMFUL TO HUMANS. I guess you haven't bothered to read even a few pages of the books recommended by Mike Q. and me.

The issue of penicillin (and general antibiotic resistance) has got nothing to do with testing as to its safety on humans. Antibiotic resistance has developed due to your beloved MD's overprescribing them, and, even more ironically, due to MEAT CONSUMPTION because of how much the animals are pumped full of the stuff. Wow, you are so full of yourself with how much you think you know, that you got tripped up in your own argument.

Posted by: Michele | October 2, 2007 03:23 PM

Mars
Vioxx was tested on animals, get your facts straight. The fact that "scientists" and vivisectors have admitted the futility of testing on animals makes your specious argument a moot one. Right from the source saying they find nothing of any use whether it is for non-human or human animals and still you carry one. Scientists cannot even extrapolate info from male humans to female humans because the physiology is so different. Women's groups have long argued this issue, that more research should be dedicated to women's anatomy because it is not efficacious to use data from men's anatomy to explain women's illnesses . It's the same reason women get drunk faster than men do with the same amount of liquor...physiological differences. So what are you exactly, if not an animal? A vegetable or mineral? A rock from Uranus??? Brussel sprouts?

Posted by: Ana | October 2, 2007 04:22 PM

"It's the same reason women get drunk faster than men do with the same amount of liquor...physiological differences."

Thanks, Ana. Now there's a tidbit of information I can use ;)

(tongue firmly in cheek)

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | October 2, 2007 07:32 PM

Ana, I think you've got it - Mars is really a vegetable (tee hee) who is deathly afraid of us savage vegans, because he might be one of our next "victims"!

Posted by: Michele | October 2, 2007 10:53 PM

"Mars is really a vegetable (tee hee) who is deathly afraid of us savage vegans, because he might be one of our next "victims"!"

Yep, and I speak for my brothers that cannot speak for themselves of the unspeakable pain and torture inflicted upon us by humans.LOL.

"Vioxx was tested on animals, get your facts straight. "

Funny, never said it wasn't.

" It's the same reason women get drunk faster than men do with the same amount of liquor..."

To be factual, there are many other differences other the gender that also have an effect on alcohol as well as other drugs. Even human testing cannot cover it all.

Posted by: Mars | October 3, 2007 08:49 AM

I don't have one bit of a problem agreeing that the infamous "planet" person - who constantly comments on this entire blog site - is connected with the CCF. (maybe, maybe not)
Either way, every single a/r's activists has negated every one of the "planet" person's comments, but - only my opinion and agreeing with another a/r's activist's opinion (in essence) - the more the "planet" person continues to be acknowledged and allowed to have the "podium" and then addressed repeatedly, is less time directed towards speaking for the animals where your true and intelligent comments would actually be productive.
I am definitely not knocking any a/r's activist for responding to the nonsensical "planet" person. In fact, I have learned a lot from your responses. And perhaps even non-activists have read your responses, which would be productive. My point is, the "planet" person is a total waste of time - basing that on the "planet" person's continuous "poisonous" comments that are similar to the CCF - and doesn't deserve to have such a large platform on an a/r's blog site.
Of course other a/r's activists have the right to perceive my opinion differently and can even rightfully justify his/her own opinion.
Any opinions appreciated. (from a/r's activists only)

Posted by: Ariel | October 3, 2007 10:44 AM

Hopefully both of these turd brain evil scum bags will join the rest of the evil population of so called (scientists) and suffer a truly horrible death themselves!
Thumbs up to freedom of speech ;)

Posted by: Nadine | October 3, 2007 11:26 AM

In response to Maya's remark about doing cardiac puncture on conscious rodents, where in the original article did it say anything about that? It said he was using carbon dioxide to "anesthetize" the animal and then doing cardiac puncture, not that the animal was conscious. Please don't make up things to complain about.

In addition, carbon dioxide is actually a method of euthanasia; the animal never wakes up. Hence, the cardiac puncture and any dissection or whatever takes place on a dead animal. If you want to debate whether the animal should have been killed, fine. If you want to discuss whether or not carbon dioxide is an appropriate method of euthanasia, go for it. But complaining about the "unpleasant" things that the animal experiences after it is dead is pretty silly.

Posted by: Mark | October 3, 2007 01:07 PM

Simply put, if Mars Co. wants its products to be safe, then they should simply use real organic food ingredients like great grandma used - sugar, cocoa, salt, vanilla and god forbid nuts, butter - (yes, vegans I said butter - it is not the use of animals for food that is the problem but the cruel and environmentally dammaging practises of factory farming and in the USA, the use of Monsanto's BSH in the Dairy industry) and tell sweet tooths "Everything in moderation - even moderation". Until that day comes for Mars, I will eat organic fair trade or homemade candy only. I didn't know the large candy corps engaged in animal testing. Thank you PETA for informing us consumers.
Buy the way, I hate the "humans are not animals" argument. Yes we are and our delusional separation of us from the rest of the animal kingdom is probably the root cause of our biggest problems. In the natural world, some of us are omnivores and that is ok. As long as we respect and treat with kindness the other animals in the food chain. If I get eaten by a Polar Bear in the Arctic or a shark in the ocean that is OK. I am after all part of the food chain. Too much beans upset my GI system and too much soya is linked with breast cancer (phytoestrogens), as is too much dairy of course, which brings me back to that timeless truism on moderation.
My vote for the most cruel is all the consumers who are not sociopaths or other similar personality disorders incapable of empathy (such as the two Drs in question) who complacently support animal testing, factory farming and habitat destruction through their consumption of certain products made by companies like Monsanto (Round-up) and Mars.

Posted by: common sense canuck | October 24, 2007 05:34 PM

I hope there is a judgement day for these sickos!

Cruelty at its best!

I hope they burn in hell!

Posted by: NJNikki | January 2, 2008 04:59 PM

I`m voting for Robert Rucker, even though they`re both scumbags...

Posted by: AllForAutumn | April 6, 2008 08:46 PM

I cannot for the life of me figure out WHY these bizarre tests are being done. Why force feed chocolate to rats when humans are more than willing to eat it? Blech. Irrelevance makes it even grosser.

Posted by: Janet V | April 10, 2008 11:07 AM

Ugh! this is disgusting and out of the lead! Man you guys did such a mistake and you really have to do something to make up for it! and it better be something nice! i am truly disappointed in this company and now when i see some mnm's i get nauseous! you really lost a good customer!

Posted by: tina | April 15, 2008 06:30 PM

Dude, these guys are just doing their job. I'm sure these people aren't men sitting at work dreaming of torturing innocent animals. If we find something good out of these tests that save thousands of humans, I promise the tune will change.
Anyway, animals are not as aware as us. To kill a bunny is not the same as a human. On top of that, what happened to "survival of the fittest"? It's the way the world works.

And i LOVE you people saying how cruel scientists are to animals, and then you go on about how the scientists should burn in hell. Bravo!

By the way, your propaganda technique of showing all the "shocking and horrifying" pictures is sort of ridiculous. Yes, there are gruesome things that go on, but at least show both sides of the story.

Posted by: jjonessoda | April 20, 2008 01:17 PM

Mars and all you other Stupid fucks. THESE PRODUCTS THAT ARE TESTED ON ANIMALS AND EVENTUALLY CONSUMED BY SOME STUPID HUMAN ARE IRRELEVANT. When it comes down to it animals are not the same as humans. humans are so easy to succumb to eat chocolate . do the test on them. they're going to die eventually from heart disease or diabetes. You people are are i can't even describe what kind people you are and what those animals go through. My friend was working at a animal testing facility for MARS just to document what happens there. its on her blog www.myspace/sexicookie666. my vote goes to Rucker The DUMBFucker

Posted by: SKiTTL3Z | April 26, 2008 10:04 PM

My vote's on Rucker.
Though I just call him that 'bald bastard with no fashion sense.'
Or sense of compassion, either.

Posted by: Lotus | April 27, 2008 01:25 AM

why do they do that to animals it just makes them stupid jerks man stop that guys

Posted by: melissa avelar | April 29, 2008 09:16 PM