Trump shuts Dr Anthony Fauci labs accused of brutally torturing and murdering thousands of dogs
The National Institute of Health (NIH) has closed its last beagle laboratory that allegedly performed inhumane and sometimes lethal experiments on dogs for years.
In recent years, the agency has been chastised by animal welfare groups such as White Coat Waste (WCW), which claims the lab has pumped pneumonia-causing bacteria into more than 2,000 beagles' lungs and forced them into septic shock.
'Then they're allowed to suffer for up to 96 hours, and the ones who don't die during that period are killed at the end of the project,' Justin Goodman, WCW senior vice president of advocacy and public policy, told DailyMail.com
During an on-air Fox News appearance Sunday, NIH director Jay Bhattacharya announced that the agency 'got rid of all the beagle experiments on the NIH campus.'
'I got flowers from PETA — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Normally, I think NIH directors tend to get physical threats, but they sent me flowers,' he said.
The lab closure is part of a new NIH initiative to reduce reliance on animal experiments in biomedical research, and instead prioritize 'human-based research technologies.'
In response to the announcement, Goodman said: 'We are so proud and thrilled that the Trump administration has made cutting this laboratory and getting the NIH out of the dog testing business a top priority.'
The NIH's beagle experiments have been mired in controversy since 2021, when scathing WCW reports launched accusations of animal cruelty and wasteful spending at NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
The resulting political firestorm (dubbed #BeagleGate) centered around claims that Dr Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID and chief medical advisor to the president at the time, allocated more than $1 million toward cruel beagle experiments.
This allegedly included $424,000 for experiments in which the dogs were 'bitten to death' by flies; part of a $375,800 grant sent to a lab in Tunisia for more fly-bite experiments; and over $1 million to inject beagles with an experimental drug, cut out their vocal cords and kill them.
The reports prompted 24 House members, led by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina), to send a bipartisan letter to Fauci and the NIAID asking for more information about the agency's funding of experiments using the dogs.
In response to the letter, the NIAID said its standards on animal testing are high, noting that they are peer reviewed and ensured by veterinarians.
'All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies to ensure the smallest possible number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare,' The NIAID told Changing America.
'Institutions receiving funds, including those in other countries, must conduct research that involves animals in accordance with the Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.'
What's more, the institute said the NIH did not actually fund the fly-bite study in Tunisia, claiming that the study (and shocking images it contained) falsely attributed financial support to NIAID.
After this came to light, the journal that published the study issued a correction, saying: 'The US National Institutes of Health and the Wellcome Trust did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error.'
NIAID said it did not actually fund the fly-bite research in Tunisia, claiming that the study (and shocking images it contained, such as this one) falsely attributed financial support to NIAID
But the NIAID did admit to funding a separate study in Tunisia that used beagles to test a new vaccine for leishmaniasis.
'In the NIAID-supported study, twelve dogs were immunized with the experimental vaccine at the Pasteur Institute of Tunis, and then let out in an enclosed open space during the day, during high sandfly season in an area of Tunisia considered to be hyper-endemic for canine leishmaniasis,' the institute stated.
'The goal of the research was to determine if the experimental vaccine prevented the dogs from becoming infected in a natural setting.'
As for Fauci's role in sanctioning NIAID's beagle studies, the institute told FactCheck.org that the decision of whether to fund a research grant application is made through a multi-step peer-review process.
'Final funding decisions are made on a group of a few thousand grant applications at a time based on the advice of the Advisory Council and NIAID staff and concurrence by Dr. Fauci.
'Except in very limited circumstances, Dr. Fauci does not approve funding for grant applications on an individual basis. These limited circumstances did not apply to the research recently highlighted by the White Coat Waste Project.'
Fauci also addressed #BeagleGate in his memoir, published last year, calling the scandal 'lies' and 'lunacy' from the 'far-right.'
The closure of this NIH beagle lab marks a major milestone in the eyes of WCW, but Goodman said there is still work to be done.
'This was the last in-house dog lab at the NIH, and it's actually — to our knowledge — the last in house dog lab across the entire federal government,' he said.
'However, there are hundreds of other dog labs being funded by the US government, including the NIH outside of Washington, DC.
'So colleges and universities, private laboratories, even laboratories in China, are currently receiving taxpayer dollars from the NIH and DoD for dog testing.
'We want to take this great homegrown victory inside the NIH and now export it across the entire country.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Non-US countries are 'free-riding' Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Be aware of the hidden dangers of your guilty pleasures that could cause cancer, including being busy
A sip of wine, a craving for pizza, having a full calendar may all seem like harmless aspects of life but a scientist has revealed such seemingly innocent actions could be putting you on the brink of developing cancer. University of California's Dr Raphael Cuomo claims chronic stress, fast food, alcohol, and drugs are an almost surefire way to set yourself up for a diagnosis with the disease later in life. In Dr Cuomo's new book Crave: The Hidden Biology Of Addiction And Cancer, he noted that the body's repetitive desire to indulge in junk food and addictive behaviors drove the body to the deadly condition: 'Crave reveals how modern habits like vaping, binge-eating, and daily cannabis use hijack our biology.' The expert added: 'These behaviors quietly damage the body's ability to repair itself. Over time, they open the door to cancer. It is not about genetics or bad luck. It is about the choices we make every day.' Over 600,000 Americans and more than 150,000 Brits die of various cancers every year. After studying 'millions of patient records' from across the University of California hospitals and spending months reviewing studies on cancer biology, Dr Cuomo revealed what he says are the top habits most likely to cause the destructive illness. Fast food Dr Cuomo called eating fast food 'slow poison', and noted that its effects could not be seen immediately but might cause long-term damage. Earlier this year, researchers tested more than 300 foods sold at restaurant chains and in grocery stores across America for two microscopic toxins that have been linked to cancer, infertility, and autism. They found that of all fast-food restaurants, the salad chain Sweetgreen and coffeehouse Starbucks scored poorest. Sweetgreen's Chicken Pesto Parm Salad and Starbucks' Matcha Latte was found to contain the highest amount of phthalates, a group of chemicals used to make plastics more flexible and transparent. Studies showed that phthalates, commonly used in food packaging material, imitate the body's hormones and interfere with the production of and response to natural hormones like estrogen and testosterone. Some phthalates were linked to certain cancers, particularly breast cancer and lymphoma. However, Dr Cuomo pointed towards fiber consumption as a critical part of reversing damage as it would help improve gut bacteria, reduce inflammation, and keep cells healthy. Smoking and drinking Smoking causes about 30 per cent of overall cancer deaths in the U.S. and is a leading cause of lung, brain, neck, and bladder cancer. Alcohol consumption's been linked to an increased risk of several types of cancer, including breast, colon, liver, and esophageal cancer. About 20,000 people die of booze-related cancers, annually. Researchers in Germany found that a combination of drinking and smoking significantly raised the risk of colon cancer in young Americans. Researchers analyzed two dozen studies, comparing regular drinkers and smokers with people who abstained from both. Just 100 cigarettes in a person's lifetime - the equivalent of one per week for two years - was linked to a 59 per cent higher risk of colon cancer compared to people who never smoked. They also found drinking alcohol every day raised the risk of developing early onset colon cancer by 39 per cent, even if it's just one or two drinks per day. Alcohol and smoking have both been linked to cancer in the past, as they release chemicals that destroy DNA and cause cells to mutate. Also, each daily can of beer or glass of wine further increased the chance by an additional two per cent. In his book, Dr Cuomo noted that deep sleep is the 'most underestimated tool' to improve damage caused by addictions, such as smoking and drinking. He explained that during consistent deep sleep, the body performs critical tasks such as repairing tissues, regulating hormones, consolidating memory, and clearing metabolic waste. Stress A 2024 study presented at the United European Gastroenterology congress by a group of Chinese researchers noted that a combination of chronic stress and anxiety has been linked to colorectal cancer in young people. They explained when a body is under frequent stress, a number of healthy bacteria that live in the gut start dying off, making it easier for cancer to move in. When the bacteria die off, tumors grow more quickly, leading to more aggressive, rapidly growing colorectal cancers. Research from Trinity College in Ireland suggested these bacteria support the body's immune system, can protect against virus and bacteria, and prevent damage in gut cells. Apart from this, chronic stress can lead to increased levels of cortisol and other stress hormones in the body that can promote cancer growth and its spread to various parts of the body. A constant state of stress can also weaken the immune system's ability to effectively fight off cancer cells. However, Dr Cuomo believes that there are ways to break free from all addictions and prevent cancer development in the body. He said: 'The real threat is not a single cocktail or slice of cake. It is the craving that drives you back again and again. 'That craving is what wears down your body's defenses. I tell people to test their control. Start with one week of abstention. Not forever. Just seven days. That short reset reveals a lot. 'You learn what your body depends on. During that time, focus on physical recovery. Sleep deeply. Move your body. Eat real food. 'Spend time with people you trust. Addiction thrives in isolation. Recovery begins with reconnection.' Additionally, Dr Cuomo suggested replacing the habit by engaging in some form of movement, such as taking regular walks.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Researchers pinpoint key sexual change that puts America on course for 2050 catastrophe
Women are having their first child older than ever, according to new data that suggests the already-shrinking US fertility rate could see further declines. A new CDC report analyzing births from 2016 through 2023 found that the average age of first-time moms rose by nearly a year - from 26.6 years old in 2016 to 27.5 years old in 2023. Similar increases were also observed among women having their second and third children, with the average age at birth rising by one year for second births and just short of a year for third and higher-order births. Maternal age has been rising for decades, as the fertility rate in the US has been failing - having plunged to another new low in 2023, with fewer women than at any point in history having children. The rate was 54.5 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15 to 44 years old) last year, a three percent fall compared to 56 in 2022. The number of babies born in the US also declined year-over-year, with just under 3.6 million live births. Dr Jamie Grifo, the program director at New York University Langone Fertility Center, told 'We're below zero population growth in the US, and have been for years. 'I think there will be a social factor. There will be a lot of issues that result from the lack of reproduction.' The number of first births at age 30 and older also grew by nearly 13 percent for mothers ages 30 to 34 (from 22.3 percent to about 25 percent) and 25 percent for mothers age 35 and older (from 10 percent to 12.5 percent) from 2016 to 2023 The most recent CDC data showed that in 2023, the total fertility rate fell to 1.62 births per woman, the lowest since the government began tracking the metric in the 1930s. Experts say the US is headed for a so-called 'underpopulation crisis' by 2050, when too few people are born to support its current economic system. A previous National Vital Statistics Report found that from 1970 to 2000, the average age of mothers in the US rose by 2.6 years, with the most significant increase occurring among first-time mothers - from 21.4 in 1970 to 25 in 2000. The number of first births at age 30 and older also grew by nearly 13 percent for mothers ages 30 to 34 (from 22.3 percent to about 25 percent) and 25 percent for mothers age 35 and older (from 10 percent to 12.5 percent) from 2016 to 2023. This could be due to the rise in availability of birth control, as well as a steadily growing number of women in the workforce who are prioritizing career over starting a family. The increase in age at the start of motherhood suggests that the fertility rate is set to fall further. The CDC data shows women on average in 2023 are having 25 percent fewer children than their mothers and 50 percent fewer than their grandmothers. Births among women in their twenties have dropped by nearly one-third. 'Monitoring trends in maternal age at birth is important because maternal age can impact the total number of births and population growth and is associated with birth outcomes for both mothers and infants,' the CDC researchers said. 'For example, higher maternal age is linked to smaller family size on average and may carry different health risks and benefits compared with younger maternal age.' Older maternal age, particularly past 35, increases some risks of pregnancy complications, including gestational diabetes and miscarriage, as well as genetic abnormalities in the baby, like Down syndrome. 'This long-term shift reflects changes in societal, educational, and economic factors influencing when women begin childbearing,' the researchers said. The foundation for higher birth ages was laid in 1960 with the debut of the birth control pill, giving women control for the first time of their childbearing years. In the years since, it's become more common for people to have children later in life for various reasons — from financial concerns and child care challenges to delaying marriage or partnership and focusing on education, careers, or personal time in early adulthood. Choosing not to have children has also become more socially accepted, with some data indicating that more people are making that choice. Some studies suggest that kids born to older parents — who tend to be college-educated and relatively affluent — often grow up to be healthier, better educated, and better behaved than peers with younger parents. And women who have children later in life report larger happiness boosts around and after their birth, compared to younger mothers. In a 2018 New York Times survey, about 25 percent of respondents said they had fewer children — or expected to — than they'd initially hoped for, often because of financial limitations or feeling they'd run out of time to reach their ideal family size.
