"... in another study, which didn’t involve Tunisia and didn’t involve flies, NIAID-funded researchers did indeed perform cordectomies on 44 beagle puppies and euthanized them after the study. And here’s why: The Food and Drug Administration requires researchers to experiment on non-rodent mammals for certain classes of HIV-AIDS drugs, and for this study specifically recommended dogs. It is necessary to use young dogs (six to eight months) to assess whether the drugs retard growth. It is mandatory that the dogs be euthanized so researchers can search for damage to organ systems. And it is recommended by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care that the dogs undergo cordectomies to reduce anxiety (in dogs) and hearing loss (in humans) from barking. (Beagles are used because of their uniform size.)
Above all, this is no frivolous pursuit: The drugs under study are promising next-generation antiretrovirals that can be administered to HIV/AIDS patients less frequently — potentially saving countless human lives." www.washingtonpost.com/.../
But the thing they're talking about wasn't that: "NIAID did, however, fund different research in Tunisia — and the beagles weren’t puppies, they weren’t euthanized, they weren’t “de-barked,” and they weren’t “trapped” so “flies could eat them alive.” The dogs were given an experimental vaccine and allowed to roam. There was a very good reason for this: Dogs are the main reservoir host (and flies the main vector) of the disease that was being studied, which affects half a million people a year, particularly children, and has a 6 percent mortality rate in Tunisia."
That's a lot better reason than testing make-up, or even testing the harm smoking does.
@goaded sounds like it. Animal testing is necessary for some things, that's why I asked. Looking at the actions alone without understanding the cause makes anything look bad.
They are not quite telling us why the experiments were done. Just that they put sedated Beagles in a box and let sand-flies feast on their heads. I mean, one could make a scientific experiment about dog fighting, determining the strongest breeds, their behaviors when injured, etc. Not all science is good science.
@goaded so it’s not? Then this is why having a failed media is so bad. There is no source of truth. So the dog experiment is bullshit? Do you have anything credible that refutes it?
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
29Opinion
If you will crucify any doctor who made bad experiments on animals feel free to toss out tons of drugs and medical procedures you know.
It's embarrassing it took this to start the trend, but I support it nonetheless.
That guy is such a piece of garbage.
Get that weasel out!!
What's the reason behind the experiments?
You know, it’s okay to be against bad things no matter what political party it aligns itself with.
Meaning, you can hate Trump AND hate Biden.
You don’t have to remain loyal to whatever political party or side you identify with
Even when they do bad stuff.
Just putting that out there.
I don't follow American politics enough to allign with either side.
Okay.
I'm asking for the reason because I don't think it's necessarily bad if it's for a good reason.
Hmm, I don’t quite agree, but okay.
"... in another study, which didn’t involve Tunisia and didn’t involve flies, NIAID-funded researchers did indeed perform cordectomies on 44 beagle puppies and euthanized them after the study. And here’s why: The Food and Drug Administration requires researchers to experiment on non-rodent mammals for certain classes of HIV-AIDS drugs, and for this study specifically recommended dogs. It is necessary to use young dogs (six to eight months) to assess whether the drugs retard growth. It is mandatory that the dogs be euthanized so researchers can search for damage to organ systems. And it is recommended by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care that the dogs undergo cordectomies to reduce anxiety (in dogs) and hearing loss (in humans) from barking. (Beagles are used because of their uniform size.)
Above all, this is no frivolous pursuit: The drugs under study are promising next-generation antiretrovirals that can be administered to HIV/AIDS patients less frequently — potentially saving countless human lives."
www.washingtonpost.com/.../
But the thing they're talking about wasn't that: "NIAID did, however, fund different research in Tunisia — and the beagles weren’t puppies, they weren’t euthanized, they weren’t “de-barked,” and they weren’t “trapped” so “flies could eat them alive.” The dogs were given an experimental vaccine and allowed to roam. There was a very good reason for this: Dogs are the main reservoir host (and flies the main vector) of the disease that was being studied, which affects half a million people a year, particularly children, and has a 6 percent mortality rate in Tunisia."
That's a lot better reason than testing make-up, or even testing the harm smoking does.
@goaded sounds like it. Animal testing is necessary for some things, that's why I asked. Looking at the actions alone without understanding the cause makes anything look bad.
They are not quite telling us why the experiments were done. Just that they put sedated Beagles in a box and let sand-flies feast on their heads. I mean, one could make a scientific experiment about dog fighting, determining the strongest breeds, their behaviors when injured, etc. Not all science is good science.
Oh, looks like more informed people posted the explanation.
@edgey never said that. Just that without knowing the cause, it's not possible to conclude whether the actions were all bad.
#ArrrstFauci
#Let'sgoBrandon
Holy shit. This is bad. This is really bad.
If it were real, it would be.
@goaded so it’s not? Then this is why having a failed media is so bad. There is no source of truth. So the dog experiment is bullshit? Do you have anything credible that refutes it?
@Jersey2 www.washingtonpost.com/.../
@goaded He said credible.
Is that source incorrect? How?
i dont use twitter. its full of brain dead idiots.
He deserves it