Fauci just spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. At the end of the ongoing experiment, the dogs will all be killed. To shut this lab down and adopt out the survivors, add your name to our urgent new taxpayer petition!
Paid for by the White Coat Waste Project, Inc., EIN 46-0856543. White Coat Waste Project is a 501(c)(3) bipartisan coalition of 3 million taxpayers opposed to the government’s wasteful spending on animal experiments. Our mission? To stop $20 billion in taxpayer-funded animal experiments. Contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by U.S. law. By providing your cell phone or mobile phone number you are consenting to receive calls and texts, including autodialed and automated calls and texts, to that number with updates and notifications from White Coat Waste Project, and any like-minded organizations. White Coat Waste Project is happy to help at (202) 656-9044. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. Message frequency may vary. Message and data rates apply. Terms and Conditions here.
To contribute by mail, please send a personal check or money order made payable to WCW to:
In yet another segment of the Fauci horror show, new documents emerged that show how the NIAID spent almost half a million in taxpayer dollars to fund abusive experiments on dogs even though the research had already been conducted.
The White Coat Waste Project used the Freedom of Information Act to uncover disturbing documents that detailed how Fauci and the NIAID, in an effort to test the effectiveness of drug treatment, intentionally infested healthy beagles with flies that were carrying disease-causing parasites.
JUST IN: #Fauci & NIAID spent almost half a million in taxpayer funds to infect dogs w/ parasites
The research had already been conducted on other animals – Scientists called it completely unnessecary
Once the dogs were no longer needed, they were killed
The records detail how the once-healthy dogs ‘vocalized in pain’ throughout the abuse and suffered for months before being euthanized, some were even bitten to death by the parasites. 360p 720p 1080p Auto (360p) About Connatix
If they endured the cruel tests, and once the researchers had no use for them anymore, the poor dogs were killed.
Multiple other scientists have admitted that the experiment was completely unnecessary, pointing to the fact that this research had been extensively performed on other animals.
“Experimenters admit this investigational drug, ‘has been extensively tested and confirmed…in different animal models such as mice…Mongolian gerbils…and rhesus macaques….’”
Basically, Fauci wasted over $400,000 in taxpayer dollars to fund his psychopathic hobbies that include abusing animals.
White Coat Waste Project went on Fox News to talk about their recent revelations from their FIOA request:
“Justin Goodman, a WCW Project vice president, told Domenech that the testing was likely a case of “not following the science”, adding that the FDA reportedly has said testing on canines isn’t always compatible to human-drug interactions.
“The EPA and the VA have ended dog testing,” he added.
Fox Nation host Lara Logan also joined the discussion, as well as her own pet dog, Honey, seated on her lap.
“We know these things happen, but should they be happening with taxpayer money? Dr. Fauci is increasingly becoming Dr. Evil. Over and over again, the decisions that he made that have just destroyed millions of lives all over the world are becoming more apparent by day,” Logan added.
“We still don’t know so much about what he’s doing. We don’t know what they’re doing at the NIH with animals. We don’t know what research they’re funding with gain of function,” she continued.”
This is not the first time documents have shown unethical and abusive experiments conducted under Fauci. In 2016, WCW exposed how the NIH was funding similar experiments to buy beagle puppies and strap capsules of infected flies to their skin.
The group also exposed how Fauci’s 2021 taxpayer-funded budget for conducting his ‘research’ is $6 billion, and that “roughly half,” and likely more, will be used for experimenting on animals.
Back in May, the Gateway Pundit reported on what’s probably the most horrifying example of Fauci’s sick ‘research’ – the barbaric experiment of grafting human fetus scalps onto living mice.
I need your help urgently to persuade the Norwegian government to stop plans to experiment on live minke whales. Bad weather has delayed the tests but they could start any day – we don’t have much time.
Funded by the US and Norwegian navies, as well as the oil and gas industry, the Norwegian government has approved plans to capture young minke whales to test their reaction to noise from naval sonar and seismic testing for oil and gas. The whales will be caught and forced, one by one, into a modified salmon-farming pen. Once there, each whale will be clamped between two rafts and electrodes attached under his or her skin.
The whale will be bombarded by noise at various frequencies while their brain signals are measured. They could be held like this for up to six hours.
The people carrying out these experiments claim they want to know how much noise the whales can withstand and at which frequencies. They plan to run these tests in May and June, and again next year.
It could literally scare them to death.
Whale and Dolphin Conservation have sent a letter to Norway’s prime minister signed by more than 50 leading scientists and vets. These experts say the stress could kill the whales. Even if it doesn’t, the ordeal will be dangerous and terrifying for these intelligent and highly sensitive individuals.
This appalling experiment is utterly inhumane and unnecessary. Existing research already tells us what we need to know about the effects of underwater noise on whales. We know that noise created by oil and gas exploration and military sonar scares whales and can cause them to strand and can even cause internal bleeding, organ failure and brain damage.
The charity Whale and Dolphin Conservation is supporting me with this petition and they are fighting hard behind the scenes with the Norwegian NGO, NOAH – for animal rights.
An immense body of empirical evidence has supported the position that animal models offer no predictive value for human response to drugs and disease. But perhaps more importantly, recent developments in evolutionary and developmental biology, genetics, gene regulation, gene expression, and gene networks gained in large part as a result of the Human Genome Project, in addition to advances in understanding complex systems, have significantly increased our understanding of why animals have no predictive value for human response to drugs or the pathophysiology of human diseases.
Applying Complexity Theory and the Theory of Evolution to the problem of using one evolved, complex adaptive system (CAS) as a model in order to predict responses of a second, has resulted in what Dr. Ray Greek has called Trans-Species Modeling Theory (TSMT)1: While trans-species extrapolation is possible when perturbations concern lower levels of organization or when studying morphology and function on the gross level, one evolved, complex system will not be of predictive value for another when the perturbation affects higher levels of organization.
TSMT allows scientists to place the empirical evidence regarding the failure of animal models in context. TSMT is a theory (although not universally accepted at present). In order to understand theory in science, note the following statements from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences.
In detective novels, a “theory” is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word “theory” means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory.” It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.
In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
TSMT is supported by vast amounts of empirical evidence, is consistent with science outside of the specific areas of biology it addresses, and both explains current scientific facts as well as predicting the answers to future questions.
Why is TSMT important?
When AFMA was formed in 1999, the case against the predictive value of animal models for human drug and disease response was of the empirical or clinical variety. A wide variety of clinical studies and case reports had shown that, when compared with how drugs ultimately affected humans or how diseases affected humans, animal models had reacted the same way a small percentage of the time. That meant that animal models had failed to meet the scientific standard for burden of proof in terms of offering predictive value.
From the perspective of the physician practicing medicine in the real world, this evidence would be sufficient to abandon the use of animal models in hopes of learning about drug and disease response in humans. For the clinician engaged in the world of cancer patients and auto accident victims, human response is the final arbitrator of truth—not what happens to animals in a laboratory. So when physicians observe a drug kill or maim even a small number of patients, that is enough proof for them to stop administering that drug, regardless of how much the drug was studied in the laboratory and what was learned from those studies. They don’t need to know—and are not necessarily even interested in—the pharmacology of the drug in eight different animal species.
Far from the often messy and chaotic world of clinical medicine, some medical researchers believe, and have stated, that the laboratory (meaning the laboratory where animals are used) is the “true sanctuary” of medicine, as opposed to the clinic or hospital where clinical research is performed. Indeed, clinical medicine is fraught with variables that cannot be controlled, thus leaving any clinical study or observation open to criticism and second-guessing. In this respect, the animal-based researchers are correct in their assertion that laboratory-based research is much more controlled and thus, from their perspective, better than clinical medicine. But patients suffer from disease in the real world, not the artificial world of the laboratory, and hence must be studied in the real world. This is not intended to undermine the importance of in vitro or in silico research, provided such research is human-based. But the final arbiter of truth is how patients respond, not what happens in an animal or other non-human system.
Accordingly, empirical evidence in the form of clinical observations, controlled studies, and case reports refuted the claims for predictive value by the animal model community. But the animal model community, as well as some that do not rely on animals, demanded more before abandoning animal models. Such people believe that what one aims for in science is an overarching theory that can predict outcomes without having to perform experiments every time a question is raised. Therefore, they asserted that the empirical evidence previously put forth had not been scientific enough, for it has failed in their view to adequately answer the “big” question: why do animal models fail?
The reason animals sometimes—but more often do not—react as humans is being illuminated by our knowledge concerning genes, gene regulation, gene expression, and gene networks. This knowledge has come in large part from the results of the Human Genome Project and other similar genome projects. In addition to advances in genomics, application of Complexity Theory to biomedical research has informed scientists on the subject of animal models. This combination of scientific advances allows us to formulate an overarching theory to explain what we have observed empirically for decades. In short, all animals are examples of robust, complex systems (on many levels) and hence demonstrate emergence, are modular, are dependent upon initial conditions, and are nonlinear, in addition to exhibiting other relevant properties. This means that a perturbation to complex system S1 that led to effect A will not necessarily lead to effect A in complex system S2, regardless of how similar the two complex systems are currently or were at one time.
Living complex systems manifest different responses to the same perturbation due to:
1. differences with respect to genes present; 2. differences with respect to mutations in the same gene (where one species has an ortholog of a gene found in another); 3. differences with respect to proteins and protein activity; 4. differences with respect to gene regulation; 5. differences in gene expression; 6. differences in protein-protein interactions; 7. differences in genetic networks; 8. differences with respect to organismal organizations (humans and rats may be intact systems, but may be differently intact); 9. differences in environmental exposures; and, 10. differences with respect to evolutionary histories.
These are some of the important reasons why even two nearly identical living complex systems (e.g., a chimpanzee and a human, or even monozygotic twins) may respond differently to drugs and experience different diseases, and hence why one evolved complex system/species cannot reliably predict responses for a different evolved complex system/species. Current biomedical research is studying disease and drug response at the level where the differences between complex systems (be they two different species or two different humans) are critical, hence using animals (e.g., vertebrates) as predictive or causal analogical models (CAMs) for human diseases and drug testing is a scientifically invalid paradigm. Because we have scientific theories, we don’t have to evaluate examples covered in the theory on a case-by-case basis, we just apply the theory. Theories and laws in science prohibit certain hypotheses. For example, the Germ Theory of Disease prohibited, and indeed replaced miasma—the notion that rotting organic matter caused disease. The Germ Theory does not prohibit other causes of disease, such as cancer, vascular abnormalities, and endocrine disorders, but it does mandate the clinician consider bacteria and viruses instead of rotting matter for certain clinical presentations. Likewise, Atomic Theory prohibits an infinite division of matter into smaller and smaller units, and the Theory of Relativity prohibits faster than light velocities. Suggesting that animal models must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis is like asking that each flora or fauna that fills an ecological niche be evaluated for achieving its position through an act of special creation or evolution. There is no logical reason to assume the trait in question was not the result of a special creation. But in light of theory—the Theory of Evolution—and empirical evidence, there is no reason to seriously consider such a hypothesis. Despite the development of an all-encompassing theory as to why animals offer very low predictive value, there remains—much to the detriment of human health and medical progress—extraordinary resistance to abandoning the use of animals as predictive models (see Why All the Opposition to AFMA?). The goal of AFMA, therefore, is to educate the scientific community, as well as society in general, about the urgent need to move away from the ineffective animal model and to move toward research methods that truly reflect the enormous strides science has made in knowledge of living systems.
Something we can all get behind. Dogs have gone from utilitarian, in the beginning of the last century, to being part of the family—like your kids (Sometimes better! I’ve seen some of your kids). We’ve advanced in so many areas; surely we can advance here. https://t.co/JyjxOGRzXF
More than 90 percent of drugs that pass in animal testing procedures don’t work for humans. Yet, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still requires it. And at a critical point in its development, researchers fast-tracked a COVID-19 vaccine without first testing it on animals, begging the question: is it really necessary at all?
Modern technology has given us viable alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate, effective, and humane.
Let’s stop government-sponsored animal abuse.
Sign this petition urging House leaders to pass the Alternatives to Animals for Regulatory Fairness bill, helping to save millions of animals from cruel, archaic, and deadly experiments.
Introduced by Sen. Jennifer Boysko and Delegate Kaye Kory, the new law prohibits the sale of cosmetics tested on animals after Jan. 1, 2022.
Virginia joins California, Nevada, and Illinois, while a larger effort to ban these products federally continues to gain bipartisan support. Animal testing involves cruel and inhumane procedures, such as dripping shampoo into rabbits’ eyes although the animals don’t have tear ducts to wash out the irritating product, and feeding mice enough of a cosmetic until they die to determine a “lethal dose.”
Cosmetic animal testing started during the 1940s as the only “realistic” technology for testing makeup on human skin, but experts now consider it ineffective and outdated, CBS 19 reported. Some research bodies– including the Center for Contemporary Sciences (CCS) — are shifting completely away from animal testing due to both the cruelty involved and the problematic differences between animal and human genetic makeups.
“Greater than 90 percent of drugs and vaccines fail in human clinical trials, despite showing signs of safety and efficacy in animal and traditional laboratory tests,” said CCS’s Director of Science and Technology Jarrod Bailey. “We, therefore, need, urgently, to shift the focus of biomedical research and testing away from animals and towards hi-tech, cutting-edge human-based methods.”
Unfortunately, there are exceptions to the ban, including pharmaceutical products that are cosmetic in nature but are officially classified as drugs — serving as a reminder that there is a lot more work to do to end animal testing.
Nevertheless, this new law marks a tremendous step forward in the fight against animal cruelty.
Cruel and unnecessary testing on animals for cosmetics and personal care products has been happening for many decades. Thankfully, a new bill has been proposed in New York that would prohibit the manufacturing and sale of cosmetics that have been tested on animals throughout the state.
The cosmetics industry has profited from the suffering of animals to ensure its own upward growth in the consumer market. Inside of these labs, small defenseless animals such as rats, mice, rabbits, and guinea pigs are confined in cages until they are subjected to horrific and painful experiments that are outdated and ineffective.
Animals do not respond to chemicals the same way that humans do. A chemical or product that is deemed safe for a mouse, rabbit, or for other animals may not be safe for human use.
Additionally, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, while the cosmetics industry already has safer and more reliable testing methods that don’t cause harm to innocent animals. Hundreds of companies that have pledged not to test on animals have already proven there’s no longer any acceptable reason to torture animals for our vanity.
What you can do to help:
Please urge your New York state legislators to VOTE YES on S4839/A5653 to save animals from unnecessary suffering in labs for cosmetics.
1. Call your New York state senator and state representative today. To identify your senator and representative and their corresponding contact information, please click the link below and enter your address. Find your New York legislators HERE!
When you call, you can simply ask to leave a message for your senator and say:
“As your constituent, I urge you to support the ban on the sales and production of animal tested cosmetics. Rabbits, mice, and guinea pigs should not die for lipsticks or shampoos. Please vote yes on S4839/A5653″
2. Please send In Defense of Animals’ letter to your New York state senator and New York state representative by filling out the form HERE!
Content courtesy of In Defense of Animals. Help them continue fighting for animals, people, and the environment by making a donation HERE!
During disturbing cosmetics testing on animals, defenseless bunnies and guinea pigs are tied down and force-fed potentially deadly toxins or have burning chemicals dripped into their eyes without any pain relief.
When the experiments are finally over, most of the animals exploited for these tests are killed.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t require these horrifying trials for approval, and cruelty-free alternative methods — including cell culture, noninvasive human tissue, and computer model tests — are more accurate and readily available.
And now, there is hope for animal test subjects in Virginia. The new Humane Cosmetics Act (SB1379/HB2250) — introduced by Sen. Jennifer Boysko and Del. Kaye Kory — would ban cosmetics tests on animals throughout the state, as well as the sale of any cosmetics developed or manufactured using animal testing.
If the bill is signed into law by Gov. Ralph Northam, Virginia would join California, Nevada, and Illinois in banning the sale or import of animal-tested cosmetics.
The memorandum directed that rabies housed at the Research Triangle Laboratory be retired.
Justin Goodman, VP of Advocacy and Public Policy at 3-million-member taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project said in an emailed statement, “We’re proud to have worked with Andrew Wheeler and his colleagues to secure this last-minute pardon for survivors of EPA’s taxpayer-funded animal tests. Mr. Wheeler’s directive to retire the last of the bunnies in the EPA’s taxpayer-funded labs cements his legacy as a policy pioneer who made the once-lofty goal of ending wasteful and cruel taxpayer-funded animal tests a reality. Between this move to retire survivors of EPA animal tests and the agency’s historic decision last year to end all animal testing by 2035, the EPA has set the gold standard that all agencies should aspire to meet under the Biden Administration and beyond. Taxpayers, animal lovers, and liberty lovers in all political parties can unite behind today’s pardon.”
Coronavirus has been detected in animals, though there has been no confirmation that the disease can be passed to humans from them.
India’s coronavirus death toll passed that of neighbouring China on Friday, with 175 new deaths in 24 hours taking the total to 4,706, according to official data.
India, home to some of the world’s most densely populated cities and a creaking healthcare system, is emerging as a new hotspot with record jumps in new cases in recent days.
In many rural areas, farmers regularly lose crops to monkey populations and have demanded local governments intervene to check their populations.
City authorities in Delhi have used long-tailed langur monkeys to scare away smaller primates from around the Indian parliament.
Since you’re here…
… we’re asking readers like you to support our open, independent journalism. News is under threat just when we need it the most. Growing numbers of readers are seeking authoritative, fact-based reporting on one of the biggest challenges we have faced in our lifetime. But advertising revenue is plummeting, and many news organizations are facing an existential threat. We need you to help fill the gap.
We believe every one of us deserves equal access to quality, independent, trustworthy journalism. So, unlike many others, we made a different choice: to keep Guardian journalism open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay. This would not be possible without financial contributions from readers who now support our work from 180 countries around the world.
The Guardian’s independence means we can set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political bias – never influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders.
“And then there is this little-known fact: Some Chinese researchers are in the habit of selling their laboratory animals to street vendors after they have finished experimenting on them.” -NEW YORK POST
Justin Goodman Vice President White Coat Waste Project
P.S. EMERGENCY PETITION: taxpayers like you should NEVER be forced to pay off China’s worst animal testing labs. And you shouldn’t be forced to pay for China’s lab animal round ups in dog and cat meat “wet markets.” Please sign and share our new petition if you agree.
Procter & Gamble, one of the world’s top cosmetics brands, wants to end global cosmetic animal testing by 2023.
The global consumer goods giant announced today that it joined the #BeCrueltyFree campaign launched by animal rights nonprofit, Humane Society International (HSI). Procter & Gamble owns a total of 19 cosmetics companies, including Olay, Old Spice, Gillette, Ivory, Head & Shoulders, and Pantene.
“We are pleased to partner with the Humane Society International in the quest to end cosmetic animal testing. I’m proud of the passion and expertise our researchers have contributed already to this goal,” Kathy fish, chief research, development, and innovation officer and Procter & Gamble said in a statement.
Procter & Gamble does not test products or ingredients on animals unless required by law, according to the website. The company has worked with HSI, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the Humane Society Legislative Fund to develop animal-free testing methods. Over the past 40 years, Procter & Gamble has invested more than $410 million in alternative testing. It currently uses over 50 methods, half of which the company had a hand in developing.
“This partnership represents an important milestone in our efforts to end animal testing for cosmetics worldwide through our #BeCrueltyFree campaign. By working together with forward-looking companies like Procter & Gamble, we can make this ambitious goal a reality,” said Kitty Block president of HSI and HSUS.
The new collaboration will focus on mainstreaming cruelty-free testing methods and laying pressure on companies and world governments to update their policies.
“Animal testing of cosmetics not only causes unnecessary animal suffering, but it also represents outdated science,” said Troy Seidle, HSI’s vice president for research and toxicology. He stressed how working with a household name like Procter & Gamble is important to mobilizing global cosmetic animal testing bans in major markets such as the US and Canada.
A growing number of nations have implemented cosmetic animal testing over the past year. Australia announced a ban earlier this month and Colombia banned testing for cosmetics and cleaning products last September. In the US, California legislators voted unanimously to ban cosmetic animal testing this past fall.
Both Canada and the EU are working towards bans. Last November, the EU invested €500 million toward developing cruelty-free alternatives. Major brands such as Dove and CoverGirl have also recently ended their animal testing policies.
Procter & Gamble, which owns 19 cosmetics brands, is working towards a global ban on cosmetic animal testing and cruelty-free animal testing alternatives.
“He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” - Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard