Glenn Greenwald Media Politics

To Protect Fauci, The Washington Post is Preparing a Hit Piece on the Group Denouncing Gruesome Dog Experimentations

For years, the White Coat Waste Project was heralded by The Post as what they are: an activist success story uniting right and left. But now its work imperils a liberal icon.
Dr. Anthony Fauci in 2016. (NIAID / Flickr)(CC BY 2.0)

By Glenn Greenwald / Substack

Anger over the U.S. Government’s gruesome, medically worthless experimentation on adult dogs and puppies has grown rapidly over the last two months. A truly bipartisan coalition in Congress has emerged to demand more information about these experiments and denounce the use of taxpayer funds to enable them. On October 24, twenty-four House members — nine Democrats and fifteen Republicans, led by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) — wrote a scathing letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci expressing “grave concerns about reports of costly, cruel, and unnecessary taxpayer-funded experiments on dogs commissioned by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.” Similar protests came in the Senate from a group led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

The campaign to end these indescribably cruel, taxpayer-funded experiments on dogs has been underway for years, long before Dr. Fauci became a political lightning rod. In 2018, I reported on these experiments under the headline “BRED TO SUFFER: Inside the Barbaric U.S. Industry of Dog Experimentation.” That article described “a largely hidden, poorly regulated, and highly profitable industry in the United States that has a gruesome function: breeding dogs for the sole purpose of often torturous experimentation, after which the dogs are killed because they are no longer of use.”

Along with the videographer Leighton Woodhouse, I also produced a two-minute video report which used footage from experimentation labs filmed by activists with the animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) to show the graphic, excruciating horrors to which these dogs are subjected (the video, which is hard to watch, is appended to the bottom of this article). In our reporting, we noted the cruel irony driving how and why particular dogs are selected for this short life of suffering and misery and detailed just some of the barbarism involved:

The majority of dogs bred and sold for experimentation are beagles, which are considered ideal because of their docile, human-trusting personality. In other words, the very traits that have made them such loving and loyal companions to humans are the ones that humans exploit to best manipulate them in labs. . . .

They are often purposely starved or put into a state of severe thirst to induce behavior they would otherwise not engage in. They are frequently bred deliberately to have crippling, excruciating diseases, or sometimes are brought into life just to have their organs, eyes, and other body parts removed and studied as puppies, and then quickly killed.

They are force-fed laundry detergents, pesticides, and industrial chemicals to the point of continuous vomiting and death. They are injected with lethal pathogens such as salmonella or rabies. They have artificial sweetener injected into their veins that causes the dogs’ testicles to shrink before they are killed and exsanguinated. Holes are drilled into their skulls so that viruses can be injected into their brains. And all of that is perfectly legal.

Most of these dogs, after being bred, are “devocalized,” which the advocacy group NAVS describes as “a surgical procedure which makes it physically impossible for the dog to bark.” Though entailing pain and suffering, the procedure prevents the dogs from screaming in pain. As we noted in that article, researchers acknowledge that few to none of these experiments are actually medically necessary. This 2016 op-ed in The San Diego Union-Tribune by Lawrence Hansen, a professor of neuroscience and pathology at the University of California-San Diego School of Medicine who once engaged in experimentation on dogs, explains why he is so ashamed to have participated given their medical worthlessness.

While numerous advocacy groups have been working for years to curb the abuses of these experiments, one group, White Coat Waste Project, has found particular success as a result of an innovative strategy. Advocacy groups know how polarized American politics has become, and that, as a result, a prerequisite for success is constructing a movement that can attract people from all ideologies, who identify with either or neither of the two political parties, but unite in defense of universally held values and principles.

White Coat has accomplished this with great success by fusing the cause of animal rights (long viewed as associated with the left) with opposition to wasteful taxpayer spending (a cause that resonates more on the right). The fact that love for dogs, and animals generally, has grown across all demographic groups further enables them to unite people from across the spectrum, including in Congress, in support of their cause. They routinely attract both Democratic and Republican members of Congress to sign on to their campaigns to end taxpayer-funded experimentation on animals, and are funded almost entirely through small-donor, grass-roots support that comes from the right, the left, and everything in between. Each year, they publicly award members of Congress “who have demonstrated outstanding leadership in the War on Waste, by exposing and stopping $20 billion in wasteful and unnecessary taxpayer-funded animal experiments,” and those honored are always a bipartisan group of lawmakers.

More than any other group, it is White Coat that has elevated the cause of stopping these horrific government experimentations on dogs and puppies into the mainstream political conversation. And numerous media outlets — led by The Washington Post — have spent years publishing flattering profiles on this group and its innovative bipartisan strategies. In November, 2016, for instance, The Post published reporting about White Coat’s activities — under the headline: “Should dogs be guinea pigs in government research? A bipartisan group says no” — which heralded the group and its activists for being one of those rare Washington success stories that unites both left and right around a common cause:

The Washington Post, Nov. 15, 2016

That Post article detailed how White Coat was a group that had drawn from both Republican and Democratic political circles, and had deliberately formulated its messaging and goals to appeal to all sides of the political divide:

It’s no accident that the Congress members hosting the event are a bipartisan pair. White Coat Waste emphasizes that it is not a traditional animal advocacy organization, but one focused on what it says is government waste on testing — the kind of issue that could appeal to both fiscal conservatives and animal rights activists. Its founder, Anthony Bellotti, is a Republican strategist whose LinkedIn profile lists experience managing campaigns against Obamacare and federal funding for Planned Parenthood. [Vice President Justin] Goodman formerly worked for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

“We oppose taxpayer funding of animal experimentation. That’s it,” Bellotti said. “We don’t take a position on cosmetics testing any more than we do on vegan nutrition”. . . . In 2014, a Pew survey found that 50 percent of Americans oppose the use of animals in scientific research, with Democrats and political liberals slightly more opposed than Republicans and conservatives.

“Finding effective ways to limit unnecessary and expensive animal tests is good for taxpayers and is good for our animals,” [Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)} said in a statement sent to The Washington Post. “As a member of the Appropriations Committee that funds these agencies, I certainly welcome more analysis on what federal agencies are doing in terms of testing on dogs and other animals. I look forward to collaborating with a bipartisan group of my colleagues in Congress to address this problem.”

Throughout the Trump years, The Post continued to report on the group’s work in flattering ways, always emphasizing its purely non-partisan agenda and their ability to bring together left and right. Though The Post once referred to them as “a right-leaning advocacy group,” White Coat has been described by the paper for years as an animal rights group uniting all camps by combating the use of taxpayer dollars for experiments most would find morally reprehensible. After all, during the Trump years, they were protesting experimentations done by agencies controlled by the Trump administration, so heralding their work aligned perfectly with The Post‘s political agenda of flattering the views of their liberal readers.

One 2018 Post article on White Coat described how “a nonprofit animal rights organization filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the U.S. Agriculture Department, seeking information about experiments during which thousands of cats have been euthanized at a facility in Maryland.” A 2020 Post article described White Coat as “a small watchdog group that has generated bipartisan congressional opposition to [the Veteran Administration’s] dog research by arguing that federal animal testing is a waste of taxpayer dollars.” A 2018 Post article on a similar campaign simply described it as “an animal rights group.” A 2017 Post article described White Coat’s success in recruiting renowned British primatologist Jane Goodall to the cause of stopping cruel FDA experiments on primates, calling it “an advocacy group that says its goal is to publicize and end taxpayer-funded animal experiments.”

So The Post, like most major media outlets, has been reporting on the successes of the White Coat Waste Project fairly and favorably for years. Most people in Washington and in the media regard success in bridging divisions between the citizenry and ideological camps as a desirable and positive objective, and few groups have done that with as much success as White Coat. And thus, along with trans-ideological public support, the group has been lavished with positive media coverage — until now.


Now everything has changed. The government official who oversees the agencies conducting most of these gruesome experiments has become a liberal icon and one of the most sacred and protected figures in modern American political history: Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and President Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor. Many of the most horrific experiments, including the ones on dogs and puppies now in the news as a result of White Coat’s activism, are conducted by agencies under Fauci’s command and are funded by budgets he controls.

In other words, White Coat’s activism, which had long generated bipartisan support and favorable media coverage, now reflects poorly on Dr. Fauci. And as a result, The Washington Post has decided to amass a team of reporters to attack the group — the same one the paper repeatedly praised prior to the COVID pandemic — in order to falsely smear it as a right-wing extremist group motivated not by a genuine concern for the welfare of animals or wasteful government spending, but rather due to a partisan desire, based in MAGA ideology, to attack Fauci.

In emails sent last week to the group, Post reporter Beth Reinhard advised them that she wanted “to talk about White Coat Waste and the #beaglegate campaign.” She specifically asked for a wide range of financial documents relating to the group’s funding — far beyond what non-profit advocacy groups typically disclose. “May I request your 2020 filing with the IRS,” Reinhard first inquired. White Coat quickly provided that. On October 30, White Coat Vice President Justin Goodman provided even more financial documents — “attached are the Schedule Bs. I’ve also attached a breakdown of our funding sources from 2017-Q3 2021,” he wrote in an email to Reinhard — yet nothing satisfied her, because nothing in these documents was remotely incriminating or helpful to the narrative they were trying to concoct about the group’s real, secret agenda.

After White Coat voluntarily provided more and more detailed documentation about its finances, it became obvious what fictitious storyline The Post was attempting to manufacture: that this is a far-right group that is funded by “dark money” from big MAGA donors, motivated by a hatred of science and Dr. Fauci. But in trying to manufacture this false tale, The Post encountered a rather significant obstacle: White Coat is funded almost entirely by small donors, grass-roots citizens who use the group’s website to make donations.

Once The Post was repeatedly thwarted in its efforts to concoct the lie that the group is MAGA-funded, Reinhard continued to insist that there must be hidden right-wing funding sources, and even began demanding that White Coat take some sort of bizarre vow never to accept right-wing or “pro-Trump” funding sources in the future. On Monday, she sent them this flailing email:

In response, Goodman — who, prior to joining White Coat, had spent close to a decade as PETA’s Director of Laboratory Investigations — pointed out the obvious: “We already have disclosed our largest donor, which is the grassroots, and it’s been our largest funder for many years in Democrat and GOP Administrations.” He added: “we have not turned down, solicited or received a dime from any Pro-Trump or conservative groups, nor have any approached us before or during #BeagleGate.” While noting that “some of our other larger supporters, like LUSH Cosmetics, are already public,” Goodman detailed that little has changed in terms of fundraising as a result of this recent campaign targeting cruel experimentations on beagles: “Regarding fundraising, we estimate that Aug-Sep 2021 is approximately 31% lower than the prior period during 2020. And we estimate (and I stress estimate) that fundraising in October 2021 was approximately the same as Sept 2021, give or take.”

Documents provided by White Coat both to me and The Post demonstrated that the group’s average donation in 2020 was $30.47, obtained by 81,805 individual donations (that includes all donations, including from groups). The group took no PPP bailout funds, and received, in its words, “$0 gifts from conservative aligned groups ever.” The spreadsheet they prepared shows estimated and approximate totals for 2021 along with detailed funding sources for the prior two years:

What is going on here is almost too self-evident to require elaboration. For years, The Post favorably covered the animal welfare work of this group without even remotely suggesting it had some nefarious ideological agenda, let alone investigating its finances. Only one thing has changed: their work in highlighting gruesome dog experimentations now has the possibility of undermining Dr. Fauci or harming his reputation, and thus The Post — acting like the pro-DNC liberal advocacy group that it is — set out to smear White Coat as right-wing MAGA activists in order to delegitimize and discredit their investigative work and, more importantly, give liberals a quick-and-easy way to dismiss their work as nothing more than an anti-science MAGA operation even though they are nothing of the sort.

Even more disturbing was the telephone call which Goodman had on Monday with Reinhard and another Post reporter, Yasmeen Abutaleb, assigned to the health and COVID beat. During that call, Abutaleb in particular repeatedly demanded to know whether White Coat was concerned that the activism they were doing on these dog experimentation programs could end up harming Dr. Fauci’s reputation and thus make him less able to manage the COVID crisis. They even suggested that by encouraging people to call the NIH telephone lines to protest this experimentation, they might be making it difficult for people with questions about COVID to get through. The obvious premise of the entire conversation was one completely antithetical to the journalistic ethos: it is immoral to do anything that reflects negatively on Dr. Fauci now, no matter how true or warranted it might be, because his importance is too great to risk undermining him. (Request for comment from Reinhard was not responded to as of publication of this article, but will be added if supplied).

In general, as this controversy has unfolded, media outlets have expressed almost no interest in the immorality and atrocities of these taxpayer-funded dog experimentations, and instead have acted as political activists with only one goal: protect Dr. Fauci. PolitiFact, for instance, purported to fact-check White Coat’s campaign (laughably calling them “a conservative watchdog group”) by implying they were lying. Aside from citing (but not verifying) NIAID’s denial that they funded one of the experiments, they acknowledged that they did indeed fund others, but then pointed out that nobody could prove that Fauci personally approved the funding for these experiments. Yet that is a claim White Coat has never made and which, in any event, is as unlikely as it is irrelevant given that, for thirty years, Fauci has been the head of the agencies conducting these experiments which have long been the target of activist protest. It is simply impossible that he was unaware of these controversies.

After speaking with the two Post reporters, Goodman told me that “it’s clear based on my conversations with them that rather than investigating the horrific puppy experimentation being funded with our tax dollars by Anthony Fauci — about which they have asked virtually nothing — they are instead interested in attempting to discredit our organization and #BeagleGate campaign in order to run defense for Fauci.” He also described the sudden change in The Post‘s behavior in reporting on them: “in just five 5 years, the paper went from featuring our group as a model of bipartisanship in the animal protection movement and highlighting our winning campaigns to end taxpayer-funded animal testing to now trying to smear us a conservative front group that doesn’t really care about animals, all because we dared to criticize St. Fauci.”

Bellotti described The Post‘s sudden turnaround this way:

Having personally witnessed the horrors of animal testing, I founded [White Coat] to unite liberty-lovers and animal-lovers, Republicans and Democrats, Libertarians and vegetarians to fight against wasteful taxpayer-funded animal experiments. Widening the tent is how you win campaigns, and we’ve done this more effectively than any other organization, resulting in historic wins for animals, from shutting down the government’s largest cat experimentation lab to freeing monkeys from federal nicotine addiction experiments to bringing dog testing at the VA to record lows. This has all been done on a shoestring budget with overwhelming support from grassroots advocates and donors. Apparently for some though, disparaging Anthony Fauci for funding the abuse of puppies is a bridge too far. But, to suggest that we’re out to accomplish anything other the save animals from wasteful government spending and abuse is simply not true nor supported by any actual evidence.

Newspapers like The Post vehemently deny that they have any political agenda, insisting that they are devoted to non-partisan and apolitical reporting. Very few people believe this fraud any longer, which is why trust in journalism has collapsed so precipitously, but rarely do we see a test case that so vividly illustrates how they really function.

For years, The Washington Post reported fairly and truthfully on this group, because none of its activities threatened any government officials whom the paper wishes to protect. Suddenly, when the work they have been doing for years began to reflect poorly on a government official vital to American liberalism, The Post launched a campaign that is not even thinly disguised but nakedly clear in its goal: to smear this group by impugning its motives and distorting its agenda so that its work is immediately and uncritically disregarded by the paper’s overwhelmingly liberal audience.

32 comments

  1. This group has been doing yeoman’s work for years on behalf of not only beagles, but all animals. That the Washington Post sought to smear them for some manufactured BS is proof that Bezos should just stay in space. Thanks for your reporting!

    1. Maybe I’m not a good person, but i so badly wanted Bezos and his phallic rocket to go fireball on live tv. It’s been so heartbreaking to watch this country decay into a third world Balkanized clusterf@(k. It comes as no surprise that these horrific experiments are conducted here and overseen by Fauci. He’s exactly what I thought he was. I’d bet my eyes that he’s directly involved with the creation and release of the virus he pretends to protect us from.

      1. Fauci talked Trump into re-funding gain of function research, the funding for which was halted by Obama because he declared it too dangerous. We’ll never know for sure, but it’s 80% likely that COVID-19 leaked from that research at the lab in Wuhan, China. See these two articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
        https://thebulletin.org/2021/08/how-covid-19s-origins-were-obscured-by-the-east-and-the-west/
        https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/05/07/bulletin-of-atomic-scientists-opens-the-wuhan-virus-pandoras-box/

  2. Where was all the Republican outrage back in 2018? Back then, Fauci was doing what Trump wanted and so he was loved by Republicans. Even though he was head of a government bureaucracy that was torturing and killing beagles, Republicans said nothing. Eventually, he had a falling out with Trump (but managed to keep his job unlike others in the Trump administration – e.g. Steve Bannon). Trump’s disapproval made Fauci a target for his right wing followers. Trump’s right wing followers still hate Fauci, even though, I doubt that, Trump has thought about Fauci once since leaving office. Now that there is a Democrat in the White House, suddenly Republicans are outraged about government torturing and killing of beagles. When I read your article in 2018, I was sickened because there was no outrage from our political leaders in either party. When I read your article today, I was also sickened because the only time that the torture and killing of beagles is of concern is when one political party can play politics with it. The fact that you didn’t comment on this makes me question your political observation skills.

    FYI – I. F. Stone’s Weekly newsletter was liberal. The Washington Post is not.

  3. Will I be the first? Has no one read Yuval Noah Harari? We are all of an animal species. You think what happens to them will not happen to you? How can we treat an animal named dog spelled backwards as god in such a way? If you look, we already have treated humans the same: Tuskeegee experiment. Don’t trust these MFKers ever.

  4. I love you Sheer report. Would you please give me a POB number to which I can send a small monthly donation? I keep asking but you never respond. Maybe there’s a reason I don’t know. Guess eventually I will cave cause I like you so much. Just don’t like giving out my debit card.

  5. And the is how the left consistently loses: With inane, pointless priorities and purity tests.
    You know what happens when you tear down Fauci? You strengthen the people who’ve been working hard to turn the nation into a state that fails nearly all its people, a failed state that has been incapable of a full, functional response to a global pandemic, a nation that refuses to acknowledge that their last POTUS allowed a couple of hundred thousand people to die from Covid because he felt that acknowledging that the nation he led was not immune to a global pandemic would make him look bad.
    You get power working from the bottom up, and electoral power is an essential component. Not going to say none of that happens, just way too little with too little effort on winning hearts and minds of voters.
    I could go on but let’s focus on dogs. Priorities, right?

    1. That’s utterly absurd. Any real leftist would attack Fauci, he’s a consummate liar in service to the pharmaceutical industry. Just regarding the COVID-19 pandemic alone, he’s been caught lying about wearing masks, herd immunity, and gain of function research. You sound far more like a liberal, which is part of the right, then a leftist.

      As to this article: I don’t like dogs, but even I am strongly opposed to torturing them (or any other animals) for any reason. If that’s just a minor issue for you, you need to work on your moral compass, because there’s something very wrong with it. Are you that anthropocentric that you couldn’t care less about anything but humans?

    2. That’s absurd. Priorities is plural. You can have yourself a list of them. And animal abuse has and always will be one of mine.

    3. Now, a few days after posting that, I’m satisfied to see y’all proving my point which was that when it comes to important issues, tearing down someone doing more good than harm empowers our enemies in the process. But purity is more important than, say, reversing national collapse because the sedated masses will nonetheless rise up, at least in theory so reality doesn’t matter.
      So, thank you.
      Elsewhere, I harp on the DNC not being a true opposition party. Dunno that people obsessed with the need for their leaders to be perfect is any better. Oh, wait, we’re not just an oligarchy now, but we’re a failed state of one.
      Shameful and inexcusable.
      BTW: I’m a dog person. Our two were rescues, my kid is the third or fourth owner of his. So yeah, I in no way endorse torture or gratuitous killing of puppers. But, I dunno, I don’t see the issue as important enough to indirectly support our controlling party.

      1. That’s a typical establishment propaganda point: anyone more progressive or radical than you is being purist or some such nonsense.

        Fauci does more good than harm? I listed three major lies he’s been caught on video telling just since the pandemic, the fact that he advocates for the pharmaceutical industry instead of the people, and I’ll add that he has an interest in that evil gain of function research that he talked Trump into reinstating funds for that Obama had correctly cut off. So how exactly does Fauci do more good than harm? By fear mongering everyone to get vaccinated when even the inventor of the mRNA vaccine said that only at-risk people should be vaccinated (this is what it looks like when people like Fauci in positions of power are tools of industry instead of the public servants they should be)?

      2. You’re right. Discrediting Fauci, who’s working re Covid beats, for example allowing a couple of hundred thousand people to die (and an unknown number suffering long Covid) for no better reason than the then-POTUS refused to acknowledge the virus let alone take action for a couple of months because he was afraid that he would look bad if he acknowledged that a global pandemic struck the nation he putatively led.
        And the proof that I’m right is that with all the resistance from the left in the past fifty-odd years, the nation collapsed into a failed state where, for example, a complete national response to a pandemic is impossible. We’ve had no progress since the 70s or so, just regression. And those who claim to be opposed to that have accomplished nothing.
        But please, stay pure so you can stay in denial and feel no responsibility.

      3. As I said, you’re just a pro-establishment liberal. My comments have nothing to do with being a purist.

  6. I suspect that the way animals are treated by a society reflects attitudes that will surface in the way women, children and people and nature in general are regarded. It’s time to take seriously the ideas of rights for animals and rights for nature.

    1. Agree 100%, see my reply to Hart Liss. This is a major spiritual failure, which is the failure to recognize and feel that we are all one, and by “we” I mean the Earth and all life on it. (Actually, I feel that way about the entire universe, but that’s another issue.) If you feel oneness with other beings, you don’t treat them badly, simple as that. Unfortunately, in modern society and especially in the religiously fanatic U.S., we have religion instead of spirituality, which are usually opposites despite the common misconception to the contrary.

  7. What exactly is Fauci’s role in these disgusting experiments? What level of the bureaucracy oversees this work? What is the chain of command? If Fauci signs off, what percentage of the policy and research direction of the program is directed (originated) from Fauci? What kind of oversight and sign off come from Fauci? My guess is the this is a very low level program with deminimus Fauci involvement.

    Have prior campaigns targeted Fauci?

    I am not a fan of Fauci (I think he lied to Congress about Gain of Function research and made veery bad decisions to reverse the moratorium on it), but I think this track is absurd and grossly political.

    Who sponsors, funds, and benefits from this research? Big Pharma? Why not attack Big Pharma like activists attack Big Oil?

    The issue is not funding White Coats’ work – the issue is the politicization of it.

    Greenwald genuinely does love dogs and has done great prior work on this issue, but he has other very large axes to grind here – and of course there is the question: qui bono?

  8. No crocodile traits for this:

    “A proliferation of wolf killing contests privately arranged. Hunting methods which unfairly advantage the hunter, including the use of night-vision scopes and spotlighting, which allow the shooter to locate their prey and kill under cover of darkness. Pouring gasoline into dens and burning any wolves, pups included, trapped inside. Chasing and running wolves over with motor vehicles. Baiting wolves, so that they think they have found a meal, only to be defenselessly and painfully poisoned or shot down as they try to dine. All of these are craven and detestable, and we should not mince words about it.”
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/11/03/can-the-wolf-unite-us-environmental-leadership-in-polarized-times/

    1. This is far worse than the dog-torturing experiments, as bad as those are. This is extermination of a native species that, unlike destructive cattle, is grossly underpopulated. The war against wolves was restarted by Obama in order to get right wing Democrat Jon Tester elected in Montana. Obama offered ranchers and farmers removal of protections for wolves in exchange for support for Tester. This alone makes Obama as bad as any Republican, including Trump. The methods of killing the wolves are horrid and couldn’t be more psychopathic and immoral, but killing them per se is the problem, not how they’re killed.

      1. I agree completely. Curious, not many of the dog experiment critics have mush too say about exterminating wolves (and countless other species).

  9. Animal experimentation is part of the fraud and cruelty routinely practiced by medical science, including on behalf of corporations and their product lines, like cosmetics. It often involves entirely gratuitous torture of ‘test subjects’, generally facilitated by vivisection of vocal chords to insure their objectification and the desensitization of the proverbial white-coated sadists performing their macabre rituals (analogous to how gassing people relieved Nazi soldiers of squeamishness in shooting and burying them in mass graves).

    The bogus nature of animal experimentation is found everywhere along the line from dubious premises of its relevance for and applicability to humans, not to mention other animals, to rigged procedures for producing desired outcomes – on which the incomes of those in the hire of funders depend, to simply scrapping or doctoring results when conflicting with these bizzness interests. All of which, of course, is ‘regulated’ – for these interests – by government agencies, like the FDA, which maintain revolving doors with those seeking official market approval, unsurprisingly not that difficult to obtain.

    Having said that, I’ll turn to why this report is torturous as well, or at the very least irritating in nibbling around the edges, if even that, of currently momentous matters. And these have to do with how humans are now being subjected to unprecedented Frankenscience experiments with what have been mass marketed on a worldwide scale as ‘vaccines’, a completely fabricated classification for the legal legerdemain of emergency use authorization of what are more properly defined as (mRNA) gene-editing techniques.

    Keep in mind that all the ingredients and their properties as well as effects of these non-vaccines remain alarmingly unknown – certainly for the test subjects – due in part to longstanding research and development under cover of secrecy by the corporate state (aka public-private partnerships (PPPs), aka fascism), and also due to Operation Warp Speed (begun with Trump, continued by Biden, political theater aside) rushing out for use in a matter of months rather than the standard 10-15 years for conventional vaccines (which themselves are far from ‘safe and effective’) a product making a mockery of both aborted animal trials and rigged human trials.

    Meanwhile, some of what has become known thus far, though suppressed by mainstream media and official sources (e.g., Fauci), is that these abominations not only provide no immunity (at most reduction of symptoms, as officially claimed early on, if by now forgotten), but have been positively off the charts in already registering in the US alone (as of 10/15/21) with the CDC-FDA Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) more injuries (818, 044) and deaths (17, 128) than all previous counts together since these have been tracked (approximately thirty years). However, as a definitive Harvard study has demonstrated, this voluntary, largely unknown system represents vastly underreported figures, less than 1%, meaning that actual injuries and deaths can be 100 times more than what’s reported. In this respect, one chilling feature of all previous officially released R&D for the mRNA injections now being deployed upon the general population has been their consistent failures as a viable method of immunization, or perhaps rather their success in killing off animal test subjects due to antibody enhancement effect or pathogenic priming which leaves their hosts more liable to disease and death.

    There’s much more that’s come to light, and not just with these non-vaccines, at least among those actually engaged in evidence-based science and investigative research, while being systematically censored, smeared, and persecuted by individuals and institutions enforcing the dominant narrative of a (non-existent) virus-disease-pandemic supposedly necessitating disproportionally destructive measures like lockdowns, masking, and cures like these ‘vaccine’ concoctions that appear to be their own disease, or bioweapon. But to try to go further down the rabbit hole of all that’s involved lies beyond the scope of this already lengthy comment.

    The point to be made with the Greenwald piece above is that it’s following a controversy manufactured in mainstream media and a publication owned by an oligarch who has everything to gain in misdirecting public perception onto a tempest in a teacup, sure to create more heat than light and soon enough grow cold, compared to presently urgent matters in which Fauci is playing a central role. Not incidental is how it continues to divert attention from Fauci’s involvement in gain-of-function (or bioweapons) R&D (GoF now renamed by the NIH enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (ePPP) as part of the coverup), particularly as that was transferred to operations at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. In short, Greenwald’s report reads like controlled opposition protecting Fauci as well.

    There continues to be a glaring absence of real radical criticism of the p(l)andemic from most of the progressive press and professional left (by way of contrast, see the work of Whitney Webb on her Unlimited Hangout and The Last American Vagabond with Ryan Cristian). Journalists like Greenwald and Taibbi, whose examples reveal the likelihood of a price to be paid for even the mildest dissent, still hardly have dug down into the roots of the global agenda which has overtaken humanity. Notably articulating a more critical position has been Max Blumenthal (see, for instance, his recent interview with Jimmy Dore, who predictably in step with standard propaganda spin has been labeled rightwing, if not pro-Trump and MAGA-funded, for his increasing criticism of the dominant narrative. Nevertheless, if sacrifices are to be made, now is the time. As Orwell said, in times of universal deceit*, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act.

    *By way of a footnote regarding the universal deceit of our totalitarian time, PolitiFact, mentioned above, is owned by the Tampa Bay Times and the Poynter Institute, the latter having its own International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) to coordinate, promote, and train fact-checkers worldwide. IFCN, like many fact-checking nonprofits, is funded by philanthro-capitalists like Soros, Gates, and the Koch Brothers, as well as the US State Department and (CIA) National Endowment for Democracy.

    1. Addendum: Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s soon-to-be released (Nov. 9th) “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health” promises to take a deep dive into the full history and context of Fauci’s corruption and crimes against humanity, beginning with his early involvement in the AIDS crisis. RFK’s preview of his book in “The Defender” from Children’s Health Defense – a valuable source on the current covid coup – is worth a read.

  10. If you are going to attack Fauci, do it specifically for his role in killing 5 million people worldwide and spending most of his time covering up his role in NIAID funding of gain of function research (during the Moratorium), almost surely responsible for creating SARS-CoV2. Fauci hasn’t much helped the US response to Covid either, which has been a never-ending sh!tshow, and why the US Covid death rate is >3.5-fold higher than the Global Covid death rate.

    If you don’t like the use of dogs in medical research, talk to the FDA. Every novel drug candidate (most of which never make it to humans) is required to be tested in two animal species, only one of which can be a rodent (beagles are usual, some use even more problematic monkeys); the worst result is taken as more likely to be the human response, and it requires lots more work if rats or dogs die from the drug candidate. Puppies are a recent “innovation” from the FDA; to get extension of patents Pharma now does such research in puppies to allow adult drugs to be used in children.

    Is it useful? Doesn’t really matter because it’s REQUIRED by the FDA (the wording makes it sound voluntary, but no animal data, no approval). Often the animals are very poor models for humans (most cancer research in rodents is a total joke; the FDA knows it, and results are often ignored.) SOMETIMES the animal work is critical; the sad part is that thee mechanism of toxicity is often only sorted out in animals AFTER it appears in humans. You don’t want your kid to die of liver failure due to a rare but preventable/avoidable drug issue that could have been easily detected in animals.

    There are improvements, science and technology often move quickly, but lots of inertia (most regulatory assays are from the 1970s-80s). The FDA (and NIH and EPA and Pharma) have huge toxicology databases, built mostly on rats and dogs. They are comfortable with the pathology in those animals (other animal models– fish, worms– are not as well understood and often even less relevant to humans) . Most of academia has moved to mice (cheaper and they can be humanized; otherwise how can you test gain-of-function viruses for human use?), but pathologists prefer rats (more experience and data). LD50s have been replaced with more informative lowest adverse drug effect level (often weight loss). There have been efforts to minimize animal use and get the most information possible from each animal study. There is more human cell culture work for many applications; but often this is not relevant. The evolution is slow, and even when a good model appears it takes FOREVER for regulatory evaluation and acceptance. If you have a drug candidate it takes small amounts of material to test efficacy and advance from cell culture model assays. But if the REQUIRED animal studies look bad, that trumps the cellular culture work. And obviously if human trials look bad, that trumps the animal studies (and the more dangerous, rare toxicities only appear when the drug gets on the market, although “signals” (gene or marker protein expression) of that toxicity are often observed in animal studies.)
    The cosmetics industry mostly does not allow testing on animals, HOWEVER there are no new ingredients in cosmetics, just GRAS stuff formulated differently, and marketing. And occasionally there are even nasty surprises with cosmetics.

    I grew up in a rural area and most hunters used beagles (which generally were also pets for the other nine months of the year). Many were stolen and sold to research labs. The ASPCA estimates 390,000 dogs are euthanized a year in the US. Dogs are still eaten in Korea and China (not many euthanized there!) Perhaps many of these “throwaway” dogs could be used rather than the purposely bred beagles for FDA required research? Maybe that also would spur people to adopt (and spay) more dogs as pets.

    1. Torturing animals for supposed human benefits is as immoral as it gets. It doesn’t matter that humans will die from lack of artificial drugs; dying when it’s one’s time is natural and fine. We’re all going to die, and a proper attitude toward death would prevent you from fighting it at the cost of highly immoral crap like what you support. I hate dogs, but even I find this totally unacceptable and repugnant.

      1. @Jeff If you are a vegan, avoid leather and other animal products, and refused the Covid vaccines (animals were critical for their development over many years), I respect your views. Otherwise you are just another hypocrite.

        I am retired, but worked almost equal times for academia, government, Pharma and startup biotech. While my career work was 60% human cell lines, 35% rats and 5% mice, I respect those who humanely work with dogs/ monkeys as required by the FDA. I do not respect those who shoot goats like the military “scientists” to see how bullets affect living tissue, those who do burn research (even though very important), or those who create human virus pandemics, so they can “cure” us of THEIR creations.

      2. Everyone living in modern society is a hypocrite, immoral, or some combination. The issue is whether you make an effort to do what you can, and what you advocate for & against. People who torture animals for any reason should be subject to the same criminal penalties as people who kill other people. Only your immoral anthropocentrism prevents you from realizing this.

        BTW, a lot of this research is for synthetic chemicals in products like shampoos. The solution is to use more natural products that don’t contain synthetic chemicals. I’ve been doing this for decades, and everyone else can also, regardless of income (when I started doing it I was earning $6.50/hour).

      3. Most Western countries do NOT require animal studies for cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, etc. However, I believe China STILL requires animal studies for these products, and they have a huge, brand-conscious market. My guess is the cosmetic companies will comply and do those animal studies. China is a huge market.

  11. Thank you again and again, Glen. It’s not just the subject matter on which you focus, it is the manner with which you dissect for readers the germane points of an issue.

    This kind of thing is going to be what ‘saves’ us. If we are to survive this global malpractice/malfeasance (the CovidCon) yours and the reports of others joining rather than dividing us in principle will prove to have been at point.

    It’s no tired cliche…the truth will set us free.

  12. I admire Glenn Greenwald’s strong commitment to Free Speech (and his veganism). I agree totally with his views on Free Speech, but unfortunately I love meat.
    It is a contradiction, but as much as possible, mistreatment of animals for food is, or should be, avoided. Most people prefer animals to fellow humans.
    I fish, and I used to hunt deer (which are a nuisance where I live and good to eat. In many states they have been reported to be infected with Covid. Humans are the only predators most deer have to keep their populations in check.)

    1. 1. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with eating wild meat. The problems are 1) too many people; 2) people who eat meat eat far too much of it; and 3) confining or grazing animals to eat (animal agriculture) instead of hunting & fishing.

      2. Deer are overpopulated because the colonizers killed their natural predators, mainly wolves. There used to be millions of wolves in what is now the U.S., and among other things they kept the deer population in check. The solution isn’t guns for hunting deer, it’s restoring wolf populations. To be clear, as I stated above I’m not at all opposed to hunting, but it should be done naturally with things like spears and bows & arrows; definitely NOT with guns, which are just another problem created by humans. And yes, I too love venison.

  13. Jeff, mostly agree with you! When I was young, I tried bow hunting, may try again. Lots more deer than when I was young. Just don’t want to cripple deer.

    Insurance companies (car accidents) and pine forestry people (deer eat tops of young pines) were putting out poisoned salt licks (deer need salt), not sure that’s still being done. The wild life people brought bobcats to eat fawns. Coyotes are doing part of that job now (but also eat people’s pets and livestock. And bobcats and foxes). Much worse seeing deer dying of starvation, poisoning or disease than harvesting them as humanely as possible, plus hunting is a way of life for much of rural America.

  14. This is pure discusting evil ,and anyone associated with this with feel wrathes oh hell and parish into eternal misery .world has never became so clear on good vs evil and good will always prevail .God bless the good on this earth and protect them from spawns

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: