Fauci cited for much more than just cruelty to puppies, investigative report shows
By jdheyes // 2022-01-27
Copy
 
Dr. Anthony Fauci has been royally criticized for his 'advice' and 'recommendations' during the COVID-19 pandemic, but as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since the early 1980s, he has a lot more sickening baggage that he ought to have to answer for. In August 2021, an activist organization, White Coat Waste Project, found that Fauci's office greenlit roughly $424,000 in funding to conduct horrific experiments on live beagle puppies that included drugging them and sticking their heads in a covered apparatus filled with hungry sand fleas. BizPac Review reported at the time: According to the organization, dozens of beagles were first infected with parasites that cause disease in order to test an experimental drug. The organization pointed out that the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t direct that drugs be tested on dogs, prompting its activists to inquire as to why such experimentation is being conducted and funded by American taxpayers. According to the White Coat Waste Project, 44 beagle pups were utilized for experimentation in a Tunisia lab. Some of the dogs had vocal cords removed, reportedly so scientists could conduct their work without having to listen to constant barking. And while this is bad enough, Fauci has also been accused, quite credibly, of funding dangerous gain of function research of the kind that we know led to the creation of the virus that causes COVID-19 and has killed millions of people around the world. No one has attempted to hold Fauci accountable more than Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has managed to uncover evidence proving not only that Fauci's NIAID funded the research, but that Fauci himself and other ranking officials at the National Institutes of Health conspired to keep their involvement a secret while working to discredit anyone who attempted to expose them. "In fact, the NIAID has been under scrutiny for gruesome experiments carried out on dogs and on human children, experiments that indicate a troubling lack of concern for life," Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins wrote in the Washington Examiner in November. "The public should be asking whether that systemic disregard for life, especially for human life, extended all the way to Wuhan. Did the federal public health bureaucracy’s disconnection from human dignity lay foundations for the pandemic?" Hawkins continued. And while she said that she understood how some animal research could benefit humans, that "argument crumbles, however, in the face of the bigger scandal facing Fauci’s NIAID: revelations that his office funded research on unborn children who are killed, dissected, harvested for organs, and shipped in pieces from a 'Tissue Hub and Collection Site' at the University of Pittsburgh to labs across the country," she continued. She goes on to ask how grafting scalps from babies killed in the womb at 5 months gestation to the backs of rats serves humankind before answering her own question with: "It doesn't." But so far, the Biden regime has done nothing to hold Fauci to account. In fact, shortly before taking office, Biden made Fauci is administration's chief medical adviser, though his specialty isn't "medicine," per se, it's research (and diabolical research at that). Republicans, meanwhile, are asking tough questions -- and when they win back a congressional majority this fall they're going to have subpoena power and plan on using it. “You appear to have learned nothing from this pandemic,” Paul noted during Fauci's Senate testimony in early November, according to video clips posted online a few days earlier. “Will you, today, finally take some responsibility for funding gain-of-function research” at a lab in Wuhan China, he asked. After Fauci demurred, Paul doubled down. “We’re aware that you changed the definition of gain of function on your [agency’s] website,” Paul said. “So what you’re doing is defining away gain of function — you’re simply saying it doesn’t exist ’cause you changed the definition on the NIH website. “And what you’ve done is change the definition on your website to try to cover your a**, basically,” Paul continued. Sources include: WashingtonExaminer.com BizPacReview.com
Copy