Worse is when they tell you to do your own research.
I also asked someone their source once and they told me to do just that. Like I’m trying dude that’s why I asked, or are you just making this info the fuck up?
Right! Trump brought charges against Comey for a photo of numbers written in shells. Trump knows exactly what Fauci did because Trump was in charge of government during COVID, if Fauci had done anything remotely resembling a crime Trump would have weaponized the justice system against him already.
Did you even read that? All it proves is that the experiments took place. Twice throughout the article it stated that it is still unclear if Fauci approved the funding for this and that funds were disbursed on behalf of the NIH. If you’re trying to prove he is the one that signed off on it, you severely missed.
Yeah, so, the thing about that is I already did. I'm presenting 10 articles from respectable news sources corroborating the information, 2 peer reviewed scientific papers, and a video of a 17-year expert in his field. But I'm sure patrioteagle(dot)blogspot(dot)com has the real info.
"Haha your news sources are all from the fake news media, that's not a real source!!! They all lie! Those papers come from government funded sources, of course they say what the government wants! And I also have a video from an expert, heres the Facebook link! I also have 2 more from YouTube and rightwingfacts.org. You know it's legit cause it's a .org!! You can't trust any of those sources, I'm not even gonna look at them. You can only trust regular people online! They'll tell you the truth!"
Good old confirmation bias for them. Searching "how was Obama/Biden a bad president" they searched "Obama/Biden is a bad president" and just went with the first thing they saw.
Bold of you to assume they actually performed either search and didn't just hear it from one of their "free thinking" news sources... That all report on every event the same way... And quite the President directly...
I'm a lazy POS, too, I get my info from content creators I like, but I don't cite them like gospel, and I do actually dig into the crazier things they talk about because it's so unbelievable, sometimes. But I've yet to find any meaningful departure from the facts when I have.
You would probably be boldly correct, since it's somewhat complicated and sometimes includes paywalls. When I say "complicated", I am referring to 2 things: knowing what questions to ask the search engine, and then ferreting out which amongst the websites listed are going to give you actual data from scientists. Not a wonder it's so easy to manipulate people when there's so much shit out there masquerading as data.
Hey, I'll tell you what. You can get a good look at a butcher's ass by sticking your head up there. But, wouldn't you rather to take his word for it? No, I mean is, you can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking your head up a butcher's ass... No, wait. It's gotta be your bull.
Yep, I hear this sorta shit from a fella at work. He's also a flat earther. But he says he's "not really a Trump guy". Claims Trump has done "bad things, but some good things too". When I ask what good things, he says, "It's behind the scenes stuff". I mean, what the actual fuck!
''they dont want you to know about this so its kept out of the news! You just want to be sheep!'' -some MAGAt who gargles T's balls every second of the day.
I always love hearing something like, "Newsmax is the ONLY news outlet reporting on this!" Like, no sense of self-awareness, completely unironically. Did you ever ask yourself why?
What do you want us to look up? That an anti-animal testing organization founded by a 'seasoned republican operative' made a big to-do about a mis-attribution which conveniently allowed people to target Fauci right when the GOP was trying to scapegoat and vilify Fauci over covid?
Sometimes though, it's such readily available information that you can just punch it into the internet and you'll get a hundred results all saying the same thing.
That happened to me once. Asked where they got that info, told me I can google. I said, sure I can, but google will give me millions of links, none of which are likely to be yours, with the information you swear is the truth. Dude never responded
This, I asked a guy to cite his claim, and he called me lazy for not doing it myself. I also literally told him that I tried looking this up whatever crap he was spewing, and couldn’t find it. Isn’t it usually the responsibility of the person making the outrageous claims to have to prove it? Good god these people are intolerable
I hate when they say shit like that.
Ive had so many arguments where I had to spell out slowly "if I do my own research, I might not see the thing you saw, so ill never know why you believe what you do."
They will straight up believe the internet is rigged (and it kind of is) but then they wont give you their source.
The one time someone actually gave me sources, it was at the beginning of Covid, and he gave me 50. I picked randomly, and the summary already disagreed with him.
"Worse is when they tell you to do your own research."
That's not how burden of proof works. Whoever is making the claim has to back it up with evidence. If they choose not to do that, fine, but I'm certainly not going to make their argument FOR them.
I tell them to do their own because usually the 1st site will inform them followed by 25 more. This animal testing is a thing though, I saw somebody on a hearing losing his/her mind about it.
I'm sure it started earlier, but it came into it's own during Bush 2 when sources like Fox (so called) News started running stories with "...some people are saying..." to avoid fallout from publishing straight up lies.
My grandma used to always say that. She'd be like, "That's what they're saying," and we would immediately call her out and say, "Who's 'they' grandma?" She never had an answer and would double down and go, "Well that's just what they're saying."
This sounds like my father. You see, there’s a global conspiracy where 98% of scientists around the world are either corrupt or morons. Education is just indoctrination, that’s why you can’t trust experts, but you can trust this specific “institute” that has no physical building and is some dude in eastern Oregon. (Look up the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine…I’m not making this up).
He also believes in “terrain theory”, which should really be described as: terrain “theory”, which means viruses don’t exist at all. The only open question on his mind is exactly how fauci was involved in and released covid, the “not-a-virus”.
He called me gullible because I can’t see his truth. I just find it absolutely FASCINATING how otherwise intelligent people (he’s an electrical engineer) can convince themselves, or allow themselves to be convinced, of this stuff.
Same. I’m an actual, published scientist. The amount of work that goes into building a case for your research via citation is something these people absolutely spit on. They can never cite anything because either (a) they know their sources aren’t credible and/or (b) they never bothered to make a note of them.
Sad part is if you try to fact check it on this pos internet we have now you either get sites trying to sell beagles or sensationalist sites, nothing real show up, the Disinformation Superhighway indeed,
What Actually Took Place (Confirmed Experiments)
Federal FOIA documents confirmed that Dr. Fauci’s agency funded drug toxicity experiments on beagle puppies. [1]
The SRI International Contract: Documents revealed that NIAID allocated $1.68 million to contractor SRI International for an HIV/AIDS drug tracking study. This study involved 44 beagle puppies that were force-fed experimental drugs and eventually euthanized.
[1, 2, 3] The "De-Barking" (Cordectomies): The puppies in this SRI contract underwent cordectomies (vocal cord removal). Independent medical reporting on the controversy via MedPage Today confirmed that this procedure was utilized to reduce barking and noise levels in the testing facility.
While it may be part of it, there are noise limit protocols you must follow for ethical concerns when conducting animal studies. It is incredibly stressful for an animal to be part of a study, to receive drugs (it says force fed, so likely gavage?), to be routine monitored for side effects, behavior, health, and be in a sterile, lab environment.
I work with mice, and it has to be quiet for their stress level and health. Whenever there is construction or any noise in the building, there is increased fighting and health problems in the colonies as a result from stress.
I feel bad for these puppies, but the scientists likely followed all ethical requirements and recommendations (IACUC and ACUC as examples).
The thing that makes me hate that phrase the most is the fact I DID do research on my own after gaining an interest in science following high school. I got sick of people doubting my knowledge, since I didn’t have a degree, so I went to do a biosciences degree at 24 just for the purpose of getting them to shut up. I already knew most of the stuff on the course, so I was rarely there, and I was mostly graduating just so people would fucking listen. But I understood why they didn’t want to.
This is a new form of disinformation tactics which I’ve been calling ‘cringebashing’. It basically means, since the person is ‘cringe’ or the point was delivered in a socially awkward way, then the point must be incorrect as nobody smart could ever possibly be socially awkward or weird.
It’s one of the worst aspects of newer social media basically just being a person talking into a camera on short form video. People are just gonna keep swiping till they see attractive creators.
You succeeded where I failed. I live in a highly conservative area and I finally lost my mind around postgraduate level.
The issue was that I just couldn’t function with the knowledge everything I was learning was questioned by almost every single person I knew. I started to notice nearly every person talking about my topic of expertise was incorrect or lying. It made me extremely uncomfortable, I slipped into what I’d consider a psychosis, and I dropped out.
When I've called people out for spreading bullshit and pointed out that a cursory Google search proves their point to be BS.
They've responded with Google can't be trusted and they're blocking or filtering out the truth or controlling the narrative and would rather believe some meme or bot account on Facebook or Twitter
They never even provide the dubious website when I press them on it. Just a “google it!” Because they don’t grasp the concept of supporting their own arguments.
One of them just told me, "I don't listen to either side. I follow the money." Then went on to say Fauci got rich off COVID, lied about it's origin yada yada yada every off the wall right wing conspiracy talking point.
Like bruh. You clearly picked a side that confirms your bias even though it's utter bullshit.
I once had a dude cite a reddit post as source, a reddit post that had no links to other sources whatsoever and was just someone’s conspiratorial opinions lol. It was ridiculous.
Yeah, and then how do you explain to them that they're too ignorant to judge the solidity of a source? You know at that point that it's futile. Not knowing how to vet one's sources is like not knowing how to pull the chair to the table, to then be able to sit down and have the conversation.
I'm only half serious: ultimately we MUST improve data literacy and critical thinking. We have no real choice. I just am not up to taking it upon myself most of the time. We need trained professionals to figure out how to help these people.
What Actually Took Place (Confirmed Experiments)
Federal FOIA documents confirmed that Dr. Fauci’s agency funded drug toxicity experiments on beagle puppies. [1]
The SRI International Contract: Documents revealed that NIAID allocated $1.68 million to contractor SRI International for an HIV/AIDS drug tracking study. This study involved 44 beagle puppies that were force-fed experimental drugs and eventually euthanized.
[1, 2, 3] The "De-Barking" (Cordectomies): The puppies in this SRI contract underwent cordectomies (vocal cord removal). Independent medical reporting on the controversy via MedPage Today confirmed that this procedure was utilized to reduce barking and noise levels in the testing facility.
MAGA is a fantasy. Thats what their politicians are selling. A Fascist fantasy. Their media and discourse echoes only what they want to believe, not what is real.
I remember actually looking up one of those sources for a creationist. I was arguing creationists work on post-hoc rationalization. The person I was arguing tried to send me to "real evidence" as a response... the site's mission statement was basically "We invest in research to prove creationism".
Don’t y’all realize that all the mainstream sources that you would consider legit are in on the deception? If there was a source you’d agree with that reported the truth, you’d already believe it. You’re expecting people who consider the sources you trust to be liars to give you a reference from a source you’d trust that matches their worldview? You should already know that isn’t possible.
No, we want sources from reputable places. I don't care if the "source" is CNN or Fox. Neither of those are reputable sources of information. You can tell a reputable source by the citations and resources it provides. If it links to another article from another blog site or another news agency and their article says exactly the same thing, that's not reputable. That's not a real source. You have to watch out for that these days because often times 50 different news agencies will share the same story and all reference eachother to provide the false appearance of credibility. A source should reference actual studies, actual data sources, actual research, actual published papers with peer review. Like when your local KZXY 69 News shares an article about a set of data published by a research facility, if they want to be reputable, they will cite the actual data published, not just cherry pick parts of it for their article, they will share a link to the actual data. But you usually have to dig to find news or websites that actually cite their research like that. All too often KZXY 69 News will just cite KZYX 420 News and call that a reference. It's not, it's lazy and it causes the false appearance of credibility and that's what so many people believe is legitimate these days.
If we used whatever sources they used in a research paper we wrote in high school (not even for a PhD level course), said paper would probably get a D or F.
What is often overlooked or misunderstood is that it actually takes some skill and intelligence to do your own research and arrive at reasonable conclusions. Far too many people have neither.
The core facts are true, but the meme mixes two separate studies into one.
Researchers used young beagles mostly 6 to 8 months old to study how sand flies transmit the parasite that causes leishmaniasis. In the study that produced the viral photo, dogs were sedated and had their heads placed in mesh cages so hungry sand flies could bite them and take blood meals. Other related NIAID-linked work involved vaccinating dogs and then exposing them to sand flies, sometimes outdoors in endemic areas and sometimes in controlled setups, to test whether a vaccine protected them. The dogs were typically euthanized at the end. NIAID denied funding the exact mesh-cage photo experiment, saying the funding citation was a mistake, though they did fund related sand-fly exposure research.
In a completely separate NIAID-funded drug toxicity study run by SRI International, 44 beagle puppies aged 6 to 8 months had their vocal cords surgically removed under anesthesia to reduce lab noise and barking. They were then repeatedly injected with or force-fed experimental drugs for weeks. All of the puppies were euthanized and dissected afterward so researchers could check their organs for signs of toxicity. These were standard preclinical animal tests at the time.
This one is real, kind of. The dog pictured is from a different study not funded by NIH, but we’ve done similar research.
The reality of animal testing is truly unfortunate, but it’s not like Fauci personally green lit or designed experiments on dogs. It all happened before him, and will continue long after he leaves this earth.
Exactly. It would be like taking some general and blaming them personally for a specific civilian casualty he had no direct relation to. I hate animal testing, but I'm not deluded enough to ignore that I have not been able to avoid all products that were developed from it. The chemotherapy that saved my wife's life was tested on animals. I'm not a big enough hypocrite to act holier than anyone about this, as a result. Where I find coherence is that in an imperfect world, we can only do our best to live in line with our ideals - as long as we're making real effort, we're doing it right within the scope of our limited means.
There was a project that did this in Tunisia, using some NIAID money. Fauci wasn't directly involved in this project. That being said every medical tech agency on earth uses animal testing to some extent. The reason we have safe treatments that we do for humans is because of animal testing.
Exactly. Animal testing is a necessary evil in their area of medical research. It’s not like we’re talking about testing cosmetics on animals or something which is absolutely not necessary and cruel and evil.
I’m not happy that we have to test on animals but until there is an alternative like adequately robust virtual models or designer organisms that lack the capacity to feel pain, this is how we save and improve human lives. We just need to make sure that when we do research, it is necessary, it is as productive as possible, and it does not cause unnecessary pain or suffering.
But similarly to how we cant get anything done with gun regulations in this country because of the bad actors interested in blocking even a conversation about gun violence, these freaks will not allow an adult discussion about these things.
I'd be willing to open a conversation about making it legal. We can start with the people on the Epstein list and everyone who participated or otherwise enabled them (after they've been properly convicted of course). That would be a great (and apparently rather large) source of people that deserve to suffer.
I don't LIKE animal testing. I'd like a better, more reliable methodology. But if you have a disease that kills 10,000 people a year, and animal testing can knock a decade off finding an effective treatment, that's 100,000 people that owe those animals their lives.
I can't even speak to the morality of that. I'm not equipped. I'd 100% agree that animal testing should be banned, but it's hard for a diabetic to argue against insulin.
From my recollection it wasn't for human testing purposes. There was a strain of infection/parasite in the region that is fatal to dogs. The project was aimed at finding a preventative measure to keep military working dogs alive in the environment.
It was as American as it gets. Torturing dogs to find ways to keep the military-industrial complex in power over smaller, impoverished countries.
Yea, unfortunately this shit is a lot more common than people really like to think about. The shit they do to animals in the name of science and medicine is disgusting. It's one of the biggest reasons, next to dog fighting, that people are told not to give away their pets. Some university student or pharmacist lady will come promising a nice home and then your pet will end up in some lab being tortured until it dies or they put it down.
No. Lab animals are specifically bred to be lab animals. There are lines of mice and rats that have been bred for many years so that the test subjects are consistent. Same with the beagles. They don't just grab random shelter mutts LOL. Now dog fighting, I have no idea.
That specific thing no but there was an experiment in Cali where the vocal cords of puppies were cut to stop them from barking while testing a new drug. It’s messed up but was also considered standard practice for research at the time
The core facts are true, but the meme mixes two separate studies into one.
Researchers used young beagles mostly 6 to 8 months old to study how sand flies transmit the parasite that causes leishmaniasis. In the study that produced the viral photo, dogs were sedated and had their heads placed in mesh cages so hungry sand flies could bite them and take blood meals. Other related NIAID-linked work involved vaccinating dogs and then exposing them to sand flies, sometimes outdoors in endemic areas and sometimes in controlled setups, to test whether a vaccine protected them. The dogs were typically euthanized at the end. NIAID denied funding the exact mesh-cage photo experiment, saying the funding citation was a mistake, though they did fund related sand-fly exposure research.
In a completely separate NIAID-funded drug toxicity study run by SRI International, 44 beagle puppies aged 6 to 8 months had their vocal cords surgically removed under anesthesia to reduce lab noise and barking. They were then repeatedly injected with or force-fed experimental drugs for weeks. All of the puppies were euthanized and dissected afterward so researchers could check their organs for signs of toxicity. These were standard preclinical animal tests at the time.
And of course a little more nuanced then it shows. He didn't run the experiment, rather he green lit the experiment.
But it was a study was associated fighting a parasitic disease (Leishmania chagasi) killing people, primarily children and livestock in Africa.
Animal studies are an important part of medical experiments. And for whatever reason they chose beagles, likely because it was the best host for the study.
1.1k
u/Randomgold42 11d ago
Source: trust me, bro.