Comments on: Pam Anderson Shows Larry King Her Two Remarkable … Faces

By: Angry Army Wife

Angry Army Wife — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:02:57 +0000

I am trying to understand why all of these OLD posts are being picked up. This is not the first one that has appeared out of the blue.

Trying to get Pamela Anderson to actually have a polite conversation is like trying to get Obama to quit lying.

By: Beige

Beige — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:07:49 +0000

Heh. I’m imagining anyone trying to get a complete, coherent sentence out of Pamela Anderson, on any subject.

Andrea, do YOU have a “fricken medical degree”???????????????? I think not. You obviously don’t have an English degree, either. When you get to seventh grade, you’ll probably learn how to write sentences and use punctuation. It really depends on your school district, I guess.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:33:19 +0000

You really should read up a little bit more on natural products, herbs and ways to naturally treat medical problems before you dis them, and talk utter crap about how they are in some way tested on animals at some point. Do you not realise that most drugs that treat the human condition actually derive from natural products otherwise where the hell do you think they come from? Scotch mist????

“For example, everyone has heard of digitalis which is a drug used to stimulate the heart. Well, digitalis comes from an herb called foxglove. Another example is the effective anti-clotting agent called coumarol. That too comes from an herb–sweet clover.

Another one is reserpine, which is one of the most popular tranquilizers. It comes from an herb named snakeroot. They used snakeroot for thousands of years in India to calm people down.

Still another example is quinine. Quinine is very efficient in reducing fever, especially malarial fever. This drug comes from the Peruvian bark in South America” see http://www.healingfeats.com/herbsvs.htm

The reality is that when humans fuck around with natural products thats when these ‘natural herbs’ which have been used for many years to effectively treat health issues actually become unusable on a human and require animal testing. What kind of fuckt up person would rather use something that needs to be fuckt with to the point where it might actually burn the skin off your face over the natural herb that it is derived from. Get your facts straight buddy, do you have a fricken medical degree??? I think not…Do you personally know Pamela Anderson???? I think not….Have you actually interviewed her to get her side of the story???? I think not!!!! Nice try at being a journo but in my mind you have failed miserably!

By: DECEIVER MADNESS Round 2: Activists | Gossips And Stars

DECEIVER MADNESS Round 2: Activists | Gossips And Stars — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:05:05 +0000

[...] all that, I have a feeling that Pam Anderson will still crush her. But it’s not my call, now, is [...]

By: alicia

alicia — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:37:37 +0000

I find it even more interesting that Pamela along with the rest of the LEFT crazy loons are all for the compassionate treatment of animals (and I am too) but they are also Pro-abortion advocates that kill innocent babies. I’m also talking about partial birth abortion!!! HELLO???? the baby in 90% out of the mother’s womb and then the so called doctor takes a pair of scissors and inserts it into the back of the baby’s head…killing it!!! What the hell is going on here? Dont talk to me about a womans health Pamela Anderson…the fact that the only part of that baby that has not been birthed is the head of the baby and this will have an adverse effect on the womans health??? GTFO!!!Yeah, killing is justified when it is human just make sure that you have FAIR AND ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS!!! Pamela…you and your leather corset’s are as unflattering as your ideology! You are one SICK individual that needs serious therapy…I take that back…there is nothing that could cure your evil will! FO and die!!!

By: loki

loki — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:00:40 +0000

just to be an ass, that isn’t a grizzly bear, it’s a black bear.

By: shawn

shawn — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:38:15 +0000

I know…Pam’s not perfect. In fact, she’s obviously not the brightest bulb on the tree, but she is passionate about animal rights. What are you passionate about? Busting hypocracy? There are many higher purposes for hypocracy busters. Try Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice…etc! RIFE with hypocracy!

The drugs you referred to are testable on HUMANS! There are plenty of people willing to be guinea pigs, for pay of course. The point being: Humans have a choice, chimps don’t! Some people with hep c will volunteer to take part in trials in hopes of curing their incurable disease. Chimp’s don’t volunteer for anything.

What are YOU doing for animal rights? Anything? Do you eat hot dogs? Do you wear leather?
Do you care?!?

By: The Oversneer

The Oversneer — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:47:33 +0000

I personally wouldn’t test anything on a human baby. That’s what lab animals are for.

And if you really believe only “occasional” breakthroughs have come from research with animals, … wow … I really don’t know what to do with you.

I would imagine it’s incredibly expensive and cumbersome (regulation-wise) to keep and use animals in a lab. Just think how many extra hurdles your buddies at PETA have put up over the years to make it more costly. So if there were non-animal tests that could replace all of it, how quickly do you think companies would switch?

Yeah…

Enjoy the tofu. It was tested on a bunny.

By: Neil K

Neil K — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:36:25 +0000

I’ve never been a fan of Pam either, but I am a Peta supporter. There are thousands of useless, wasteful, and cruel experiments done on animals every year in the name of ‘research’. While some animal experimentation may have resulted in an occasional medial ‘breakthrough’, more often it’s results are inconclusive and/or harmful. (Vioxx, anyone?) Results obtained with animals do not necessarily translate to humans. Would you test on a human baby to find a cure for feline leukemia? Much animal experimentation could be replaced today by scientific tests that do NOT involve animals. Yet the medical establishment is afraid of rocking the boat and jeopardizing their paychecks, so the old ways continue.

[spam link deleted. -- mgmt]

By: hugh jass

hugh jass — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:53:48 +0000

Well animal testing would be unnecessary since Chuck Norris’s tears cure cancer. Too bad he doesn’t cry.