Business
Dr. Fauci accused of wasting millions in taxpayer dollars on ‘transgender animal experiments’
From LifeSiteNews
The days of animal testing may be numbered, having been found to be less reliable than other methods of research.
Experts speaking at a Republican-led congressional hearing revealed the shocking news that at least $10 million had been wasted by government health agencies on “transgender animal testing” and that the number was likely closer to a quarter billion dollars or more.
Justin Goodman, senior vice president of the White Coat Waste Project, shed light on the exorbitant waste of American tax dollars on barbaric animal research that has prioritized woke societal trends over scientific outcomes.
“In our analysis, Dr. (Anthony) Fauci funded about 95% of the transgender animal experiments,” Goodman said.
Goodman told members of the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, chaired by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, that in his estimation $241 million has been spent on transgender animal testing, adding, “I would say that is the floor, not the ceiling because the information on federal databases is pretty incomplete.”
He described the nature of the transgender experimentation inflicted on the animals:
In a lot of these cases, there are involved mice, rats, monkeys who are being surgically mutilated and subjected to hormone therapies to mimic female to male, or male to female gender transitions … gender-affirming hormone therapies, and then looking at the biological, psychological, and physiological effects of the gender transitions, looking at the effects of taking vaccines after you’ve transitioned these animals from male to female or female to male, looking at the size of their genitals changing after you’ve put them on estrogen or testosterone therapies to transition them.
Rep. Mace explained – and Goodman confirmed – that “DEI grants” included “$1.1 million spent to find out if female rats receiving testosterone therapies to mimic transgender men were more likely to overdose on a party drug commonly used in the LGBTQ community to induce drug-fueled ‘chemsex.’”
Goodman said that the reason the public doesn’t know about these sadistic experiments is that “You essentially need a degree in information technology to navigate the federal spending databases to find any of this stuff.”
“It’s by design,” he added.
Fauci’s barbaric animal testing could lead to a new, deadly pandemic
Goodman went on to point his finger squarely at Dr. Fauci and his U.S.-funded virus research at China’s Wuhan lab and warned about dire future public health risks of continuing with outrageous animal studies.
“We’re flirting with disaster if we continue to fund dangerous virus research,” Goodman said, “like in Colorado where Fauci greenlit this bat lab.”
“They’re trying to import hundreds of bats from Asia (and) build a new lab in Colorado to do virus experiments with Ebola, Nipah, Lassa – deadly viruses for which there is no cure,” he explained.
“It’s just a matter of time before we have another pandemic on our hands if we let mad scientists run amok with our money,” Goodman warned.
Most of the 27 NIH institutes and centers conduct or support animal testing – as does the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Department of Defense, and countless agencies.
Mace’s committee reported that the U.S. government spends in excess of $20 billion every year conducting experiments on animals.
The White Coat Waste Project found in 2021 that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a component of NIH at the time run by Fauci, spent $1.68 million force-feeding toxic drugs to beagle puppies between six and eight months old before dissecting and killing them.
In 2022, due to public criticism lobbied against Fauci’s HIH by me and other members of Congress, another $1.8 million experiment to abuse beagle puppies in various drug tests was cancelled.
The days of animal testing may be numbered, having been found to be less reliable than other methods of research.
“Scientific progress has given us better tools for toxicology and biomedical research, making animal testing increasingly outdated,” said Dr. Paul Locke, a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who also testified at the hearing.
“Embracing these alternatives is a win-win,” Locke said. “It reduces animal use while providing data that better reflects human health.”
From the Fraser Institute
Mark Carney, who wants to be your next prime minister, recently released his plan for Canada’s climate policies through 2035. It’s a sprawling plan (climate plans always are), encompassing industrial and manufacturing emissions, vehicle emissions, building emissions, appliance emissions, cross-border emissions, more “green” energy, more “heat pumps” replacing HVAC, more electric vehicle (EV) subsidies, more subsidies to consumers, more subsidies to companies, and more charging stations for the EV revolution that does not seem to be happening. And while the plan seeks to eliminate the “consumer carbon tax” on “fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, diesel, home heating oil, etc.” it’s basically Trudeau’s climate plans on steroids.
Consider this. Instead of paying the “consumer carbon tax” directly, under the Carney plan Canadians will pay more—but less visibly. The plan would “tighten” (i.e. raise) the carbon tax on “large industrial emitters” (you know, the people who make the stuff you buy) who will undoubtedly pass some or all of that cost to consumers. Second, the plan wants to force those same large emitters to somehow fund subsidy programs for consumer purchases to offset the losses to Canadians currently profiting from consumer carbon tax rebates. No doubt the costs of those subsidy programs will also be folded into the costs of the products that flow from Canada’s “large industrial emitters,” but the cause of rising prices will be less visible to the general public. And the plan wants more consumer home energy audits and retrofit programs, some of the most notoriously wasteful climate policies ever developed.
But the ironic icing on this plan’s climate cake is the desire to implement tariffs (excuse me, a “carbon border adjustment mechanism”) on U.S. products in association with “key stakeholders and international partners to ensure fairness for Canadian industries.” Yes, you read that right, the plan seeks to kick off a carbon-emission tariff war with the United States, not only for Canada’s trade, but to bring in European allies to pile on. And this, all while posturing in high dudgeon over Donald Trump’s plans to impose tariffs on Canadian products based on perceived injustices in the U.S./Canada trade relationship.
To recap, while grudgingly admitting that the “consumer carbon tax” is wildly unpopular, poorly designed and easily dispensable in Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts, the Carney plan intends to double down on all of the economically damaging climate policies of the last 10 years.
But that doubling down will be more out of sight and out of mind to Canadians. Instead of directly seeing how they pay for Canada’s climate crusade, Canadians will see prices rise for goods and services as government stamps climate mandates on Canada’s largest manufacturers and producers, and those costs trickle down onto consumer pocketbooks.
In this regard, the plan is truly old school—historically, governments and bureaucrats preferred to hide their taxes inside of obscure regulations and programs invisible to the public. Canadians will also see prices rise as tariffs imposed on imported American goods (and potentially services) force American businesses to raise prices on goods that Canadians purchase.
The Carney climate plan is a return to the hidden European-style technocratic/bureaucratic/administrative mindset that has led Canada’s economy into record underperformance. Hopefully, whether Carney becomes our next prime minister or not, this plan becomes another dead letter pack of political promises.
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill, Jake Fuss and Spencer Gudewill
As governments across Canada unveil their 2025 budgets, outlining their tax and spending plans for the upcoming fiscal year, they have an opportunity to reverse the trend of deficits and increasing debt that has reigned in recent years.
Indeed, budget deficits, which fuel debt accumulation, have become a serious fiscal challenge for the federal and many provincial governments, primarily due to high levels of government spending. Since 2007/08—the final fiscal year before the financial crisis—combined federal and provincial net debt (inflation-adjusted) has nearly doubled from $1.2 trillion to a projected $2.3 trillion in 2024/25. And you can’t blame COVID, as combined federal and provincial net debt (inflation-adjusted) increased by nearly $600 billion between 2007/08 and 2019/20.
Federal and provincial net debt (inflation-adjusted) per person has increased in every province since 2007/08. As shown in the below chart, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest combined (federal and provincial) debt per person ($68,516) in 2024/25 followed by Quebec ($60,565) and Ontario ($60,456). In contrast, Alberta has the lowest combined debt per person ($41,236) in the country. Combined federal and provincial net debt represents the total provincial net debt, and the federal portion allocated to each of the provinces based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their population as a share of Canada’s total population.
The combined federal and total provincial debt-to-GDP ratio, an important fiscal indicator that compares debt with the size of the overall economy, is projected to reach 75.2 per cent in 2024/25. By comparison, the ratio was 53.2 per cent in 2007/08. A rising debt-to-GDP ratio indicates government debt has grown at an unsustainable rate (in other words, debt levels are growing faster than the economy). Among the provinces, the combined federal-provincial debt-to-GDP ratio is highest in Nova Scotia (92.0 per cent) and lowest in Alberta (42.2 per cent). Again, the federal debt portion is allocated to provinces based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their population as a share of Canada’s total population.
Interest payments are a major consequence of debt accumulation. Governments must make interest payments on their debt similar to households that must pay interest on mortgages, vehicles or credit card spending. When taxpayer money goes towards interest payments, there’s less money available for tax cuts or government programs such as health care and education.
Interest on government debt (federal and provincial) costs each Canadian at least $1,930 in 2024/25. The amount, however, varies by province. Combined interest costs per person are highest in Newfoundland and Labrador ($3,453) and lowest in Alberta ($1,930). Similar to net debt, combined federal and provincial interest costs are represented by the total of the provincial and federal portion with the federal portion allocated to each of provinces based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their population as a share of Canada’s total population.
Debt accumulation comes with consequences for everyday Canadians as more and more taxpayer money flows towards interest payments rather than tax relief or programs and services. This budget season, federal and provincial governments should develop long-term plans to meaningfully address the growing debt problem in Canada.
Why is Trump threatening Canada? The situation is far worse than you think!
‘They lied to us’: Wife of 53-year-old who died hours after receiving Remdesivir speaks out
Head of JFK assassination files task force: ‘I believe there were two shooters’
Media failing to cover ‘powerful testimony’ of people injured by COVID vaccines
-
Energy2 days agoRussia & U.S. mull joint Arctic energy projects
-
National2 days agoExplosive New RCMP Transcript Renews Spotlight on Trudeau, Butts, Telford—Powers Behind Mark Carney’s Leadership Bid
-
National2 days agoDemocracy Watch Applies for Private Prosecution of Trudeau in SNC Scandal
-
armed forces2 days agoCanada is not a sovereign nation
-
Business2 days agoLame duck prime minister shouldn’t announce taxpayer train boondoggle
-
Alberta1 day agoU.S. tariffs or not, Canada needs to build new oil and gas pipeline space fast
-
Energy1 day agoUnlocking Canada’s energy potential
-
Alberta1 day agoPremier Smith and Health Mininster LaGrange react to AHS allegations