I've no problem with animal experimentation when there is some real need for it. To test something developed for human use on animals first is a good thing. To simply say, "Hey! I wonder what will happen when we..." is not.
I agree that animal testing is sometimes necessary. That doesn't mean it has to be inhumane. But more than that, it's the hypocrisy of giving Fauci a pass on this sort of crap. We've found out that he lied about financing COVID research at Wuhan, and it's seeming more and more like he's just one more hack sucking at the government teat for decades and decades.
The thing that bothers me about this particular story is that I've not seen what the stated purpose of the experiments were, what its goals were, why that particular animal and breed were required, etc. All I know is that it was done. I've no love for Fauci, and that's for damned sure...he's worthless...but without the above questions addressed, it seems like the report is just to demonize the guy. What if the reasons were legit?
I would also wonder if there are any experiments on animals which can't legitimately be called "inhumane" even when the purpose is. After all, a creature is made to suffer something. It's not like they consent.
If I remember correctly, it had to do with some sort of tropical fly borne disease.
It's true that it's gotten publicized to affect Fauci's credibility, and it's possible that it was necessary. I'm more intrigued by the fact that the folks who would normally be up in arms about harming animals, have been pretty much silent because they don;t want to hurt St Fauci.
And, I find the image of my beagle being terrified of seeing St Fauci on the news to be kind of funny.
7 comments:
With just cause.
Absolutely. Hopefully he'll be ok when we leave town tomorrow.
I've no problem with animal experimentation when there is some real need for it. To test something developed for human use on animals first is a good thing. To simply say, "Hey! I wonder what will happen when we..." is not.
I agree that animal testing is sometimes necessary. That doesn't mean it has to be inhumane. But more than that, it's the hypocrisy of giving Fauci a pass on this sort of crap. We've found out that he lied about financing COVID research at Wuhan, and it's seeming more and more like he's just one more hack sucking at the government teat for decades and decades.
The thing that bothers me about this particular story is that I've not seen what the stated purpose of the experiments were, what its goals were, why that particular animal and breed were required, etc. All I know is that it was done. I've no love for Fauci, and that's for damned sure...he's worthless...but without the above questions addressed, it seems like the report is just to demonize the guy. What if the reasons were legit?
I would also wonder if there are any experiments on animals which can't legitimately be called "inhumane" even when the purpose is. After all, a creature is made to suffer something. It's not like they consent.
If I remember correctly, it had to do with some sort of tropical fly borne disease.
It's true that it's gotten publicized to affect Fauci's credibility, and it's possible that it was necessary. I'm more intrigued by the fact that the folks who would normally be up in arms about harming animals, have been pretty much silent because they don;t want to hurt St Fauci.
And, I find the image of my beagle being terrified of seeing St Fauci on the news to be kind of funny.
LOL
Post a Comment