In August The Gateway Pundit reporter Cassandra Fairbanks reported exclusively on Dr. Fauci’s macabre experiments with beagles in Tunisia.
The report finally started making the rounds in the media this week.
Advertisement – story continues below
* * * * * * * * * * *
From the report—
The White Coat Waste Project, a taxpayer watchdog group, provided The Gateway Pundit with new examples of Dr. Anthony Fauci facilitating cruel and unnecessary taxpayer-funded experimentation on dogs — this time in Tunisia.
Documents uncovered by the organization found that the National Institutes of Health division that is led by Dr. Fauci shipped part of a $375,800 grant to the lab in Tunisia to infest beagles with parasites.
Advertisement – story continues below
The grant money funded a study published last month that detailed the horror inflicted upon the unlucky dogs.
One of the tortures that the beagles were subjected to included locking their heads in mesh cages filled with infected sand flies so that the parasite-carrying insects could eat them alive.
Beagles are often used for these tests because of their gentle nature, even towards those who harm them.
There was a photo of the test, which is sure to haunt anyone with a conscience.
Fauci’s taxpayer funded animal experiments in Tunisia
Advertisement – story continues below
According to their paper, the scientists starved the sand flies in order to make sure they were hungry enough to attack the dogs.
“The sand flies were then allowed to feed on the sedated dogs….” the report explains.
The nightmare for dogs did not stop there. The experimenters locked beagles alone in cages in the middle of the desert, isolated, for nine consecutive nights, to use as bait to attract more infectious sand flies. There is also a photo of this horror.
You can read the rest here.
Advertisement – story continues below
Following our report and its revelations on Dr. Fauci’s Mengelean experimentation the fake online “fact-checkers” sprung into action.
Fake fact-checker Daniel Funke from USA today sent us the following email:
Please note: The function of the online “fact-checkers” is to harass and blemish conservative publishers. It’s not about facts. If it was they would demand Dr. Fauci step down for his numerous lies on funding the Wuhan lab behind the COVID virus and his gain-of-function funding. But these fact-checkers are not interested in the truth. They are interested in ruining the few remaining outlets that report the truth to the American public.
Advertisement – story continues below
On Friday The Gateway Pundit attorney John Burns responded to USA Today reported Daniel Funke.
This was absolutely BRUTAL.
Enjoy!
Mr. Funke:
Advertisement – story continues below
Something doesn’t add up, here. I’ve interviewed the author of our article, Cassandra Fairbanks, and I’ve reviewed her methods and materials. I’m going to take you through the timeline of this and our evidence. At the outset, though, candidly, I find USNAID’s disavowal highly suspect, and it raises questions to which I hope you will find answers; not only from NIAID, but the authors of the study, themselves. I would also mention that, whatever ultimately ends up being the truth (it isn’t clear to me at this point) our author and publication have not erred in our reporting or methods.
Advertisement – story continues below
Advertisement – story continues below
Advertisement – story continues below
Advertisement – story continues below
Advertisement – story continues below
Advertisement – story continues below
But, setting that aside, what is the truth, here? I’m left with a number of questions. If NIH/ NIAID claims it did not fund the Tunisian experiment, then how is it that PLoS, Wellcome Trust, and the NIH itself ALL misreported the funding of the precise same experiment, with the same point of contact (Satoskar), and why do the NIH and Wellcome Trust sites remain without an update? The authors of the PLoS article submitted their piece in February of this year, and it was finally published in July, presumably after peer review. See here for an intro into PLoS’ review process. How did this basic funding fact evade the authors and journal editors? Further, if there was a mistake, who made the mistake and, more importantly, where did the money actually come from?
- who amended the PLoS article on 10/26;
- why;
- why Wellcome Trust still lists Satoskar as being the grant recipient for the same study at issue;
- if not for dog experimentation, what was the Wellcome Trust grant trying to accomplish?
- who at NIAID claims any of this was misreported in the first place;
- why the NIH grant reporter lists Satoskar as the recipient for the exact grant mentioned in the PLoS article (original), and why the grant and article contain the exact same subject matter;
- what Prof. Satoskar has to say about all of this;
- how the grant was so radically mislabeled on the NIH grant reporter site (assuming it was);
- how this error escaped PLoS’ peer review process;
- how and why was the funding description misreported (assuming it was) in three independent, highly credible, publicly available data repositories?
- Who are responsible for these mistakes?
We don’t expect to hear back from Mr. Funke anytime soon.
Source material can be found at this site.
