Disaster Bipartisan legislators demand answers from Fauci on alleged puppy experiments - Puppy murder was the final straw

Bipartisan legislators demand answers from Fauci on alleged puppy experiments

Dr. Anthony Fauci is being slammed for allegedly providing a grant to a lab in Tunisia to torture and kill dozens of beagle puppies for twisted scientific experiments.

nypost.com

Bipartisan legislators demand answers from Fauci on alleged puppy experiments​

Dr. Anthony Fauci is facing calls from a bipartisan group of legislators to respond to allegations that his National Institutes of Health division provided a grant to a lab in Tunisia to torture and kill dozens of beagle puppies for twisted scientific experiments.

In a letter to the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace and 23 colleagues addressed their “grave concerns about reports of costly, cruel, and unnecessary taxpayer-funded experiments on dogs.”

“According to documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project, and subsequent media coverage from October 2018 until February 2019, NIAID spent $1.68 million in taxpayer funds on drug tests involving 44 beagle puppies,” the letter on Thursday reads.

The White Coat Waste Project report claimed that the researchers locked the dogs in cages with hungry sandflies so that the insects could eat them alive.

Some of the pooches were also allegedly injected with disease-causing parasites.

“The commissioned tests involved injecting and force-feeding the puppies an experimental drug for several weeks, before killing and dissecting them,” lawmakers wrote.

The bipartisan group also raised concerns about allegations that scientists slit dogs’ vocal cords so that they wouldn’t bark during the experiments.
“This cruel procedure — which is opposed with rare exceptions by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, and others- – seems to have been performed so that experimenters would not have to listen to the pained cries of the beagle puppies.

This is a reprehensible misuse of taxpayer funds,” the letter said.

In addition to Mace, the letter was signed by Reps. Cindy Axne (D-Iowa), Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Scott Franklin (R-Fla.), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), among others.

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

Normally I don't have a problem with using animals in testing (especially when we're making products FOR animals) but I can think of no greater good that justifies shit like this.

 

[The handsome tard]

Unethical experiments

on humans:

on animals:

Part of me wants to be upset that these morons only give a shit when its fucking ANIMALS that are suffering, while humans can suffer and they might even enjoy it ("there are too many of us anyway!!"). Another part of me thinks I should be glad that this is being brought up at all.

Fucking generation raised on animal videos...

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

The way I would read it, it's like a smart prosecutor getting a guy thrown in jail for a minor crime whereas the mob demands he be thrown in for 1st-degree murder. Animal cruelty is still somewhat bipartisan and this is even if they are going for him.

So Fauci can lie before Congress abut using government money to help the Chinese develop viral infections for people from bats but puppy torture is where they draw the line.

Can we please go back to public torture and execution for people like Fauci?

 

[Male Idiot]

Unethical experiments

on humans:

on animals:

Part of me wants to be upset that these morons only give a shit when its fucking ANIMALS that are suffering, while humans can suffer and they might even enjoy it ("there are too many of us anyway!!"). Another part of me thinks I should be glad that this is being brought up at all.

Fucking generation raised on animal videos...

That is because even lab rats aren't convicted criminals or volunteers paid for it. It is hard to feel empathy for Jamal the burgler.

 

[Pentex]

>Kills a few million people
"Trust the science, wear the mask, get the jab(s)"

>Kills a dog
"OMG, not the puppers! Not the heckin' goodbois!"

Being an American has its ups and downs.

 

[The handsome tard]

That is because even lab rats aren't convicted criminals or volunteers paid for it. It is hard to feel empathy for Jamal the burgler.

I dont mind if its criminals. Tho paid volunteers were probably tricked into thinking there was no true danger (or else they wouldnt have done it unless really desperate).

 

[Corpun]

>Kills a few million people
"Trust the science, wear the mask, get the jab(s)"

>Kills a dog
"OMG, not the puppers! Not the heckin' goodbois!"

Being an American has its ups and downs.

On the bright side Fauci killing heckin pupperino good bois will likely turn Reddit against him.

 

[LurkTrawl]

Were they testing new anti-parasitics for veterinary medicine? I mean I can understand a small scale test before moving up to animals like cows which are actually economically important in African countries.

Just doing it for shits and giggles is stupid, but I’d bet something similar was done for any of the drugs that prevent heartworm now, or other parasites.

Someone explained it better than I ever could in the original thread:

This research was completely unnecessary. They weren't even testing the efficacy of a life-saving drug, they wanted to determine if parasitized dogs are more attractive to sandworms than nonparasitized dogs. They also suggest that parasitized dogs should be targeted first to control the spread of zoonotic disease in South Africa for this reason. Did you really have to torture those dogs to figure that one out..

View attachment 2651894

The original article and thread on it is worth reading as well I think.

 

[Male Idiot]

I dont mind if its criminals. Tho paid volunteers were probably tricked into thinking there was no true danger (or else they wouldnt have done it unless really desperate).

Than they are stupid and it was still on them to say no.
Humans have an agency unless you kidnap them at night for your Auswitz wank to death machine.
Oy vey that was a horrible way to come.. I mean go!

Same about a bad healthcare decision. If you give them a vaccine and it turns out it gives them tumors, at least you tried and just failed.

I still think niggermagic was involved and they just dressed it up as 'ooga, boofa, da sienze'.
Or if it was worm research, I guess niggers just can't into science.
After 9000 years of Wakanda science capital that is Apefrica, who would have thunked.

 

[AutismAwareness]

Little did we know, Fauci was the ringleader of the zoosadists the whole time.

 

[Ch@nnel-Sh!ft]

Unethical experiments

on humans:

on animals:

Part of me wants to be upset that these morons only give a shit when its fucking ANIMALS that are suffering, while humans can suffer and they might even enjoy it ("there are too many of us anyway!!"). Another part of me thinks I should be glad that this is being brought up at all.

Fucking generation raised on animal videos...

I don't really think it's JUST the animal videos, fellow potato. I personally think it's because our brains have been wired to be social creatures, and our high empathy levels for creatures that aren't our own species affects this significantly. Animal videos are cute and have aided this generation of animal-human companionship, but it's kind of always been there.

 

[NJBear]

Fauci also tortured Monkeys.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Fanuc kills puppies too?
Pure poetry.

 

[sperginity]

If you look back at old science textbooks, it is clear that a whole lot of important shit was discovered via animal torture. Like blood transfusions. That was just some weird motherfucker injecting dog blood into other dogs and trying to figure out why some of them didn't die. In fact, he could take blood from that dog and inject it back into the original dog and it was also fine. HM. He did it a lot to try to figure it out. That followed a general theme of "lets inject ___ into ___ animals and see what happens!" that actually yielded a bunch of important information that was hard to come by any other way.

the people saying animal studies can be replaced by printing organs or using computer models are lying. One of the first things you learn in college level biology is that living things are more complex as a system than the sum of their parts (which also happen to be complex). Trying to reduce the number of variables means not sticking to experiments that only test types of tissue in isolation from the system. drawing erroneous conclusions will eventually harm human beings. you're either going to harm animals or people, you don't get to pick "neither".

this doesn't mean anything goes, but it also means that most of the shit we take for granted as having prevented lots of suffering (human and animal) comes from experiments that may seem cruel or unethical by todays standards. These kinds of ethics reviews are a lot trickier than the kind that ban experiments for posing an existential threat to mankind like GoF viral research.

that being said: I will be glad for any reason for this dumb piece of shit to be fired. It isn't like STEM degrees are producing great scientists anyway, we have already fucked ourselves out of progress by letting the academic institutions become dominated by humanities based concerns.

I think this will be taken too far and animal experiments will be locked down to a degree that is absurd. But thats just the left's version of the stupid ban on embryonic stem cell research that bush put through. It will eventually be reversed. oh well.

 

[Overcast]

Unethical experiments

on humans:

on animals:

Part of me wants to be upset that these morons only give a shit when its fucking ANIMALS that are suffering, while humans can suffer and they might even enjoy it ("there are too many of us anyway!!"). Another part of me thinks I should be glad that this is being brought up at all.

Fucking generation raised on animal videos...

I think part of it is that humans are capable of higher thinking and can make their own decisions on things. So many people justify someone being used for unethical experiments by saying stuff like "They probably deserved it" or "They chose to be a part of this sort of thing".

You can't say the same about animals as they cannot give consent for this sort of thing. And they operate almost completely on instinct. It's why a lot of people defend pitbulls. Even though they have violent tendencies and can and will kill at random, they are doing that based on instinct rather than as an act of malice. Not to mention their very existence was created by people who selectively bred violent dogs.

As human beings, the vast majority of us seem to have this base desire not to take advantage of animals due to what I mentioned above beyond hunting and eating them for sustenance. Sure, we make some exceptions like with rats or mice as those are considered pests by most people. Dogs however have been our companions for thousands of years so seeing any sort of harm that isn't out of self defense evokes a strong reaction from people. And even if it was out of self-defense, we still feel bad because dogs just mean that much to us as a species.

Not saying that I advocate for people being used for unethical experiments, this is just how I understand this sort of thing.

Thinking about it now, it would be both amazing and absolutely hilarious if we got out of the situation we're in because we all banded together to protect man's best friend.

 

[NJBear]

If you look back at old science textbooks, it is clear that a whole lot of important shit was discovered via animal torture. Like blood transfusions. That was just some weird motherfucker injecting dog blood into other dogs and trying to figure out why some of them didn't die. In fact, he could take blood from that dog and inject it back into the original dog and it was also fine. HM. He did it a lot to try to figure it out. That followed a general theme of "lets inject ___ into ___ animals and see what happens!" that actually yielded a bunch of important information that was hard to come by any other way.

the people saying animal studies can be replaced by printing organs or using computer models are lying. One of the first things you learn in college level biology is that living things are more complex as a system than the sum of their parts (which also happen to be complex). Trying to reduce the number of variables means not sticking to experiments that only test types of tissue in isolation from the system. drawing erroneous conclusions will eventually harm human beings. you're either going to harm animals or people, you don't get to pick "neither".

this doesn't mean anything goes, but it also means that most of the shit we take for granted as having prevented lots of suffering (human and animal) comes from experiments that may seem cruel or unethical by todays standards. These kinds of ethics reviews are a lot trickier than the kind that ban experiments for posing an existential threat to mankind like GoF viral research.

that being said: I will be glad for any reason for this dumb piece of shit to be fired. It isn't like STEM degrees are producing great scientists anyway, we have already fucked ourselves out of progress by letting the academic institutions become dominated by humanities based concerns.

I think this will be taken too far and animal experiments will be locked down to a degree that is absurd. But thats just the left's version of the stupid ban on embryonic stem cell research that bush put through. It will eventually be reversed. oh well.

Sorry but the flies and the Dogs experiment has been debunked and deemed exceptionally cruel and totally unnecessary by other Scientists including some in Fauci's circle at the time.

 

[Synthetic Smug]

>Kills a few million people
"Trust the science, wear the mask, get the jab(s)"

>Kills a dog
"OMG, not the puppers! Not the heckin' goodbois!"

Being an American has its ups and downs.

More than one organization has learned the hard way that hurting animals will piss people off way more than hurting people.

 

[Fomo Hoire]

In such a case, why not take a mutt from the local pound, give it medicine, put it in with a few flies? If a fly bites, the dog can be tested again.

Now I may be about to say something stupid because I can't really tell the difference between dog breeds beyond weiners are long and Dalmatians have spots. Seriously I'm not sure I would know what an ungroomed poodle looks like.

But I assume they don't want random shelter dogs because they have variable health and pedigree. Probably doesn't make for a very good control group.

I'm thinking of... Idk who, probably Jet Fuel Johnny? Someone around here said that for human experimentation in the US, they love to use soldiers because (other than the fact that they can't say no) you've beat out a lot of the behavioral differences in them, making it really easy to get a baseline. You still might not be entirely sure of the soldier's genetic or medical background, but you've standardized as much as you can between the test subjects.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for dogs. Shelter dogs are bad because they're of iffy background and quality, and a specific species feels you what's normally fucked up with that kind of dog. Mutts got too many variables.

 

[Male Idiot]

Reasonable points, but I don't think the whole whopping 85 IQ niggers running this had this.

A whole side of experimental ethics is "do we nees to do it? Is there a less cruel way to get the same quality of results?"

LImike how you used to be able to amputate a soldier's left with booze and hacksaw, but mow we to better.methods now.

 

[The handsome tard]

I think part of it is that humans are capable of higher thinking and can make their own decisions on things. So many people justify someone being used for unethical experiments by saying stuff like "They probably deserved it" or "They chose to be a part of this sort of thing".

You can't say the same about animals as they cannot give consent for this sort of thing. And they operate almost completely on instinct. It's why a lot of people defend pitbulls. Even though they have violent tendencies and can and will kill at random, they are doing that based on instinct rather than as an act of malice. Not to mention their very existence was created by people who selectively bred violent dogs.

As human beings, the vast majority of us seem to have this base desire not to take advantage of animals due to what I mentioned above beyond hunting and eating them for sustenance. Sure, we make some exceptions like with rats or mice as those are considered pests by most people. Dogs however have been our companions for thousands of years so seeing any sort of harm that isn't out of self defense evokes a strong reaction from people. And even if it was out of self-defense, we still feel bad because dogs just mean that much to us as a species.

Not saying that I advocate for people being used for unethical experiments, this is just how I understand this sort of thing.

Thinking about it now, it would be both amazing and absolutely hilarious if we got out of the situation we're in because we all banded together to protect man's best friend.

I understand, Im just saying we should value life all the same.