But we provided funding to the lab that conducted the experiment, right? Maybe that's not direct funding of the experiment itself but IMO we wouldn't be funding that lab at all. I have a thing against animal testing.
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/a...2-bc6eee0f2e21
publisher's note issued a correction that they didnt receive funding from USNIH
there were other experiments done under NIH that led to beagles being euthanized, but not the story of them having their faces in cages, etc
But we provided funding to the lab that conducted the experiment, right? Maybe that's not direct funding of the experiment itself but IMO we wouldn't be funding that lab at all. I have a thing against animal testing.
i dont know about that either
and i get that you have a thing against animal testing, generally. but that alone is not going to be grounds to terminate everyone in the NIH
That note sounds more like the NIH called up and said we are already in enough with the GOF research in Wuhan this is the last thing we need so issue a correction or no more funding for anything moving forward.
The funding for the study was very specific, I don't see how that was a mistake initially.
Funding: EZ and AS received funding from the US National Ins utes of Health -grant number R21AI130485, and from the Wellcome Trust-grant number 209336/Z/17/7. The funders had no role in study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
tinfoil supply good?
That funding quote was pulled from your link
And links from NIH Reporter both show administering ins ute was NIAID for that study.
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/TF0v...520527#details
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/QZvi...etails/9753154
yes, which was then corrected
two other separate studies done on the same subject, which the NIAID has confirmed it funded. but not the ones with the pictures that went viral
https://www.politifact.com/article/2...ci-and-beagle/
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/an...ut-beaglegate/
I understand it was corrected by the publisher. But that same grant # pulls up funding from NIAID on NIH reporter.
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/TF0v...520527#details
1R21AI130485-01A1
I don't know who inputs information on that site and whether it's NIH or the researchers. I'm not trying to drag Fauci for the experiments either I just think it reeks of them trying to save some face in light of other issues they are dealing with right now.
much better than 2%. And not just with Cubans. Look at the Mexican counties in deep south Texas that Trump outright flipped or made compe ive that had been historically >~80% Democrat.
It will be the Hispanics that will ultimately be responsible for keeping Texas red long term. El Orgullo!!!
just like last year in Michigan, PA and Georgia.
the system works
Fox News still has Murphy up 0.7%... hater ?
Never are. This rarely pans out to be what the propaganda mills peddle it to be.
You mean like Kenedy or LaSalle? Both flipped from voting for Clinton in 16 to Trump in 20.
Participation was up, to be sure, by a good 4%.
Is that the kind of county you mean?
Unfortunately for your theory here... those two counties only had about 2400 votes between them.
Land doesn't vote.
AP called NJ race for Murphy.
Biden Blames Trump Voters for Big Loss in Virginia
Wow
lol, DJT lost by 10% in VA in 2020.
Did he not say he was the unify ?
Nothing to do with the idiot saying parents no day in teaching their kids
Trump lost Virginia by 10 percent they say
Google Translate doesn't have a jibberish to English option...
Dang, he got waxed. Can't wait to get him back on the ballot
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)