The NIH isn't just torturing beagles: The things it's using your money to do to monkeys are equally stomach-churning

It's becoming increasingly easy to see that Anthony Fauci isn't just a power-mad bureaucrat, but also a malignant narcissist. Over the last two days, increasingly awful details have emerged about the beagles who suffered terribly thanks to experiments Fauci funded. Then, yesterday, word emerged that the entire NIH is good with torturing animals, for NIH has used hundreds of thousands in taxpayer dollars for cruel experiments on animals, all of them of seemingly dubious value.

As is true for so many Americans, I am a dog-lover. I've had dogs for most of my life, and I value them tremendously. I also admire cats, especially from a distance. That's why it was awful to read about the animal experiments that Fauci funded with your and my taxpayer dollars.

Ned Barnett wrote about the whole stomach-churning thing here. He helps us understand that, while half of America is okay with Fauci paying for the Wuhan lab to do research on making bat COVID contagious to humans, thereby likely killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, most Americans will not tolerate his cruelty to dogs.

Overall, when one combines Fauci's arrogance, blatant lies, and seeming obsession with engaging in behaviors that kill humans by the hundreds of thousands and dogs by the scores, the description for a malignant narcissist just seems so...fitting:

Yesterday, it emerged that the entire National Institutes of Health shows this callous regard for animals. Mind you, as someone who is neither a vegetarian nor a vivisectionist, I recognize that there is a utility to conducting certain experiments on animals. Animals are not humans, and while we should never deliberately cause them suffering, it doesn't mean that we humans, sitting at the top of the food chain, shouldn't benefit from animals, whether as companions, working animals, .

WHERE's PETA?

The National File reports that the White Coat Waste Project has discovered that the National Primate Research Centers (NPRCs), which receive more than $100 million per year from taxpayers, have been doing some pretty nasty things to monkeys:

Some of the experiments done by the NIH-funded NPRC's [sic] involve:
Turning monkeys into "binge-drinker" alcoholics (Oregon NPRC);
Surgically-inducing heart attacks in monkeys (Washington NPRC);
Exposing monkeys to biological weapons (Tulane NPRC);
Intentionally threatening monkeys to cause fear and anxiety (California NPRC);
Psychologically tormenting baboons (Southwest NPRC);
Drilling into monkeys' skulls and injecting them with the ADHD-drug Ritalin (Wisconsin NPRC); and
Drilling to monkeys' skulls and injected toxins to destroy their brains and cripple their limbs (Yerkes NPRC)
The organization unearthed a video from Emory University's Yerkes National Primate Research Center, detailing how monkeys are locked alone in small cages where they have holes drilled into their skulls. After the holes are drilled, doctors reportedly screw in metal head restraining devices, implant electrodes and inject toxins into the monkey's brains.
The toxic brain injections reportedly "destroy monkey's brains and cause them to lose control of their limbs, mouths, and other body parts."

I don’t know about those other experiments. Maybe the animals were under a deep anesthetic. (That would make it slightly better.)

But in the beagle experiment, the dogs were very much awake and able to feel pain. That puts Fauci and company at a level above “malignant narcissist”. We’re getting into Josef Mengele territory here.

And what makes this even more infuriating is my tax dollars paid for it.

You can't say that without knowing the details, such as whether CT scans or other tests are used to trace the neurological changes. If you want to argue they are per se immoral regardless of any utility, then that's a different argument.

I would not be surprised to find out, however, that the experiments are badly conceived and poorly executed so that the "research" is primarily done so the lab or researchers get funding and little of value is actually produced.

Such corruption is now fairly typical of many American social institutions, including much of government, many businesses and many "charities."

But in the beagle experiment, the dogs were very much awake and able to feel pain

They also were "de-barked" (had their vocal cords snipped). The only reason I can imagine for doing that is so that the "researchers" wouldn't have to listen to these poor, innocent animals screaming in pain as they were viciously killed. I also heard that the bodies of the dogs were tied down so that they couldn't use their paws to fight off the fleas.

What was the reason for this experiment in the first place? Why did they do this? What were they trying to "discover". I simply cannot fathom any good reason to do this to an animal -- any animal.

> Why did they do this? What were they trying to “discover? <

The only thing they could discover would be how long takes sand fleas to kill an immobile beagle. And of course such information would be of no value.

So I’m thinking the experiment was carried out because:

A. The researchers were sadists.
B. The researchers just wanted to attract grant money.
C. Both A and B.

I vote for C.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.