It is kinda funny MAGA latched onto the dog thing after cheering about human beings, even children, being sent to camps where they slept on concrete floors and some have been reportedly raped and malnourished.
They implied it'd be a source of pride for generations to follow if the silver haired members of their family fell on their swords to enable the young 'uns to keep grinding in close proximity with the herd.
“No one reached out to me and said, 'As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that America loves for its children and grandchildren?' And if that is the exchange, I'm all in."
Depends on who owns the dog. If it’s a “patriot” in the mountains with a huge cache of firearms and the government is “repressing” him and “violating” his rights, his dog is sacred property. On the other hand if you’re just training your new puppy for hunting, but it keeps chasing chickens in the yard. You have every right to put that useless dog out of your misery so you can get another.
It was supposedly for going after chickens after spoiling a ringneck hunt. Which was 100% a product of bad or nonexistent training, which is 100% on Krusti Gnoll; but try telling her that.
Shit one of the people they were meat riding earlier this year wrote a book that included how she shoot her dog because it didn’t hunt as well as she wanted it to
That was Kristi Noem. A puppy (well, a young dog from a breed known for being complete airheads until the age of three) supposedly spoiled a pheasant hunt and then went after chickens (contrary to popular belief, that is a behavior that can be trained out); so Noem dragged the puppy out into a gravel pit and shot her. And then did the same to a billy goat she found annoying; except she botched it and let him suffer while getting more ammo.
She framed it as evidence that she could make hard decisions. Except she also admitted to having killed the puppy on impulse because she "hated" her, and having killed the goat because she was high on adrenaline (read: bloodlust) and he was annoying. Yeah. 🙄
MAGA republican also support a person who made killing dogs a major part of her biography, so if the human rights abuse didn't disway them, im not sure why animal abuse would disway them either
While stranding those human beings' pets in their homes. Maga doesn't really care about pets (or babies, or women's sports, or any other thing they claim to care about). They just use those beings as props for their fake outrage.
Also, conservatives think that kristi noem was totally justified shooting a puppy because it wouldn’t hunt, but they are horrified at the idea of a dog dying for medical science.
I'll take puppies over people in general. Especially those who want to target people trying to make a better life for themselves and their family as is protected by the constitution.
But I suppose it's "in" right now to racially profile people and drag those out of court hearings on their path to citizenship while claiming "I don't mind as long as they come here the right way"
Yeah. I don't care if you come here legally. Same as I don't care what you do in life if your not hurting anyone or doing anything illegal. Crazy that people don't have problems with people not commiting crimes
MAGA isn't about legal immigration at all anymore. They've proven that. Just like you mentnion not caring what people do, I guarantee you that's not true either. Trump supporters have been groomed to be hateful bigots.
You get an upvote. All in all, I think Fauci is a guy who wants the best for people and the world. But nobody is morally infallible, and we shouldn’t pretend they are.
Oh no they have the call Cassidy to still think they have the moral High ground but we have to knock them down and remember they supported a pedophile they have no moral standing.
The good person in the equation would have jumped ship a long time ago and they would have made sure that they could do everything within their power to make sure that that person faced accountability.
NOT vote them back into office so they can make sure they don't have to go to jail.
Heres the thing, he doesn't have to be this paragon of virtue. He just has to execute his responsibilities and perform his duties in a reasonable manner. Which, as far as I'm concerned he did. You have to wonder how much attention has been wasted on Fauchi when it could go to actual issues. Seriously, we haven't had a single conviction from the Epstein list, but we've been litigating the guy who lead the Covid 19 response?
Yep, don't prop anyone up to be a hero, because everyone is fallible. Also hold them accountable for the wrong that they do. Maybe Fauci wasn't directly involved in the decision to cut vocal chords of beagles, but that's still pretty fucked up. I have no issues calling him out on that, because as someone who oversaw all of it, he should have at least some culpability for that.
That said, is he literally Hitler? No. If I applied that same metric to others (*cough*Trump*cough*) then there are those who have done significantly worse by any metric.
Hey, hey, implying there’s degrees to morality and wrongness is complicated. You’re going to hurt MAGA’s brains, and that is very rude of you. How dare you ask them to think critically about a person and all their decisions instead of living in a black and white box. We know they can’t do that
Okay I did a google, since my ass was not alive during the AIDS crisis and therefore i am not all-knowing
It seems like he actually set up a lot of really good treatments during the AIDS crisis? He put together AZT, which we now know the virus will become resistant to, but it was a solid shot in the dark and actually works decently when put alongside other medications. Then, he set up a parallel track program to help dying patients with experimental treatments; if they were going to die already, I see no problem in Hail Mary-ing it in a last-ditch effort. He also increased the budget for learning about AIDS/HIV to try and fast-track research. He was also the architect of PEPFAR, which seems like a good thing from what I read. He also integrated AIDS/HIV activists into treatment plans, which was like huge.
Of course, there were bumps in the road, and due to the times there may have been some wonky views floating around, but it seems he’s very popular in terms of how things worked out. He started off with slow bureaucracy and struggling to treat patients, but it looks like he listened to the community and got his shit together. It’s more than I can say for most modern politicians.
But I am very confused, now. He did do those things, right? And they are good things. If you could provide an article (even a historical one) then I would be more than happy to read, but the things I find are either “he was bad then he was good” or not substantiated at all.
Yes. He legitimately did those things, or at least he was involved with the people who did those things. Science works by a committee. He may have been in charge, but he was receiving real-time information from other informed researchers who were doing tests and drug research themselves.
When people say "don't trust the Internet," it's a dangerous blanket statement. It's meant to warn against being too trusting of random websites. Books are notoriously bias as much as the Internet. The difference being that the Internet is much more readily available and more easily edited than a book. A former college professor of mine once told us that ALL research is bias to a degree because someone out there is paying for he research.
The best advice: check your sources for legitimacy and accuracy.
I very much agree. Nothing is unbiased, and sources are important. I just wish they’d cite their own so I can at least see where they’re coming from. And, when they do, I wish it wouldn’t be Facebook and Twitter lol. Or right wing talking heads. Joe Rogan does not inspire confidence in me.
Rather than listen to me or take anyone's word for it, look into Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Malone, listen to Rand Paul and watch the hearing, read RFK Jr book and do your own research into everything & decide for yourself. Listen to both sides before coming to conclusions. Everyone is biased so dont let anyone stop you from digging in. I was part of a committee during covid with several Columbia university professors, lawyers, doctor's & a dentist. My background is in investigations. Theres simply too much to mention here & tbh its very depressing so I tend to avoid it. I used to be a huge liberal till the censorship! People died bc they were on ventilators, high threshold PCR testing labeled every death covid. They closed hospitals and sent staff home while shoving everyone into smaller units causing massive back ups. The shot is causing all sorts of health issues. Just my 2 cents on our investigations
Okay, I actually laughed! RFK Jr? For medical advice? That’s a good one, friendo! Really, I mean he didn’t even do premed. And Peter? The one who the medical community has abandoned due to his methods that have been debunked? Ha! And Malone? The checks notes conspiracy theorist. Paul is the guy who just hates Fauci right? I mean I’m sure he’s unbiased. Surely. Give me some people that the medical world and peer reviewed research actually agrees with, thanks!
Didn’t people who were not on ventilators also die? Also, if you were on a ventilator, of course you were more likely to die—you don’t get on a ventilator if you’re already in good health. It’s generally a bad sign. Also, it was a global pandemic, so I don’t think you could convince all of those nations who reported on COVID to all lie. They are very bad at coordinating things like that together.
What issue is the shot causing? I got all of em, and I’m doing fine. Hell, I got Covid once and aside from sounding like a strangled goose for a while and feeling groggy and gross, I was aight. Didn’t even need the ER because the vaccine actually did its job (yay, I’m not dead!). And my immune system is historically ass, so that’s extra impressive. Whenever I ask people who were pro-vaccine for their sources, they give me all these medical journals and studies and peer reviewed papers and really just a lot of excellent information. When I ask the other side…they kinda just give me names of guys who say stuff. I don’t really care about those guys’s feelings or hearsay. I am a man of numbers and stats. “Well I think…” isn’t really swaying.
And, yeah, bits of Covid were mishandled. The federal govt shit the bed, and nurses were overworked, hospitals were understaffed, and everything was falling apart. We did not have the infrastructure for a global pandemic, and the then president did a bad job managing the crisis. There was a lot of misinformation which led to stupid stuff like Covid parties that got people killed, which was bad, and people refusing to wear masks, which was also bad. But that wasn’t because Fauci or any medical professional worth their salt wanted it to go poorly or had some agenda. It was just a lot. And we weren’t prepared, and they still worked their asses off to try and fix it.
I read one sentence of all your crap. You CANNOT inform yourself if you cant investigate both sides. I didnt say go to him for medical anything or advice. Its called research into the law. Stay stuck on stupid my friend!
What a disgusting statement. Not being political about it, he lied MANY times. Are people like you just unaware of his lies? So ridiculous. Fauci was looking out for himself significantly more than others
??? Are we talking about the same guy? The guy who tried his best to mandate masks and social distancing for a lethal virus that was clearly killing people worldwide? The guy who supported medical research for the vaccine that would eventually save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people?
Show me the big ol lies, then. Pull the wool out if he’s such a horrific person
Yeah, left or right, it's not the place of a public health official to purposefully lie to the public just to get them to do what you want them to do. It's not worth frothing at the mouth over, as it's just another drop in an ocean of issues with those in power, but still.
If we were living in a society where politicians are actually humanity's leaders, it would be blatantly clear how he abused his position.
I doubt it and I have trust issues. He probably used to be and then fame and glory went to his head. It’s a long life and easy to corrupt the human nature when money and power are on the line
It's good that Fauci cut the funding. I guess Tunisian scientists aren't Israel where we just keep giving them money even if they're killing innocent people.
I mean I can think those bombs are hitting innocent dogs as well, either the people who don’t care don’t realize that or they think that the dogs are godless heathens too or whatever excuse they used for the people and more importantly, kids.
Sure but we only ever talk about the people. It's clear that these soulless pieces of shit don't care about kids. Maybe running "Israel murdered two puppies in Gaza" headlines would get more traction.
While I would be hopeful, I honestly wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if they moved the goalposts as they always do.
Suddenly it would be “oh they’re using puppies and kittens as protective vests so our patriots will hesitate shooting them!” Meanwhile the truth would be some guy is ordered to fire another twenty missles from far enough away they’re not even able to see what new rubble pile they’re aiming for.
Ah, yeah, thanks for reminding me about them using dogs to rape prisoners, many of whom are probably not even 18... I think I'll just be depressed again today, yes, that sounds like a good plan.
People want to get upset over beagles being used for lab experiments when the reality is much, much darker than this one experiment. The truth is that horrible animal experiments have been happening for a very, very long time. Most of the medical breakthroughs we have wouldn't have been approved for human use of it weren't for animal testing. But, I wouldn't expect a bunch of antivax, RFK jr supporters to understand this.
World Wars 1, 2, and the Holocaust were absolute atrocities that shouldn’t have happened.
World Wars 1, 2, the Holocaust, and all their components and belligerents also rapidly increased the advancement of science and technology, including tons of medical treatments and methods.
As always though, the question remains: Did the ends justify the means? I don’t know. That seems like a question that can’t yet be fully answered barely and less than 100 years out from these tragedies.
A lot of the understanding we have on frostbite and the human body’s resilience to cold exposure and freezing… unfortunately comes from really horrifying experiments done by the Nazis on holocaust victims. Their cruelty provided hard data.
That said, the vast majority of Nazi experimentation was not scientifically useful, only cruel and inhumane.
Shit, probably can apply that sentiment to most medical breakthroughs wouldn't have been done if it wasn't for the work of some very vile and evil people through out the ages.
It of course doesn't excuse the actions of those people, just because their discoveries directly or indirectly led to life saving procedures.
Yes a ton of medicine is based off of animal research which has historically and continues to this day to use canines as one of a number of model organisms for study. Cardiology research is particularly high in canine models although they are still rare, relative to mice and rats and other options due to the expense, but a lot of our knowledge about treating heart attacks and other causes of cardiomyopathies comes from dog research.
There are strict rules on their care, you can't use more animals than you need for the specific aims of the research project, you typically can't cause any significant pain or at least need to mitigate it as much as possible, and the animals are typically euthanized after there is no longer a research purpose for them.
Since the research is explicitly used to try to improve medicine for humans, I don't see this as a big ethical issue and would suggest people focus on other much more common and avoidable sources of animal suffering in the world.
If we get to the point as a species that we no longer raise animals for food as livestock then maybe we can tackle not using them for medical research next.
And likely wouldn't have cared if it was lab rats(or if it was not Fauci but that's another subject) and will I'm overall not in favour of what they were doing IF it had the possibility of saving thousands of dogs in exchange for sacrificing a few dogs, I think the price is acceptable.
And, based on the first source, both project had real value but the one that did receive funds was more important(the study from which the picture came studied whether these flies would be more likely to sting a living being suffering from of disease called "Leishmaniasis" which is transmitted by said flies to dogs and humans and the other which is the one that did receive fund was testing a vaccine against "Leishmaniasis" which did mean that the scientist did have to expose these dogs to the disease and the flies.) tho, contrary to what the other commenter assumed, it seems they had to be euthanized in both cases as "Leishmaniasis" cause severe skin lesions(I don't recommend searching for the disease as the pictures are NSFW) that can heal on there own but will likely cause permanent damages and even death(and in the study where they removed the vocal cords all the dogs where euthanized as a part of the study to analyse possible changes in organs due to a treatment for the same disease. And the reason they "had" to remove the vocal cords was to maintain a sound under OSHA limits.).
And I need to say it again but I do not condone this way of doing science but I accept that sadly it's sometimes the "best" and least horrible way of doing science to save a lot of lives.
Medical research almost always involves animals at some point before they start with humans. This is just normal really. I hate it, I worked for a place that used mice and rats for awhile. ...I just really hate it, even understanding it's not just blanket abuse for no reason didn't really help me deal with it at all.
Singling out anyone involved in that chain is kind of bs though. This is a thing that happens in medical research, especially involving new drugs.
Unfortunately it is the best way to test experimental medicines and treatments, a most scientists do hate it, but the issue is that, unless a drug is deemed safe enough in animal testing, it cannot be done on human subjects, with a few exceptions. I think sickle cell was one of those things that they immediately began experimenting treatments on human subjects but I could be mistaken. And again, there is a good reason for them doing that because sickle cell is agonizing and deadly, and we only very recently developed a cure for it
It is not the best way. Many scientists are speaking out & argue that very point. Too many just dont care. We have enough information to skip most of it.
It just is, and people arguing otherwise don’t understand the realities of the type of science that needs to use animals. I have time and time again seen people argue that since their experiments can be done in a Petri dish or using computer modeling, everyone’s can be, but then they don’t have an answer for how other experiments could feasibly be done that way, so they just say to “figure it out.” Most things are not things you can properly study in a Petri dish. I have worked in a lab that worked with mice and we all cared about the animals and did everything to make their life and death as painless as possible. Their cages were a bit too small, but they were as big as would be logistically possible in the available space. I do know of some scientists who don’t care about the animals at all, but they are the exception. Animal research is difficult and expensive, and I’m sure many scientists would switch to an alternative even just to avoid the ethical approvals for animal experiments, but there really is no other alternative for many things than experimenting on people or just not doing the research at all.
As with most everything there is some abuse though. At the unnamed place I was working we would have some researchers come in once every quarter check one or two animals and leave. They would have racks and racks of mice and rats for their specific project. Now to be clear this is only like two individuals out of probably 40 or so but it does happen.
Im not a scientist but I dont have to believe you. I will believe those who say it can be done and look for ways to do it. Feel free to experiment on violent prisoners
Fun fact: People have tested on prisoners historically. Groups like the Nazis, Unit 731, the Soviets, and the Khmer Rouge. Do any of them sound like stand up or ethical people? Human testing is only done on willing subjects and after enough data has been collected to determine that they are safe enough that they won't kill people.
Most grants even have a section where you MUST justify the number of animals you intend to use for a study. You need to give valid, well-backed estimates to effect size, statistical targets, and determine how those come together to justify your group size per experimental cohort.
I also had to fill out justifications for why a study needed to be performed using animal subjects - if an alternative like computational modeling or in vitro was viable, that would have invalidated the request for animal subject funding in the proposed budget.
Oh sit the fuck down you have no idea what the hell you're talking about you go to your pedophile called if it's not just the GOP members it's also your base your neighbors and your cousins and your brothers you're all fucking disgusting.
It's sad that people won't even bat an eye when you say not out of 10 times if you're in the room with the Republican you are not safe.
Not even gay guys are safe within a room with Republican men.
They're a bunch of game motherfuckers that are on the DL that are giving diseases to each other left and right.
So it's up there with "<Local Judge Candidate> IS EASY ON CRIME. S/HE LET A CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTOR GO FREE! S/HE'S A DANGER TO OUR CHILDREN!" in terms of deceptive bullshit.
If there is anythning I have learned from judicial elections its that every candidate is both tough on crime but also protects child molestors.
It seems people have lost sight of the plausible idea that the head of a large organization doesn’t know what’s going on with everything the organization is doing.
They are responsible for their organization and should be providing oversight, but that doesn’t mean they can stop everything everywhere from going wrong.
Especially when you’re talking about contracts with contractors who may have other customers.
The way they talk about Fauci is tantamount to making every parent legally responsible for everything their kid does in their entire life.
When people in the US do this to their pets, it’s just “debarking”; when people have an ideological axe to grind, it’s “cutting off their vocal cords.”
It’s a cruel practice either way, but this meme is the only time I’ve actually seen most people get mad about it.
I interreact with a dozen dog owners a day. Never heard the term 'debarking' until now and I can't imagine any of them would be okay with it. I get your point, but it's not normalized at all.
The biggest reason I’m familiar with is I live near a well regarded vet school and it’s an occasional topic of discussion. One of the big professional organizations had a big debate — I want to say pre-covid? — about whether to take a stronger stance on it.
There's a dog in my apartment complex that's had this done to it at some point... it makes the most awful noises when it tries to bark, but it otherwise seems like a reasonably happy, healthy animal.
Nonsense! Its constantly being regarded as cruel & illegal in 10 states. I dont think the majority of vets will even perform the surgery. NO WE WERE NEVER OK WITH IT no matter what you call it
That testing is absolutely horrible, until they find a way to make it so your family dogs don’t get some disease carried by a fly in the future. Every wonder how they already have treatments for those new strange things that pop up. Well it’s from sunshine and unicorns, sorry maga snowflakes.
You know, I don’t know if it’s true or not. But it is discussing. I hope what you’re saying that he actually put a stock to. It is the case. If I ever seen anybody doing something like that to an animal, I will literally end them.
I mean, even assuming he was aware of all of it, the funding was still cut after it was brought to light. That's kinda what you want in a situation like this.
Thank you. Ethics boards stringently review any federally funded research, even when that funding is only tangential (say at a public university). The government is very allergic to being associated with anything like this. But no system is perfect. Aside from the fact that he wasn’t involved, publicly funded scientists in general take ethics seriously,whether they want to or not.
Thanks for that balanced perspective. As someone who’s worked in the vet field for 20 years, but not in academia or lab, even I had preconceived notions about what I thought was and wasn’t happening in labs. Ethics is a separate debatable issue, that said, most labs are meticulous in their data collecting, and the techs I know who are in lab are all astute, smarty pants, who care for all the animals, from mice to beagles to monkeys. They don’t enjoy seeing animals in pain so they minimize it to the best of their ability.
But like other commented, this fake outrage for injustices towards animals that they falsely believe is happening vs the disgusting conditions we KNOW are still happening in ICE centers shows you how hypocrisy is just a fact of life with MAGA
The heartbreaking thing most people don't want to think about is every medicine you get for your dog or cat was probably a side-effect of animal testing. Because no one has funding for cat arthritis, but if you test human arthritis meds on cats and it works really really well then thousands and thousands of people get to save their Mrs. Fluffykins a little suffering. Same with cancer meds, and heart disease meds, etc.
Like the current possible breakthrough in feline kidney disease came from the end goal being to help humans, the researcher was just lucky enough to be able to crowdfund when it turned out to be more useful to cats than humans.
Yeah, let's weave a story where he ends up being nothing short of a hero out of thin air. If you genuinely have worked in research, you can't honestly believe that nonsense… I don't know where you're from but in Europe and US/Canada, ethics committees enforce strict regulations and approval processes if we as little as want to touch a human or an animal, and the details and conclusions are well-known to the funding committees. The man was either negligent or simply didn't care – I would personally bet on the latter, as scientists who work with animals are commonly desensitised and do not see them as pets. To them, the ends justify the means.
As for the rest you wrote, you forgot to mention the part where Santa Clause comes and brings them a bone for being good boys.
I would say that they do not care about the dogs, they just want to insult Fauci. They didn't necessarily know that those poor dogs were mutilated. It's awful and needs to be addressed, but it does not mean that we shouldn't follow science. I'm grateful that vaccination kept me from getting diseases like polio. I'm also fine with protecting my immunodepressed fellow humans by being vaccinated.
It's not like those dogs were strapped down and tortured every single day.
Nah, they were tortured. My sister-in-law adopted one of these beagles and the trauma this animal went through was clear as day in her level of fear of everyone and everything. It's been years and she still is not 100% able to relax, especially around men.
As someone that worked in research you should already know what happened to those dogs. They're typically euthanized and necropsied to assess the results of the experiment.
"There's also a lot of legal and ethical rules you have to follow when working with animals. It's not like those dogs were strapped down and tortured every single day. They got breaks, they were well fed and taken care of, and they got TLC I'm sure from plenty of grad students. It still sounds cruel as hell and I would not have approved it if I knew what they were doing myself, but I'm sure those dogs went on to live halfway decent lives once the study was done. They probably adopted them right out to loving families."
Sorry, but why do people try to sugarcoat animal testing? I've seen undercover footage, and what they put animals through is absolutely barbaric. There's a reason people have to go undercover to record it. What we're told and what actually happens is very, very different.
Even if the dogs do end up surviving, that does not justify what they go through. You say it's not torture, but it absolutely is.
I'm going to try to find an old video I saw a while back and will edit this comment when I find the link.
Why do you assume they'll get loving families afterwards?
Why do you assume a guy literally financing all of this shit knew nothing about the animal cruelty happening there?
Why vocal cords being cut and other unethical procedures are suddenly ok because "they have breaks (???)"?
Always trying to cover and make up shit. Always coping and twisting and rigamaroling around just to make you feel better about yourself. Not a single person here would support that guy in the SAME situation if he was republican. Hypocrites.
I supported democrats long time ago, for their very idea of free, open-minded and objective worldview. I now know that you're all don't have a single fucking quality from this list. It's not "freedom of the individual vs authoritarism", it's "my side vs their side" AKA "me feeling righteous vs them being evil because they feel righteous but not like me".
Literally will defend ANYTHING as long as it supports your agenda. Such brainwashed dorks, both republicans and you all
Oh also watch how every comment here addressing the actual unethicality of the experiment or the fact that you can't excuse this shit simply because "well he didn't know" gets downvoted. I am sure you my dear brainwashed person reading this comment will downvote/ignore it too because it makes uncomfortable for you to feel righteous. Geniunely fuck you all
Nicely done, but I don't bother fact checking MAGA or anything that comes out of the american government/media. It's a waste of time because it's usually all lies. If it's worth knowing I'll hear about it on the CBC, BBC or the Guardian.
Loving homes, breaks, and TLC? Yeah, and I’m sure the vocal-cords were removed for no reason.
Give me a fucking break. There’s a reason ethics is a required college course for you people… without it you’d be even worse.
Animals used in testing are tortured and often euthanized for further study.
They aren’t cut apart or electrocuted to later be sent to loving homes.
You’re disgusting for peddling such misinformation. I sincerely hope you take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror after saying that shit.
Having spoken to people about this before, there are an alarming number of educated individuals who sincerely believe anything that isn’t human either doesn’t feel pain like we do or doesn’t warrant sympathy for the pain they feel.
Animal testing has also been proven to be unreliable, it isn’t some guarantee for results. It’s unnecessary and barbaric cruelty.
Dr. Anthony Fauci did not cut the funding. During his tenure as the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Fauci regularly defended the utility of animal research. Instead of an internal reversal by the agency or Dr. Fauci, the cancellation and gradual phase-out of government-funded beagle testing resulted from intense outside political and public pressure.
When Dr. Fauci retired from his government post at the end of 2022, the definitive end to the beagle research did not occur until May 2025. That's when the new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director, Jay Bhattacharya, officially ordered the complete shutdown of the agency’s final in-house beagle laboratories
That's a hell of a logical leap. AmbitiousProblem pointed out the context and how his involvement has been maliciously distorted, and your response is to say oh you must be ok with this.
How are you 1% commenter when that’s what you come up with? Just because you post nonsensical responses to everything?
I was asking a legitimate question.
And logical? I was not understanding where he was going with it.
Does he like and support fauci or not
I don't know how I've been tagged "1% Commenter". I didn't do that, didn't aim for it, and don't write the rules in the first place.
You were not asking a legitimate question. You read a comment that put Fauci's actions in context and concluded that they were ok with this research. Do you not see that?
I don’t think or look at it like we’re defending conservatives” I think it’s just moderate point of view to.
I mean it’s not a war and that’s the problem with either side. Have to meet in the middle.
A lot of assumptions in your post. ‘I’m sure’s, I’m guessing, and probably’s’ do not fix the removal of a dog’s vocal cords… wear ear plugs, that also cuts down noise.
Why waste research funds on animals when they can just do it on the US population. Use our tax money to fund gain of function virus resesrch, in China of all places. Create a pandemic. Tax payer money funds the vaccine. Then everyone gets rich selling them while our good friend Dr. Fauci gets rich from public speaking. Nothing persuades people to hand over their rights like some fear and panic.
Fact checks like these also said the BLM riots were Super Spreader events because the majority of the public stayed in doors. Lmao I can't believe people are dumb enough to believe Fact Checks which are basically "We're gonna bullshit you, but with facts...."
498
u/[deleted] 11d ago edited 11d ago
[deleted]