Dr. Fauci Accused of Funding Horrific Experiments On Beagles & Other Animals

In Brief

  • The Facts:
    • The NIAID, under Fauci, used 44 beagle puppies in a North Africa laboratory to test an experimental drug.

    • Their heads were placed in cages while sand flies were allowed to eat them alive.

    • Some of the dogs had their vocal cords removed so scientists could work without incessant barking.

    • The dogs spent 9 days in a Tunisia desert during these trials.

  • Reflect On:
    • If the majority of animal-testing results in failure, and in many cases testing involves products that can be made with non-toxic substances, why do we keep justifying torture?

    • What does this say about our relationship to animals and nature?

    • Is our domineering societal worldview the cause for such justifications?

Pause - set your Pulse...

Take a breath. Release the tension in your body. Place attention on your physical heart. Breathe slowly into the area for 60 seconds, focusing on feeling a sense of ease. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

News of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), the division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci), funding an experiment in Tunisia where beagles heads were placed in mesh cages allowing starved sand flies to eat them alive has made its way into the mainstream.

The tests were done outdoors and repeated multiple times with the beagles placed in cages in the desert overnight for nine consecutive nights. The experiments were done in an area of Tunisia where sand flies were abundant.

A bipartisan letter is now demanding answers from the NIAID and Biden’s chief medical adviser.

Awareness was brought to this issue by the White Coat Waste Project, the same non-profit organization that first pointed out that U.S. taxpayers were being used to fund the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

These experiments were done to test an experimental drug on the animals. Many of the 44 beagle puppies used also had their vocal cords removed, allegedly, so scientists could work without them barking and crying.

House members, most of whom are Republicans, want Fauci to explain himself in response to allegations brought on by the White Coat Waste Project that involve drugging puppies. According to the White Coat Waste Project, the Food and Drug Administration does not require drugs to be tested on dogs, so the group is asking why the need for such testing.

The Hill

Animal testing like this is not a new phenomenon. Countless unethical and unnecessary tests on animals, funded by the NIH and NIAID, have been conducted for decades. It’s estimated that the number of animals experimented on each year in the United States range from the tens of millions to over 100 million – most of them paid for with taxpayer money. The White Coat Waste Project, says that more than 1,100 dogs are experimented on in federal labs annually. 

The sad part is, the experiments never amount to anything. The NIH themselves explain,

“Approximately 30 percent of promising medications have failed in human clinical trials because they are found to be toxic despite promising preclinical studies in animal models. About 60 percent of candidate drugs fail due to lack of efficacy.”

Furthermore, in many cases other methods can be used to test these drugs so that living sentient beings aren’t tortured. Why do we continue to test on animals for things that are unhealthy and harmful? Why do we use them for cosmetic testing when there are easier, cheaper, and alternative products that are non-toxic? Why do we continue to use them when animal studies don’t even equate to drug efficacy in humans?

“Most of that failure is due to the fundamental differences between human physiology and the physiologies of mice, or rabbits, or dogs. But even between animals with much closer physiologies, the predictive power of animal tests is unimpressive. Between mice and rats, there’s only a sixty percent chance you’ll get the same result. And when you repeat experiments on the same species, only 4 out of 5 times is the result the same — and closer to 2 out of 3 times with toxic substances.”

Leighton Woodhouse. Journalist, documentary filmmaker.

Here are some other NIH experiments involving the poor treatment of animals:

  • Beagles were infected with pneumonia in order to induce septic shock and “experimental massive acute hemorrhage,” then given blood transfusions. “After 96 hours, animals still alive were considered survivors and were euthanized.” 
  • Beagles were infected with anthrax in order to test a vaccine that was already FDA approved.
  • “Mongrel dogs” were subjected to induced heart attacks, scanned by MRI, then killed and dissected.
  • Pigs, rabbits, guinea pigs, and monkeys were subjected to agonizing pain without anesthesia. These included infecting pigs with a virus that causes “acute respiratory stress, hemorrhagic manifestations, paralysis” and other symptoms; injecting rabbits with bacteria that create severe skin infections and ear lesions and usually death within twelve hours; infecting guinea pigs with a virus that causes “multi-organ failure” and death, as well as “hind limb paralysis or prolapsed rectum”; and infecting monkeys with Ebola and tuberculosis, the latter of which produces symptoms including “rapid breathing, weight loss,” and “inability to drink.”
  • Monkeys had parts of their brains destroyed with acid in order to increase their capacity for terror, and were then tormented with simulated spiders, snakes and other things they instinctively fear. These experiments have been ongoing for more than four decades.

Woodhouse points out that the NIH spends more than $40 billion a year on medical experiments. They’re the principal source of funding for basic scientific research in America. The institute’s estimate that 47 percent of their grants involve animal testing. Woodhouse’s article also points out potential alternatives to animal testing.

Furthermore, many of these drugs contribute to being the third leading cause of death in America and Europe after heart disease and cancer.

Subjecting any kind of being, all of whom have the capability to feel (just as much or more than humans), to torture, in my opinion, has no justification – especially when the products being developed are cosmetics. Luckily, cruelty-free cosmetics are getting more popular every single year.

If our government is capable of funding such atrocities, should we really be surprised that our world is in the state it’s in? What is our relationship to animals and nature when we consider our actions? Is it no wonder that our environment is treated so poorly when this is the mindset we take towards nature? You would think that the majority of people would oppose such testing and I believe they do. Do we really live in a democracy? Are the 99 percent having their voices heard or are decisions constantly made and implemented by the 1 percent?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 8 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Related Posts


Join our newsletter to keep your finger on The Pulse!

You have Successfully Subscribed!