Beagle Pups aren't really that cute, are they?

But it don't matter, no creature deserves to be intentionally infected with a lab-derrived mutation of the SARS virus in the name of research. Families of beagle pups, or a whole room full of beagle pups, they don't deserve to be killed just to make Democrat appointees like Anthony Fauci feel better about himself.

Has anyone reached out to their Democrat US rep lately? To ask them about
this? I would. I'd ask them why their party appoints people like Fauci who mercilessly massacre beagle pups with mutated SARS infected mosquitos.

We should ask all Democrat candidates where they stand on the issue of beagle pup massacres, and we should also see what they have to say about
intentionally mutating SARS.

Does it seem like a good time to be purposefully mutating SARS viruses? I
don't think so. Does it seem like a good time to purposefully mutate the
monkey pox virus? How can we make it more deadly? It's probably not deadly enough for the Democrats just yet. Is there money we can pay to make monkey
pox more deadly? (Beagle pups cost money!)

The most important question to ask is: What did the beagle pup research prove? Did we learn how to kill concentrations of populations efficiently? How can we kill them better and faster and deader than Fauci did with the Beagle pups? Or was his experiment flawless?

The lackluster media account of all this is disappointing. They make Fauci
look like such a great guy, that I wonder why this great guy doesn't share all his findings with the public. Don't people like dogs?

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

But it don't matter, no creature deserves to be intentionally infected with a lab-derrived mutation of the SARS virus in the name of research. Families of beagle pups, or a whole room full of beagle pups, they don't deserve to be killed just to make Democrat appointees like Anthony Fauci feel better about himself.

factcheck.org has an interesting article about beagle experiments:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/answering-questions-about-beaglegate

The experiment that got the most attention, where the dogs were sedated and then had their heads stuck in mesh containers that contained hungry sand
flies was apparently not funded by the NIH. Other experiments were. The experiments in question involve a disease that is carried by dogs so experimenting on dogs is necessary.

They were experimenting with a vaccine that would hopefully prevent the
dogs from catching the disease in one study. In another, they were experimenting to see if sand flies, who can transmit the disease, were more attracted to dogs with the virus vs. dogs without.

Because there is no cure for the disease, the dogs that contracted it/were intentionally infected with it did have to be euthanized.

Since they are trying to prevent a canine disease, it sounds like they
don't have much of a choice but to experiment with dogs. The article goes
on to point out that, thanks to experiments on dogs in the 19th century, we
now have insulin.

The article also includes an explanation from NIH regarding how funding for various experiments is decided upon, and how much of a say Fauci has in
each individual approval.


* SLMR 2.1a * Here is a loud announcement... Silence in the studio!!
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

were. The experiments in question involve a disease that is carried by dogs so experimenting on dogs is necessary.

But what good came from all this research?

The article also includes an explanation from NIH regarding how funding for various experiments is decided upon, and how much of a say Fauci has in each individual approval.

People should read up on that to see if they see eye to eye with Fauci and his cruel experiments. I know I'm curious about why the NIH was focusing on a dog disease, unless it was something that could spread to humans.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: CompuBBS | Ashburn VA | cfbbs.scinet-ftn.org (1:275/99)

were. The experiments in question involve a disease that is carried by dogs so experimenting on dogs is necessary.

But what good came from all this research?

Whether or not the new vax worked (I did not catch the outcome)?

People should read up on that to see if they see eye to eye with Fauci and his
cruel experiments. I know I'm curious about why the NIH was focusing on a dog disease, unless it was something that could spread to humans.

Or livestock?


* SLMR 2.1a * I had another drink...Drink-a-drink-a-drink-a-drink...
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)