Two satires of Fauci’s NIH funding of sadistic beagle (and other animal) tortures in laboratories, and commentary

Cute Beagle Puppies | Top Dog Directory

The links to the satires from the Babylon Bee:

Fauci hopes his experiments on puppies will distract everyone from experiments he performed on humanity for the past 18 months

Fauci says attacking puppy torture is an attack on science

Full stories below:

Fauci Hopes His Experiments On Puppies Will Distract Everyone From Experiments He Performed On Humanity For Past 18 Months

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Dr. Anthony Fauci is embroiled in controversy over his organization reportedly funding an experiment in which dogs had their heads trapped in cages and were eaten by sandflies alive, which we are told is a perfectly normal procedure performed by scientists as well as psychopathic killers in horror movies.  

Fauci is hoping that the uproar over the dogs will distract everyone from something he did that was far worse: perform experiments on the populace of the United States for the past eighteen months.

“Now that everyone’s upset about the puppies, maybe they’ll forget about how I played god with their lives for the last year and a half,” he confided to a friend, according to an anonymous source.

“Everyone loves puppies. Well, except me, because I’m an evil bad guy. But people get real mad when you kill dogs for some reason. They’ll get upset about this and probably try to cancel me. You know, this whole ‘cancel culture’ thing is really getting out of hand. You torture and murder a few dozen puppies and suddenly everyone’s out to get you.”

But Fauci went on to say that he thinks it’s a positive development in the end, as “people have really short attention spans and they’ll forget that I did something way worse than off a few dumb dogs—I experimented with the lives of 330 million people and got away with it scot-free.”


Fauci Says Attacking Puppy Torture Is An Attack On Science

Concerned citizens are raising questions about some experiments conducted by Dr. Fauci’s NIH, including one where puppies were tortured to death, their vocal cords severed to mute their screams. In an interview, Fauci said that anyone who attacks puppy torture is attacking science itself. 

“Puppy torture is science,” said Fauci angrily. “So is grafting baby scalps onto lab mice and engineering viruses that kill millions! I AM SCIENCE! I AM GOD!!!” Fauci then threw back his head and laughed maniacally at the sky. 

Fauci insisted that his experiments are “super important”, and “real science.” He also defended some of his other experiments, such as the “Kitten Drowning Experiment”, the “Orphan Punching Experiment”, and the “Piranha Kiddie Pool Experiment.” 


Here is a link to non-satirical articles on this subject, on this blog.

Star Trek Voyager’s argument against animal testing:

And a serious commentary on animal testing from the author of this blog:

There’s no justification for animal testing when humane non-animal alternatives exist and have existed for years. There is a tremendous amount of wasteful and repetitive experimentation, for which reason the “3 Rs” of animal testing exist: replacing, reducing, or refining.

Unfortunately, it’s not widely adhered to in practice. Typically, someone doing animal testing will fill out a form that asks if they’ve looked into alternatives and they’ll routinely check the box say ‘yes’ but could not find suitable ones. That’s a lie. They never looked.

Even if alternatives did not exist, the argument can be made that there’s still no good ethical justification for animal testing due to a problem with three underlying assumptions upon which animal testing rests:

(i) That it is “humane.” Committees exist to affirm this lie, but the claim that animal testing is “humane” is demonstrably false. There is considerable cruelty involved throughout the whole cycle of birth to death of lab animals. Also, the humane myth is predicated on welfarism which ignores a ‘rights’ perspective.

(ii) That non-human animals’ lives don’t matter and are expendable. Again, from a ‘rights’ perspective, this is simply untrue. It’s the moral equivalent of the argument that one race of people matters less than other.

(iii) That a utilitarian justification for experimentation on unwilling subjects is ethically defensible. From a utilitarian p.o.v. some experiments might be defensible if the suffering they cause is less than the happiness they enable.

But this argument cannot be justified using a deontological ‘rights’ ethic, and of the two ethics, deontology is more rationally sound and defensible. This is why testing on unwilling human subjects is not allowed.

You will notice that all three arguments are predicated on the idea that rights properly apply to all sentient individuals. By ‘rights’ I mean negative rights: the right not to be harmed, which is basic to all rational intelligent beings. But I would agree with philosopher Tom Regan, applicable to all sentient beings as well.

By sentience, I mean self-awareness. Regan calls this being a “subject of a life” which means that “each animal is a unique life story, just as the story of your life is peculiar to you and no one else, and in this sense, animals are like us.

A subject of a life is a singular individual who has interests, learns from experience, has expectations that certain things will happen, has emotions like fear and pleasure, has painful and pleasurable experiences, and has a good or bad life. As Regan says, “All animals are somebody – someone with a life of their own.”

That is true even if the subject is a moral patient but not a moral agent — meaning that he or she cannot make moral choices. All moral agents are also moral patients, but not all moral patients are moral agents.

There are some human beings who are only moral patients, such as babies and the mentally incapacitated. And some animals who have demonstrated moral decision making (all mammals for instance) and are thus both moral patients and agents.

“What happens to them matters to them” says Regan. This is true also of most animal species — certainly all mammals, birds, marsupials, and reptiles. Whether it’s true of insects is debatable. They seem to lack anything other than instinctual reflexes – though some exhibit complex social behaviors (ants and bees for instance).

I would say any creature that can dream and feel is a subject of life. Some people would expand that to all creatures who have eyes and a will to live. The break-off point is debatable, but Regan thinks we should err on the side of compassion.

This is Regan making the argument:

Our civilization is such that it’s not necessary to eat animals in order to survive; in fact, doing so can lead to cancer and heart disease. And a veg*n diet would save 11 times the energy, land, and water needed to feed farmed animals, so it would contribute to solving world hunger. All the protein we need can be found in plants.

Up against this ethic of animal rights is tens of thousands of years of prejudice and tradition against animals, used to justify our instrumental use of them for various purposes. This was done in the past in the context of survival initially but has become habitual over time, despite no longer being needed for our survival.

Those who would deny rights to others would still not wish their own rights violated. So deep down they do believe in rights, just not their universal application to all human beings or all sentient beings.

The philosopher Kant said that for an ethical principle to be valid it should be “universalized” — that is, in principle, it’s a norm that’s applicable to all persons, universally. An example is that no one should commit murder or steal.

The proper application of negative rights to all sentient (as well as rational) beings can be illustrated by the thought experiments involving aliens:

(i) In the first scenario, the aliens are more powerful than us and violate our rights, treating us like cattle. This is clearly wrong, from our point of view, and yet it’s how we treat other species who have feelings and intelligence. This reveals that extending rights to only our own kind is rationally inconsistent.

This is a well-known movie that shows the cruelty done to animals. Earthlings is age-restricted because it is graphic/gory. Just click on the “Watch on Youtube” button below, to watch it:

This is another well-known film on the case for more consideration for animals, called Peaceable Kingdom. It’s not gory. It just shows interviews with people who care about them:

And (ii) we run into an alien species who are friendly (e.g., E.T.); would we find it acceptable to harm them? If not, why then it would be acceptable to harm species from this planet who want to live?

Or take the case of dogs and cats: most people would not wish to see them harmed, but do not extend that same feeling to other animals who have as much capacity for thought and feeling. To love one and harm the other is inconsistent.

Even people who do not believe in animal rights, still believe it’s wrong to torture animals in labs. Most of those animals are mice and rats, who have as much capacity to feel pain as any of us.

The bottom line is that if we would not do it to human beings, we should not do it to other sentient beings who can suffer as much as we do and whose desire to be free and happy is no less than in our species.

Animal testing only continues because it’s a paradigm that’s been used for several centuries and so it continues to be taught and practiced. Science operates on paradigm, many of which are inaccurate and give only an approximation of the truth.

And due to the non-homology and non-predictivity between non-human animals and human beings, animal testing often gives false results, as the case of Thalidomide proves: it was tested safe in non-human animals, then given to humans, where it caused great deformities.

Mice have 85 percent the same genes as humans, but the sequences of those genes are re-arranged so differently, drug-testing on them does not give an accurate picture of what it would do to humans. An analogy is piano keys connected to different strings.

The only way they continue to get away with it is due to speciesism and by hiding it from the public with false assurances that it’s “humane” and the lie that it’s medically necessary.

As for Fauci’s cruel experiments, I can’t imagine what they’re for (why subject dogs to sand flea bites?) but they’re no more justified than Dr. Mengele’s experiments on human beings during WWII or the experiments of the sadists in Unit 731 conducted on human beings by the Japanese military during the same time period.

Fauci’s disregard for human life and well-being is also well-documented. He is a moral monster who should be put on trial for crimes against humanity The only value in this horrible story is that it has made some people think about why animal testing is wrong. Not just wrong, but evil.

Outdated and Unreliable: Cosmetic Testing on Animals ...

1 Comment

  1. Kenneth T. says:

    … as if I needed any more reason to hate this guy

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s