Taxpayer,
White Coat Waste Project’s (WCW) #BeagleGate investigation and campaign has united taxpayers across the nation.
However, that did not happen without a fight. Ever since we first exposed Dr. Anthony Fauci’s cruel and wasteful beagle and monkey labs, the corporate media has been working overtime to shield Fauci and smear our campaign as "misinformation."
Nevertheless, the most pro-Fauci fact-checkers now confirm WCW’s allegations. Even the Washington Post now admits it: Fauci DID fund the beagle experiments!
We always show our receipts, and we stand by our work.
Friend, I’ve enclosed excerpts from a new article by Taki’s Magazine that dives into the #BeagleGate controversy, and how the corporate media is FINALLY admitting the truth. It’s very blunt – but I think you’ll find it fascinating, regardless of where you land on the political spectrum.
Sincerely,
|
|
Anthony Bellotti
President & Founder
White Coat Waste Project
|
P.S. WCW first exposed Dr. Fauci’s animal testing labs and we’re running the official campaign to defund them. But I must reiterate we are strictly NON-PARTISAN.
Since 2016, we have held all government animal testing bosses accountable under Trump and Biden. It does not matter to us how famous, well-liked, or powerful the culprit… WCW has never, and will never, look the other way.
As a single-issue organization, we do not take any stand on Dr. Fauci’s other policies — masks, vaccine mandates, the overall COVID response, or frankly anything else. We’re only working to end Fauci’s wasteful spending on these heinous experiments.
So with that, I hope you will continue reading the article below. See how you were right all along! –AB
THE UNTOLD STORY
Yes, Fauci Did Torture Beagles
By DAVID COLE
Last summer, White Coat Waste (WCW) launched a campaign to expose various beagle-torturing “science” experiments funded all or in part by Fauci’s NIAID.
WCW began its campaign in July. Before long, #beaglegate was trending on Twitter, and as congresspeople from both parties were demanding answers regarding the use of taxpayer money to kill Snoopys, the left seemed unable to counter the charge.
Until November.
Wait, why’d it take from July till November for the left to counter the WCW narrative?
Well, let’s “unpack” the supermyth.
On Nov. 19, The Washington Post ran a 3,650-word “debunking” of the beagle story. The two authors, Pulitzer-winning Beth Reinhard and millennial newcomer Yasmeen Abutaleb, began by painting Fauci as the victim of “hate” and “death threats” as the result of a “misleading” campaign.
Regarding the Fauci/NIAID beagle-torturing claims, Reinhard and Abutaleb (and the people they interviewed for the piece) dismissed them as “false,” “misinformation,” “bogus,” “conspiracy theories,” “ridiculous accusations and outright lies,” “dangerous to the entire field of science,” and “erroneous claims amplified by a right-wing echo chamber.” “Falsified misinformation” from “inflammatory right-wing media outlets and influencers” created “outrage that was supercharged” by “Republican operatives.”
Yikes! Based on that verbiage, you’d think the Fauci/beagle story was, like… fake!
But then you read the fine print in those 3,650 words and you realize that of the six beagle-torture studies WCW cited, five actually were funded by Fauci’s NIAID (including one in which beagles had their vocal cords cut “to protect the researchers from hearing loss” from the agonized wailing of the tortured dogs), and the sixth study claimed to have received NIAID funding when it was published in July, with the authors (and the peer-reviewed journal that carried the study) not “correcting” the claim of NIAID funding until Oct. 26.
See why there was that time gap? Between July and Oct. 26, the left had no snort snort one-liner with which to dismiss the Fauci/beagle claims. Then, on Oct. 26, the authors of one of the six studies said, “Aw snap, turns out we didn’t get NIAID funding after all! D’oh!”
6 Labs, 1 Scandal: Click the image above to read how
WCW exposed each investigation in our comprehensive timeline.
Armed with that, the smugs pounced (even though WaPo admitted that the funding correction only occurred because of publicity from the WCW campaign).
So a rational person would conclude that WCW accurately reported on five studies and “trusted the scientists” on the sixth regarding their claims of funding, and because of WCW’s work, an erroneous claim of NIAID funding was corrected.
It’s hard to see what WCW did wrong. Especially considering all the anti-WCW invective used in the piece.
So I emailed Reinhard and Abutaleb. “Of the six beagle-torture experiments, we’re talking about five that were NIAID-funded, and one that wasn’t. Correct?”
Reinhard replied, “Thanks for your sending your inquiry to [email protected].”
That was the extent of her reply.
That woman won a Pulitzer.
Abutaleb didn’t respond at first. But knowing that millennials don’t see anything as legit unless social media validates it, I knew that if I told her that WaPo super-reporter Dave Weigel follows me on Twitter, she’d reply. I hated being right (I don’t like it when my worst prejudices are confirmed), but I was. Upon learning that I had a Weigel “follow,” she affirmed that yes, five of the studies were indeed NIAID-funded, and the one that now rebukes that claim didn’t correct the record until late October.
Let that sink in. The WaPo called WCW’s claims “false,” “misinformation,” “bogus,” “conspiracy theories,” “ridiculous,” “lies,” “dangerous,” “erroneous,” and “falsified.” But the reporters agree that from July through October, WCW didn’t actually get anything wrong. Five studies were funded by NIAID, and the sixth claimed funding until the Oct. 26 “correction.”
When the chronically corrupt PolitiFact also came to Fauci’s defense, I emailed the PolitiFact author, Bill McCarthy. Being a liar and hack, McCarthy refused to defend his piece (as in, he actually responded to say that he wasn’t gonna defend his piece).
So I emailed my buddy Al Tompkins, top dog at the Poynter Institute (which runs PolitiFact):
The story’s being presented as an example of “right-wing outrage machine disinformation.” And that’s the angle I’m just not seeing.
Al replied:
The main problem is the highly charged language they used saying Fauci poisoned puppies and so on.
Me again:
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that the main problem with what the conservative groups did revolves around hyperbole, not disinfo. Because of course those are two different things. Liberals who said “Trump is separating immigrant families at the border” weren’t actually claiming that Trump himself went to the border to separate families.
Then Al:
But I see hyperbole, in this case, as part of the disinformation. The stories repeatedly led us to believe that Fauci snipped the dog’s vocal cords, ordered them to be subjected to awful tests.
Al’s a good guy, and I hate to see good guys demean themselves by defending the indefensible. But nobody, and I mean nobody, claimed that Fauci personally snipped the vocal cords of dogs (a more honest piece by Factcheck.org admitted that Fauci personally approves of all NIAID-funded projects, meaning that the only way to say he’s not responsible for the torture is to use an impossible standard by which Steve Jobs would not be responsible for the iPhone because he didn’t personally build each one).
The bottom line is that the WaPo/PolitiFact outrage was not based on the accusation that WCW engaged in “hyperbole,” but rather that WCW lied. “Hyperbole” wouldn’t have made for a good IFL science snort snort line.
“Those ignorant wingnuts are hyperbolic about beagle torture.”
That wouldn’t have worked as a smug dismissal talking point because many leftists are themselves hyperbolic about animal cruelty; “hyperbole” on that issue is not seen as a sin.
The talking point that was needed in order to run interference for Fauci had to be “WCW lied with dangerous disinformation and conspiracy theories.”
The IFL science smugs got their talking point (“snort snort, Fauci never tortured beagles. Neanderthalic right-wingers fabricated the story in order to discredit science!”), while the reality is that five of the six experiments were indeed NIAID-funded, the sixth one claimed to be NIAID-funded until the bad publicity hit, and no one ever accused Fauci of holding the puppy knife himself.
This is about a journalistic cover-up of something genuinely foul that taxpayers funded, with reporters playing to their base by writing something off as a right-wing nonstory when in fact the real story is that the thing the “wingnuts” claimed happened actually happened...
A myth created in the service of “debunking” something that’s supposedly a myth but actually isn’t.
Behold the Fauci/beagle supermyth.
But don’t expect IFL science dorks — or “journalism ethics” professors — to debunk this one.
