31. Is this related to the untimley death of Anne Nicole Smith? We were wondering why these loser's were suddendly so concerned with our well being as we've been DYING in here for years. First her, now us...what's next?

Posted at 12:18PM on Feb 15th 2007 by Monkey Man

32. I am Jonny the Monkey - #1 celebrity in all Kazakhstan (Borat still #4 star, even after great success of movie).

You say "no comment from the monkeys", so I comment since I learn sign language from Batyr the Gypsy while he cell mate at Astana Zoo (Batyr get locked up for break law by bake bagel)...

It fine to do psychologic experiment on monkeys, so China man-doll and Barb twins can stop screaming like excited chimpanzees. It also allowable for test cosmetics on monkeys - after all, first American cosmonaut was monkey !

If screaming woman and ugly head butt man come near Jonny while he performing experiments on gypsy assistant Batyr (consist mostly throw potatos at head when not expecting it), then Jonny will throw poop at them fresh from anoos... hopefully land right in their bullshorn! :-)

Chenquieh!

* Note: this post was hand signed to Jonny's gypsy assistant Batyr, who translated his words and transcribed them in this comment.

Posted at 1:00PM on Feb 15th 2007 by Jonny the Monkey

33. Isn't funny how the Barbi twins and Chyna come together and have all probably undergone transgender operations. I think Hugh Hefner should be sued for misleading men all these years. They also seem to come out in the wake of Anna Nicole Smiths death. In which Anna was very much a women. Chyna and the Barbi twins are a disgrace to men and women with an IQ of zero.

Posted at 1:57PM on Feb 15th 2007 by sasha

34. I think Chyna and the Twins were outraged because THEY ARE THE MONKEY'S BEING TESTED ON!!!! They are not happy with the way they turned out an now they are turning on the scientist. It's your classic "FRANKENSTEIN"movie!!!

Posted at 2:19PM on Feb 15th 2007 by Freak-ola's

35. animal rights activists are Pains in the ass and I wish they would just go away. I hate them more than trying to housebreak a puppy

Posted at 2:59PM on Feb 15th 2007 by Bob

36. What psychologists do to monkeys in the name of experimentation is unbelievably cruel. If these ladies are helping draw attention to the inhumane acts taking place at a public university, then I am glad.

Posted at 4:27PM on Feb 15th 2007 by StopCruelty

37. Good for chyna and just for the record none of you would have the balls to say sh*t to chynas face by your selfs because she would kill you in 10 seconds flat.

Posted at 5:09PM on Feb 15th 2007 by Jason

38. Good for The Barbi Twins to get out there and use their time to draw attention to something that needs to be stopped. As far as the comments here, only people who don't feel good about themselves have to put others down in order to feel better about themselves. What a waste of energy!

Posted at 5:36PM on Feb 15th 2007 by Silver

39. That Chynna is a FREAK! It is a total he/she and has no talent. Did anyone see her on Surreal Life? That an effin' train wreck! She is totally wacked out on something. It was hilarious when the CEO of Trimpsa's wife called her liar on larry King Live - ha ha ha ha. What a freak show - she'll end up a herion addicted whore somewhere I'm sure of it! haha

Posted at 6:03PM on Feb 15th 2007 by northvangirl

40. Dumb animal rights fanatic nutcases! LOL

Posted at 9:41AM on Feb 16th 2007 by MEGABITE

41. "I am so sick of these stupid ass bunny-huggers. Dont get me wrong, I love animals, but to put them on the same level as humans is lunacy."

According to what?

Despite obvious differences between human and nonhuman animals, we share a capacity to suffer, and this means that they, like us have interests in not suffering. If we ignore or discount their interests simply on the grounds that they are not of the same species, the logic of our position is similar to that of the racist or sexist - one who thinks that to be white or male is to be inherently superior in moral status, irrespective of other qualities and characteristics.

Some humans - infants and those with severe intellectual disabilities - have less ability to reason and less self-awareness than some nonhuman animals. So we cannot justifiably use these criteria to draw a distinction between all humans on the one hand and all nonhuman animals on the other.

If we wish to maintain the view that no conscious human beings, including those with profound, permanent intellectual disabilities, can be used in ways harmful to them solely as a means to another's end, then we are going to have extend the boundaries of this principle beyond our own species to other animals that are conscious and able to be harmed. Otherwise we are drawing a moral circle around our own species, even when the members of our own species protected by that moral boundary are not superior in any morally relevant characteristics to many nonhuman animals who fall outside that moral circle.

"I suggest those made up protestors stop wearing make-up and take all the silicone out of their bodies. Animals are used in all of these products. Such ignorant hyprocrites."

I wear makeup and not only is it vegan, but it's not tested on animals. There are zillions of products out there that aren't tested on animals.

"They should thank their lucky-stars that researchers/physcicians do experiment on animals first. Would you want to take lets say a Parkinson drug that was never tried first? They have to use animals (like it or not) to see if all the drugs we take are safe long-term.How about all the bunny-huggers let the researchers experiment on them first? This would solve it all. No animals would have to be used."

Like I listed in my earlier response, there are tons of other testing methods that have been used to develop vaccines and etc. 2/3 of the people awarded with the Nobel prize in medicine used technologies other than animal testing to develop advancements in medicine.

Posted at 5:26AM on Feb 17th 2007 by April

42. April that video that you have on youtube is very sad. I think every asshole on here bashing chyna should be forced to watch that for 48 strait hours.

To me what chyna/and the twins are doing is a great thing.

Posted at 4:59PM on Feb 19th 2007 by Jason

43. I've done research at UCLA. I am currently a med school student. As much as I love animals, animal testing is necessary in health studies. My institution and the NIH have a code of conduct when it concerns animal testing. If animal testing can be avoided then it is. In response to the post of researchers only harming animals for sadism and money, it's not true. In order to get a research funded, you have to submit an incredible lengthy proposal that may take months to create and collaborate on. Then this proposal is sent to the NIH for review. If it is not plausible or if the research has no importance to science or health, then it is dismissed. If the techniques proposed are not recommended or unethical, then it is dismissed. The NIH (a big grant distributor and colliseum of medical data) decides how much to allocate to you. If all research can be done without the use of animals, it would be wonderful. However, not all fields can be researched using techniques that don't require animal testing. You can only do so much with case and cohort studies (epidemiology). In studying diseases such as cancers, you need animal research. Also, many of the techniques employed today involved animal testing. Someone mentioned the DNA chips...where do you think we get the antibodies and protein tags from? They're from rabbits. In tests where we track genes or human proteins, we subject the samples to tags and proteins that came from animals. Poster #22 offers tests that do not require animal testing (although some of those techniques were developed and discovered from animal testing...). However, these techniques are not enough to suffice the myriad of maladies inflicting humans. Even when you go to the doctor's for a blood test, the antibodies they use to detect problems are developed from animals. The research and knowledge your physican has concerning your health (newly discovered signs and symptoms and indicators) are developed more or less from animal research. As I've mentioned, some studies absolutely require the use of animals. However, most of the techniques listed in his/her post referred to drug testing. There is more to medicine and scientific research than testing drugs (which I say as an oversimplification). Human tissues are not readily available. That's why institutions emply the use of lab animals (e.g., rats) beause of their reproductive abilities. It not only allows one a lot of tissue to work with, but it also allows a whole system to determine the effect of a treatment on the body. The reason is: what works in vitro (on a petri dish or on a sample tissue) may not work in vivo (inside the animal itself). As for stem cell research, I full-heartedly support it...but funding is limited. Also, did you know we found out about stem cells and the extraction/isolation/usage of stem cells via animal experimentation? I know I have a lengthy explanation (from a medical personnal's point of view), but I feel that animal testing is necessary. When it comes to my research, I have to decide if it is absolutely necessary. I have a few colleagues who don't mind reaping the intellectual rewards, but don't physically get involved with specific labs for various reasons. Sometimes it's better to hear from an "insider" than a "speculator" in order to get a better idea of what's going on.

Posted at 6:20PM on Feb 26th 2007 by UCLA medicine

44. buy cheap plane ticket online: http://www.planetickets.741.com

Posted at 9:19AM on Mar 16th 2007 by ciamon

45. man i tell you all you people who down joanie can all go find a life she is doing her thing now and if saving monkeys is one then so be it we don't down or judge you for what you do in like so get over it.... I Wish she would wrestle again she was one tough cookie

We miss chyna !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted at 9:04PM on Mar 19th 2007 by roi