Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 26, 2023 - The Culture War - Tim Pool

01:57:51

The Culture War #13 - Anthony Bellotti, EXPOSING Dr. Fauci Corruption And COVID Lab Leak

Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL Merch - http://teespring.com/timcast Make sure to subscribe for more travel, news, opinion, and documentary with Tim Pool everyday. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:55:39

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Censorship.
		Government corruption.
		Non-profit corruption.
		Animal experimentation.
		We got so much to talk about.
		Private corporation censorship.
		There's a whole lot going on and I'm being joined by Anthony Bellotti of White Coat Waste Project.
		There's just too much.
		There's too much.
		This is amazing.
		I think the first things to kind of rope you in and explain where we're going with this is what was Dr. Fauci doing over the past decade of several decades?
		What's going on with lab leak, COVID, etc.?
		Corruption at nonprofits and how the biggest NGOs advocating for the biggest causes are actually not really trying to solve these problems.
		What's happening with censorship?
		We're going to hit all of it.
		So thanks for hanging out, man.
		Do you want to introduce yourself?
		Thanks, Tim.
		It's wonderful to be here.
		I am Anthony Bilotti.
		I am the president and founder of White Coat Waste, a project to get the U.S.
		government out of the animal testing business.
		Or as I like to joke, we save puppies and kittens from wasteful government spending, 20 billion of it.
		Well, right, right there, there was that story about the dog torture that Anthony Fauci had.
		Explain this to me, because I don't want to get it wrong, but Anthony Fauci story, beagles, what was this?
		It is one of the, arguably one of the two biggest investigations we ever did and launched.
		The Fauci's Beagle, monkey tests, the Beagle tests.
		Monkey Island.
		Monkey Island.
		Tim Kast exposed that first.
		That was our FOIA investigation.
		And then, of course, We were the first organization to expose U.S.
		taxpayer money for animal testing at the Wuhan lab.
		So, you know, two of the biggest things we're known for are BeagleGate, Fauci's Beagle experiments, and yeah, the Wuhan lab leak money.
		I definitely want to start off with the lab leak, Wuhan and all that stuff, because I think everyone's just, they really want to know as much as possible about that.
		But just for some context, To understand, I think, the depravity of what a man like Fauci was doing.
		Wasn't part of it they would expose beagles to carnivorous flies that would eat them alive?
		Yes.
		Many times.
		Many labs.
		It wasn't just one lab.
		You know, I think we're up to eight so-called beaglegate labs, give or take.
		Even I'm in the business and I'm losing track of how many there have been.
		So, You're correct.
		Uh, back in, actually in 2016, the very first, one of the very first labs we ever exposed was a Fauci beagle experiment with sand flies.
		The talk about the carnivorous feeding dogs to, to flies, live, live dogs, beagle dogs, uh, no pain relief, no anesthesia in which they, they feed them alive to carnivorous flies.
		Um, That was one of the very first experiments we ever exposed.
		We weren't even thinking Dr. Fauci at the time.
		It was a lab they were doing the experiments on at NIAID, at the National Institutes of Health, Fauci's NIAID, in-house.
		He was doing it in-house.
		And so, and then, but the ones that went thermonuclear, that became the talk of the town, that didn't happen for another five years, right?
		So fast forward from 2016 to 2021, we exposed it yet again, another variation on a theme in which they were feeding dogs to flies, but this time outsourcing it to the University of Georgia, okay?
		So they were doing the same thing.
		They're, over the span of five years or longer, they just keep feeding dogs alive to carnivorous flies.
		On the taxpayer's dime, repeating the same thing over and over again.
		They're putting dogs in, like, a sealed space, container, cage, or whatever, with hordes of flies that just are eating them.
		Yes.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, they were doing, I mean, look, LI is the name of the disease.
		It's a tropical disease.
		And long story short, it's a terrible disease, but Americans don't get it.
		I mean, they just don't.
		But we're paying for it, for the so-called research.
		And they put the capsule on the dog, Full of what they call they deprived the flies of food, so they're hungry, right?
		They don't give them food for.
		For a number of days, so they're extra hungry.
		And then, yeah, they, they, there's no other way to seal the container of the flies onto the dog's body.
		Correct.
		And then the flies have nothing, nothing to eat, but just the flesh of the dog right there.
		Correct.
unidentified		Man.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		On their ears.
		Starting off so dark.
		So anyway, so, you know, it is dark.
		I mean, it, it's look, white coat waste is a project to get the government out of wasteful spending on animal testing.
		But this, the kind of experiments we're talking about, they range from the sadistic, Feeding dogs to flies, to the silly monkey smoking crack, or rats vaping on, you know, Juul devices.
		Monkey smoking crack?
		Sure.
		Or cocaine and, you know, nicotine addiction experiments.
		They run the gamut, right?
		From sadism to silliness.
		Stupid.
		Stupid, but also significant.
		That's the other S-word here.
		And that's Wuhan.
		Gain of function.
		I mean, it may not be silly or stupid, or excuse me, sadistic might not be the word you'd use, but significant. - This is exactly where it goes.
		We can talk about why people should pay attention to wasteful government spending.
		We can talk about why they should pay attention to wasteful government spending on animal experimentation.
		And I'm sure there's a lot of arguments for, you know, we want to cure diseases and things like that.
		I'm sure we'll get into the philosophical of that in a minute, but where it goes is bat coronavirus testing.
		And then what do you end up with?
		You end up with a lab leak.
		You end up with global lockdowns.
		The degree of irresponsibility, reckless, negligent behavior on an unprecedented scale, all because they want to do these ridiculous experiments.
		To gain marginal knowledge, but you know what I think a lot of it is, they want grant money.
		And so they're like, oh, we're gonna, uh, we're gonna give them monkey crack.
		And they're like, how much do you need?
		Five million dollars?
		Sure.
		Well, you said it and it's, it's, it's Ghostbusters, that famous scene in Ghostbusters where if you, anybody who's seen the movie know this is this great scene where, uh, Dan Aykroyd's character is talking with Bill Murray's character, and I think they just lost their public funding.
		Presumably a government grant.
		I don't recall exactly, but they lost their public funding.
		That was the point.
		Tim, you don't know what it's like to work in the private sector.
		They demand results.
		You don't know.
		I mean, there's a lot of pressure.
		Like you actually have to come up with cures and produce a result.
		We weren't used to that in the government.
		It just went on and on for years.
		That's what they say, right?
		Exactly.
		But the main point is that these grants, Fauci's Beagle experiments, equal health grants for the Wuhan lab, these things go on for years and years.
		I read a long time ago that we spent millions of dollars to try and figure out if fish feel pain.
		We concluded that they do.
unidentified		I was always like, dude.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And this is not a new phenomenon, right?
		I mean, Monkey Island, which, you know, we lit up and exposed here a couple years ago.
		I mean, these things have been going on for years now, sometimes decades.
		No results to show for it, or stupid results that are pointless, right?
		Fish feel pain, monkeys don't like to smoke, monkeys get addicted to crack, etc, etc.
		But it's taken on a new significance now.
		With Wuhan, we can see the danger of reckless, just negligence, focusing on this and making sure that we have keen oversight because of something like Wuhan.
		Like, if we hear something like they're doing experiments on fish or dogs or whatever, a lot of people might be like, well, you know, I don't like that, but... Well, you don't like it, but where does it go?
		It goes to Wuhan, it goes to bat coronavirus research, it goes to gain-of-function research, and then you get a, oopsie, now everybody's sick.
		So, this is something that I think everybody should...
		Honestly, literally every person in the world, but it's something we should have, it should be higher up on the list of priorities, especially with hindsight being 2020 and Wuhan.
		So let's jump to Wuhan.
		Early on, there was a paper released from, I think it was at South China University or Beijing, some university, where they said in this paper that bats at the Wuhan lab had bitten and urinated on researchers, and that it's very likely that COVID was leaked in this way.
		And, uh, it was quickly rescinded.
		And, uh, people in the United States started saying, oh, see, they retracted that study, and it's like, okay, you mean to tell me in a communist country, well, whatever, pseudo-communist, whatever you want to call China, that researchers said this thing probably happened and then went, oh, wait, no, never mind, and I'm supposed to believe?
		No, no, no, I think the Chinese government just said, we're not taking the heat from this one, blame it on somebody else.
		Through this grant corruption process, where people are just like, give us the money, you end up with Fauci being like, I won't take responsibility for what I funded.
		You end up with Peter Daszak saying, I'm not taking responsibility for this.
		And a strong economic incentive to deny any involvement.
		And because they delayed on reporting what really may have been the core What may have started this, it put us back months or years in terms of figuring out how we could prevent it and how to respond to it because a handful of... I'm just gonna say, I think these people are evil.
		They could have come out with honor and said, guys, we screwed up.
		Here's everything we have on this.
		Hopefully this prevents the worst from happening.
		Instead, they said, don't look at me.
		Then the media comes out, lies to protect them.
		Nobody wants to take responsibility and the world suffered because of it.
		You said it.
		What if, what if they said, look, what started with noble intentions, we were trying to prevent the next pandemic.
		Okay, it was a high-risk, high-reward scenario, this gain-of-function stuff.
		We're going to do these experiments on humanized mice, animal experiments, rounding up wild bats full of deadly diseases and transport them back to places like Wuhan.
		It started with noble intentions.
		We were trying to accelerate the pace of vaccine development and cures.
		And you know what?
		It backfired.
		We now know that we have to get our hands around this with public policy for the future.
		That's not what they did.
		No.
		What they did was exactly, they covered it up.
		And they called us conspiracy theorists.
		They censored us.
		They flat out said it's impossible that this was a lab leak.
		This didn't happen.
		It couldn't have happened.
		Who was the guy who initially came out and said, it looks like a lab leak.
		And then he gets a call from Fauci and he goes, actually it wasn't.
		One of the, one of the, uh, one of the guy, one of the minions, one of the white coats on Fauci's payroll for, you know, it's one of the virologists on, On one of these guys, these Dan Aykroyd types in Ghostbusters, you know, on the payroll for many years.
		And that's exactly what happened.
		One of these grantees spotted it.
		We now know that from the FOIA investigation, the Freedom of Information Act releases that, hey, you know, this thing doesn't, this thing looks engineered.
		This does, this looks a little suspicious.
		It could be, you know, could be manipulated in a, in a lab.
		Well, we find out about that, what, two years after the fact, give or take.
		Yeah.
		But they could have said, they could have come out and said, look, you know, when you make nuclear weapons, you get a broken arrow once in a while and an accident happens.
		It doesn't mean it was nefarious.
		If accidents happen, we got to clean it up now.
		That's not what they did.
		Why do dangerous, what is it?
		BSL?
		Is that what it's BSL for?
		Biosecurity Lab, yeah.
		Biosecurity Lab 4 in a major metropolitan area.
		bigger than New York city.
		I mean, it, it, well, you said it, it's, it's funny because Fauci, I believe was the one who said, well, you know, if, when you do this kind of research, you don't want to do it in Brooklyn.
	So they did it in a city that was bigger.
	Well, but it's China.
	So he's like, I don't care.
	Well, you know, I mean, it's, it's what happens in China.
	It doesn't stay in China.
	Exactly.
	So it's... Spanish flu, actually, I think one of the theories is that it originated in China and then when it made its way to Europe in World War I, With all of the filth and grime, unsanitary conditions, people got really sick, and with weakened immune systems, you're in war.
	They start rapidly spreading Spanish flu, then it makes its way to the United States.
	When it made its way back to China, nobody really noticed because they already had immunity to a similar strain before it, you know, mutated into what it was.
	So anyway, I digress.
	The core of this is bringing these harvesting and rounding up wild animals, wild bats from remote places where they live.
	Transporting them thousands of miles into very densely populated labs in Asia, in China, in Wuhan.
	Where cities of millions and millions and millions of people with no oversight, no security, no protections.
	And it's a recipe for disaster.
	And it's happening all over the world.
	The White Coat Waste Project has been doing these FOIAs since the start into the NIH.
	Well, so what did you find with Wuhan?
	You guys did these FOIAs that brought this information to light that they were doing gain-of-function, that they brought the bats in.
	Was it you guys who did the FOIA that found that the Fauci's... That's terrific.
	Our gain-of-function pause has been lifted.
	Peter Daszak saying that.
	That was us.
	You know, we... That happened a couple years... You know, that happened... That came out in the fall of 21 about, you know, a year and a half before the first give or take before our first investigation in April of 2020.
	But that particular FOIA, when Peter Daszak Skirting on the band.
	When Fauci skirted the funding band for Gain of Function, Peter Daszak, the smoking gun email saying, that's terrific.
	Our Gain of Function pause has been lifted.
	But he wasn't saying it was literally lifted.
	He was saying the workaround is allowing us- Functionally.
	So creating the same effect, basically.
	I mean, it's- This is a conspiracy.
	It is.
	It's crazy.
	And yet we were called the conspiracy theorists.
	We were the conspiracy theorists, but- But you were.
	I mean, this is funny, right?
	The idea of conspiracy theory is no longer that you hypothesize and produce evidence as towards an educated guess as to what a group of people may be doing in a nefarious context.
	Now it just means like you're crazy.
	Conspiracy theory means crazy.
	We've forgotten what it means.
	The definition is taken.
	People forget what conspiracy is, right?
	A conspiracy is what?
	Two people behind closed doors colluding to do something.
	You know, it's not a myth.
	But but it's taken on this this definition that it's a conspiracy theory means false, right?
	So you guys FOIA Government and these these these other agencies Find evidence they're knowingly engaging in this man of practice with a workaround.
	My favorite was when Rand Paul questioned Fauci and he said, in your paper it says gain-of-function research and he goes, no.
	I just I love how Fauci gets around this.
	You know, Rand Paul's like, Dr. Fauci, do you have a door on your house?
	And he goes, I do not have a door.
	I have a hole in a wall with a wooden object on hinges that... You're describing a door.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He describes gain of function and then says it's not.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely remarkable.
		These people colluded behind closed doors to bypass government restrictions, and then when this problem emerged, conspired behind closed doors to cover it up.
		Absolutely.
		You said it a few minutes ago.
		Animal testing, the problem is taken on another level now.
		We used to say it doesn't matter if you like puppies.
		Maybe not everybody likes monkeys or puppies or kittens.
		A lot of us do, but not everybody does.
		Then we would say, well, even if you don't really care about animals, don't really like them, do you care about your taxpayer dollars being, you are forced, Tim, forced to pay for this, whether you like it or not.
		And that would get another share of the, of the, of the public to come inside with us.
		But now it's taken on a different, it's gone from low politics to high politics, so to speak, right?
		It's not a kiddie table issue anymore.
		Animal gain of function research is animal research, right?
		The Wuhan lab, Is an animal lab.
		It's a taxpayer-funded lab.
		So it's just taken on a whole nother level.
		Can you explain how they do gain-of-function research?
		Yeah, sure.
		So, you know, Rand Paul at the hearing talking about humanized mice.
		The idea of gain-of-function, that's what we're talking about.
		It's taking a natural occurring virus from a bat or, you know, harvesting the wild strains.
		Transporting them into the animal lab, passaging it through a humanized mouse, which has mimicking how human lungs, right?
		We engineer the mice or the rodents or the animals in cruel, horrible ways to mimic how a human human lungs and receptors would respond.
		To the purpose of making the virus either more transmissible or more virulent, or both.
		Accelerating the path, you know, through the passaging of the natural bat virus into this humanized mouse to take on new properties that the virus did not have.
		So what do they do?
		Do they cough on the mouse?
		Do they take an infected mouse?
		Do they put it with the bats?
		Well, they take the infected, the infected bat and put it through the transgenic or mice.
		So, so, so kind of the opposite.
		I mean, you can do both, but it's, it's what they do is they take it from the bat and put it in, put it through serial passaging through a mouse or a rodent or another creature to again, develop new properties.
		I don't know if you know the specifics, but do they like inject the mouse with a virus or do they like, how does it get from the bat to the mouse?
		I'm not, you know, injection or, you know, or other ways to infuse the strains.
		The only thing I've read about it is that they take an infected bat, they find in the wild, and they put it in a cage with a bunch of other bats.
		And then the disease spreads, and then I guess they'll wait for certain symptoms to emerge, then they'll take that bat, put it in another cage with a bunch of other bats so that specific strain spreads, and so they keep amplifying the most serious strains.
		And it's not just done with, you know, humanized mice and bats is obviously the Wuhan lab, but ferrets are another model they use for gain-of-function research here for like influenza and those strains.
		Yeah, sure.
		- Let me, sorry to just- - Yeah, sure.
		- But I wanna stress this one right here.
		You mentioned the influenza.
		- So there are multiple ways to do this.
		- This is what- - This kind of gain of function.
		- I think the reason why this conversation may be one of the most important, or the work you are doing, be it with me or a conversation with anybody else, they have transmitted avian flu into mammals through gain of function research in the past several years.
		And we have now started to see this emerge.
		And I think it was, what was it?
		Was it seals or something?
		There was, I think, a mink.
		There were some ferrets.
		They transmitted this virus through gain-of-function research into mammals, which normally infects birds.
		And I believe the mortality rate is 60% in humans.
		Now they say, like, oh, but we did this just in case it happens.
		The argument is, if we can do this research now and create the strain that infects humans, we can make a vaccine now so that if it ever does mutate, we'll have the vaccine in advance.
		And I'm just thinking, I get that.
		But that's like, that's like putting your life savings on double zero on a roulette wheel.
		You're gonna lose.
		It seems to me, it makes the most sense that If a person, if the virus jumps to a human, you then go to that human and say, we need to take some blood samples, we're gonna try and isolate this virus to make a vaccine for it now.
		And with the antibodies being developed by the person, creating the virus is like, well, a nuclear war might happen, so let's start it now and just see what happens.
		And that's the irony of this whole thing, in an effort to prevent the next pandemic we caused a pandemic.
		Most likely, that's what happened.
		But Tim, what if they just came out and said, look, what started as noble intentions here, this started, we were trying to prevent the next pandemic, right?
		SARS-1 was a near miss 20 years ago, give or take.
		Well, we got this whole gain of function thing going.
		Sure, it was a little bit high risk.
	They didn't do that.
	They didn't come and come clean.
	They didn't just tell us, look, we were trying that.
	They lied and they covered it up.
	And they locked us down.
	Yes, the whole world.
	It all came from that.
	And then we saw the repercussions, such as Cuomo putting COVID patients in nursing homes.
	And not just Cuomo, but a bunch of other governors in various states, resulting in the death of many of our elders.
	And look, if they built a BSL-4 lab in the Mojave Desert, And it was an hour drive in any direction to any urban center.
	I'd say, well, you know, it's in the middle of nowhere.
	There should be protocols beyond the standard biosafety lab 4 protocol, in my opinion, for after someone is leaving, there should be an isolation period or something like that.
	You should go in and you should be quarantined while you're working in these places.
	I could be down with something like that in terms of We're gonna do research on a virus.
	Nobody can, you know, we're in the middle of the desert.
	What they're doing instead, and the big problem here is, they want it to sound like it's the important research to save the world, when in fact, often it's nonsensical spending on, do fish feel pain, and other ridiculous things like that.
	You go to the average person and say, do you think a fish feels pain?
	Some of them might say no, I don't know, but I think the average person would be like, yes, I don't know, like what?
	Or who cares?
	That might be the other response you get.
	Why is this the budget priority?
	And spending millions of dollars on it.
	It's because government-funded programs are wasteful.
	They tend to be.
	I think some of them can be good, but you end up with... I think it really comes down to how you described it.
	They expect results in the private sector that's seen from Ghostbusters.
	Then they build a lab in the middle of one of the densest urban populations, where they're doing some of the most dangerous research, and then they lie about it after they screw up.
	Like, wow!
	And Wuhan is not alone.
	Right now, there are 27 other animal labs in China that are authorized for animal testing payouts, okay?
	There's literally a PHS list at the NIH of pre-eligibility for grantees all around the world.
	There are 27 animal labs in China right now eligible still for payouts.
	Just last week, we finally, finally got the NIH or got the NIH to take off the Wuhan lab.
	Both of them were two.
	There were two labs in Wuhan, not just Wuhan Institute of Virology, but there were two of them.
	Both of them were taken off the list last week, finally.
	Three years later, finally disqualified from NIH payout.
	There are still 27 other in China and 200 other labs, animal labs, all around the world, right?
	So a few years ago, we launched this worldwide waste campaign to expose payouts All around the world, wasteful spending on dangerous, cruel and stupid spending all around the world.
	Denmark making monkeys drink alcohol, drunk monkeys and mice, you know, alcoholic mice and monkeys and Denmark and fish, fish nicotine, smoking fish in the UK.
	So it ranges from the silly to the sadistic to the serious.
	It sounds like a comedy sketch.
	It writes itself, doesn't it?
	I mean, the stuff writes itself.
	Tim, you know, just at the end of March, the Government Accountability Office, in response to our Worldwide Waste Campaign, put out an audit, a long-awaited audit about wasteful spending on animal labs all around the world.
	We've spent two billion dollars over the last 20 years, two billion on these labs.
	And the punchline was the NIH has never once done an audit of itself of what it's doing in these animal labs.
	Those beagles in Tunisia with the nets?
	Yeah.
	I mean, they've never once ordered this stuff.
	Yeah, they would put like parts of the dog in a netted area with the flies too and things like that.
	That was Tunisia, that iconic photo we put out.
	Yeah.
	First and foremost, you know... They're not watching the store.
	Yeah.
	Nobody's watching the store.
	Here's where I think we unite the left and the right on this.
	It's like, you've got every vegan should be angry.
	A lot of this research seems to make no sense.
	What should make the right angry, because the government is giving money, Which is basically just pure corruption.
	They're saying, draft up whatever and we'll give you the money.
	And where does that money come from?
	Our pockets.
	So, people on the left should be mad that they're torturing animals for no reason, and the right should be mad for no reason other than to just get a grant.
	This was a story that wasn't being told until we started the White Coat Waste Project.
	It's one of the main reasons I started it.
	There are a number of reasons why I started this, but There should have been a left-right convergence all along on animal testing.
	It kind of wasn't, though.
	It was really the exclusive domain of the left.
	And you had the establishment animal rights groups, you know, really only reaching out to the left.
	But it's not a left-right thing.
	It's about establishment power versus outsiders.
	It's about government and finding a way to bring To bring everybody into the tent, you know, tent widening was one of the, that was one of the main reasons I started this.
	It's not quite animal welfare.
	It's not quite, you know, government spending.
	It's a hybrid of both.
	Where's PETA on this?
	I mean, it's, I don't know.
	I bet, I mean, it's.
	I'm not a fan of PETA.
	But all these, the other reason, these establishment animal groups really miss the boat on all of this, right?
	The two most important animal testing campaigns Perhaps of all time were Fauci's Beagle experiments that really elevated this public For the first time, I mean, to really just dinner table conversation.
	And the most important of them all is the lab leak.
	Yeah.
	So I think Monkey Island is up there.
	Right up there.
	But Monkey Island was, they were just trying to experiment on pain.
	The purpose was to induce as much pain as possible on primates.
	Monkey Island.
	Yeah.
	We exposed that from another Freedom of Information Act request, a FOIA investigation, a few years back.
	There's this island off the coast of South Carolina.
	The primates are literally owned.
	They are property of NIAID, Fauci's NIH department.
	They are literally his property.
	Just to clarify too, I think Fauci's retired now, right?
	But this was all under him.
	This is what he was doing for decades.
	He's no longer there, but the legacy goes on.
	Yeah.
	His wasteful spending years and years of it goes on.
	Monkey Island's still there.
	They're still harvesting these monkeys from the office coast of South Carolina and shipping them to maximum pain laboratories.
	Yeah.
	People need to really understand what that is.
	It's one thing to laugh about.
	They gave a monkey crack.
	You know, it's like, I look at that, I'm like, that's, I think that's stupid and wrong for a variety of reasons.
	At the very least, crack makes you feel good.
	You're creating an addiction, it's causing lifelong problems, so it still doesn't feel good when they take it away from them.
	That doesn't feel good, but yes, I get it.
	But with the Maximum Pain Project, they're trying to figure out how to induce the most pain possible, and then see what happens to these monkeys.
	Deliberate, deliberate withholding of any anesthesia, deliberate withholding of any pain relief.
	It sucks.
	The intention is to research the pain, isn't it?
	In some cases, and in other cases, they're doing other... Or just virus experimentation, more virus experimentation.
	We just let the virus... On this island?
	Well, they transport them off the island, and then they ship them to the lab.
	So, a paradise-to-pain pipeline.
	You ever see The New Planet of the Apes?
	I've heard about it.
	I haven't seen it.
	It's something you gotta watch.
	It's a movie about how the world ends because of genetic experimentation on primates.
	He's trying to cure Alzheimer's.
	He creates a virus for a gene therapy.
	It makes the primates super intelligent and it kills humans.
	And then the series is, the planet is wiped out.
	It starts with super intelligent apes escaping and then forming their own society.
	And then the next movie, Earth has collapsed because the virus kills people.
	I think people need to understand that it's, imagine if someone dropped a nuclear bomb on a city.
	It would be devastating.
	And one nuclear bomb on one city, maybe it kills a couple hundred thousand people.
	One lab leak.
	How many people died?
	Could be 19, 20 million, maybe.
	And what are the numbers they're giving us for COVID?
	It's 7 million or is it?
	I don't know the total number as of as of.
	I've seen estimate.
	I mean, depending on the estimates, probably probably deaths worldwide undercounted.
	I've seen some estimates 19, 20 million from from from coronavirus and coronavirus related deaths.
	There are people that we know personally have had on Timcast IRL whose parents have died because of this.
	If they built a nuclear research lab in a dense populated area and it went off, you would not have as much death.
	If they built a nuclear reactor, let's say it had some crazy name, it was in the Soviet Union, Chernobyl, we'll just say, you would not have as much death than if their experiments go wrong and they unleash a virus.
	And, you know, Rand Paul said, you know, we work with Senator Paul all the time on this, and he's absolutely right in leading the charge to, you know, find, expose and defund, smoke out and just cut off the money for these horrible animal experiments, the wasteful spending on foreign labs, Wuhan.
	But I think he said, you know, it should be illegal to to send humanized mice to China.
	If we shouldn't be able to send nuclear weapons around the world, you know, give rogue countries and enemies nuclear weapons, why are we sending humanized mice that have the capability to kill even more?
	Have you heard about these stories where Chinese nationals are caught carrying viruses illegally through airports?
	I've heard other stories about carrying, you know.
	No, I haven't heard that one.
	Oh, there's a bunch of these ones.
	We covered this.
	Not that one specifically.
	You know, it's kind of crazy to think that now that we're past the lockdowns, people are kind of forgetting what was going on when governments were locking people down, governments were arresting people, you needed these passports and things like that.
	But we covered this a bit.
	Many stories over the past few years of Chinese researchers Carrying illegal viruses through our airports and in only a few instances being caught Well, I could tell you a story about an airport with carry with with Chinese researchers carrying things through your port because it's it's it's actually very it's It's one of the reasons it is the way we found out about the Wuhan lab in the first place and
	A few years back, so this goes back to 2018, we had a campaign in Beltsville, Maryland.
	The U.S.
	Department of Agriculture, the USDA, was running a cat lab.
	It was called the Kitten Slaughterhouse, was the nickname for it.
	It was the largest cat lab in the U.S.
	government.
	They had spent about $22 million over 50 years of government spending.
	About 3,000 kittens were killed in this laboratory.
	They were doing rotten meat experiments, right?
	They were feeding kittens toxoplasmosis disease, infected meat.
	Parasites.
	Yeah.
	They were feeding them and killing them.
	They were three month old kittens.
unidentified		Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This was going on for literally five decades, right?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Ghostbusters over and over again.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We launched this campaign that exposed it in April, I believe, no, May of 2018.
		2018 so it goes back a few years and the campaign is getting a lot of traction getting a lot of media coverage getting a lot of congressional engagement on both sides Democrats and Republicans coming together to try and shut down the kitten slaughterhouse at the US to Department of Agriculture.
		And we're intensifying the campaign because we really, really want to close this sucker.
		So we dig into the research, into the literature, follow the money.
		That's what we do.
		So we're going through the papers and the grants and the publications that are coming out of this program.
		And lo and behold, we discover that the USDA, some of this meat that they were feeding the kittens, Was coming from China.
		And Tim, it was dog and cat meat that they were feeding to the kittens.
		The USDA was a customer of the wet markets in China.
unidentified		Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They were literally spending tax money to round up, round up cats and dogs at those horrible live animal markets, the wet markets.
		And the Chinese whitecoats, the researchers, were carrying it back, rotten meat, in their luggage, literally, to the United States, and it was being fed to the lab kittens.
		Kitten cannibalism experiments.
		Now, the lab, once that expose came out, it broke the back of the program.
		We shut it down.
		It was the largest cat lab in the government.
		Um, I adopted two, two of the breeding moms who were survivors of the program.
		I have two of them.
		And, but Tim, that, that, yeah.
		And, uh, so I live with them now, but here's the thing.
		That was the campaign.
		We broke their back in the spring of 2019.
		The program was shuttered after 50 years, but here's the thing.
		That was the genesis of how we exposed the lab leak money because we started saying, well, if the government labs in the United States, my two cats were the genesis of it.
		If the government is spending our money, the US federal government labs, the administrative state taking our money and going to China with it for scientific research, what else are they spending it on?
		That's how we found out that there was this list of 27 labs in China.
		Including the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
		You know what's amazing to me is that after 50 years, this lab is shut down the moment people learned of its existence.
		Is that basically what happens?
		You guys figure it out, you publicize this, and then all of a sudden they're like, time to close it.
		Yeah, we like to sort of, I mean, it's like the process, FED is the acronym we use.
		F-E-D.
		Find, Expose, Defund.
		I mean, that's our playbook, right?
		My view is just, these things sound so depraved that the moment you find them and expose them, they get defunded.
		Not always, but... Well, that's how we close the circle, right?
		We find it, we file the money, Freedom of Information Act requests, open records analysis going through the papers that they publish, then we expose it, right?
		Monkey Island, like we did here a few years ago.
		Expose it.
		Get it out there.
		Hopefully we don't get censored.
		We do.
		And then defund it.
		That's how we closed.
		That was the genesis.
		You know, when I when I founded the White Coat Waste Project, I was fed up.
		I also was fed up with the failures of of animal rights groups on this issue.
		Nobody was shutting labs.
		They weren't shutting the labs down.
		Not really.
		And not enough of them.
		And I realized, look, the elephant in the room was this was government spending.
		Right.
		Dwarfing the private sector.
		Yes, companies do do this.
		It's not good when they do it either.
		But the point is, the government was the elephant in the room.
		More than two to one.
		And if they can fund a program, you can defund it.
		So that was the innovative twist.
		If you can fund a program, in theory, you can defund it.
		There's a lot of arguments for the necessity of animal testing in certain areas when it comes to curing diseases or treating things.
		My view is... I get that.
		But I think what I hear right now is...
		If we don't that they have to have maximum level of transparency when it comes to doing these kinds of things because it sounds to me over and over again the stories we hear it's not some noble experiment to cure Alzheimer's it's not some noble experiment to restore function in someone who's paralyzed it's Can a monkey smoke crack?
		Let's spend $40 million to find out.
		And you're just like, no, no, please, come on.
		That's ridiculous.
		It's dangerous gain-of-function research for the sake of a grant, and then a cover-up if it goes wrong.
		I think they try to get by.
		I'll put it this way.
		A decade ago, I'd hear arguments from people and they'd say, nobody wants to hurt the animals, but you do understand that if we're trying to cure a disease, we don't want humans to suffer in that process, so we're going to test on animals first.
		And I go, I get it.
		I get it.
	And then I read a book and it's like, did you know we spent $40 million to find out a fish feel pain?
	And I'm like, hold on there a minute.
	You're not talking about a noble cause, you're talking about people who don't want to lose their job.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		At a perpetual cycle.
		Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
		And let's hope when they're not trying to cure that disease, that noble cause.
		They're making it.
		That necessary evil, yeah.
		Hopefully you guys don't make another one.
		I don't want to go through another lockdown.
		But our answer to that question is pretty simple.
		Find your own funding.
		If it's, you know, for, for most cases, I mean, gain of function is an exceptional case, right?
		That's that, that, you know, we don't want that.
		Nobody should be doing that, but, but, but, but, but that's again, a little bit exceptional, but here's the thing.
		Monkey smoking crack.
		All right, Tim, you can, you can have all.
		So look, I'm not going to ban you.
		It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
		Tim, if you want monkeys to smoke crack, find your own funding.
		We won't stop you.
		Our organization won't stop you knock yourself out.
		But here's the thing.
		You got to raise the money yourself.
		I mean, I'm not for the monkey smoking crack in any capacity, but I get I get your point.
		We let let the private sector.
		I don't personally I don't like it when the private sector does it but let them do it because here's why remember the whole Ghostbusters theme is they demand results.
		They're not going to fund a lot of this stuff, right?
		So we know that if we challenge the private sector to pick up the tab, a lot of this will dry up overnight.
		I'm just imagining sitting down at, let's say there's a steakhouse in DC, and you go to your business partner and you say, this is fantastic, we've got a meeting with this venture capital firm.
		And you sit down and they say, we're really interested.
		You guys are, your credentials are amazing.
		You're researchers from these universities.
		So what do you need the 50 million for?
		Get this.
		We're going to buy a bunch of crack and give it to monkeys.
		The guy's going to be like, thank you for your time.
		Have a nice day.
		Some woke bankers are really going to fund that.
		What's my out on this?
		I'm going to make a cure for crack addiction?
		Well, you know, we'll see.
		It'll go on for a couple of years and another couple of years, another couple of decades.
		And we're just going to have to keep You know, keep spending the money.
		Yeah, we kind of want to ROI.
		So we know that we'll be able to clean out a lot of this stuff by just shifting the burden, get it off the taxpayers back, you know, privatize it, don't socialize it.
		That's one way we handle it.
		For sure.
		That's one approach.
		I mean, this is just an issue of the bigger issue of taxation.
		People don't know where their money's going, and the government has clever ways of funding these things through the Federal Reserve.
		There's a bigger conversation about modern monetary theory, but when they deficit spend, they're extracting the savings of the American people.
		So it's worse than just taking your tax dollars.
		They're devaluing your currency through these wasteful programs, be it animal research or otherwise.
		But I do find it fascinating that we're dealing with a debt ceiling crisis right now.
		Negotiations ongoing, no deal's been made.
		Oh no, the government's gonna shut down again.
		Can we raise the limit?
		I know, how about we just take stock of where we're spending money first.
		How are we in a deficit spending position if we're funding Monkey Smoking Crack?
		20 billion.
		That's 20 billion.
		And that's what we know about.
		Wait, is it 20 billion just for the Monkey Smoking Crack?
unidentified		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's a lot of money!
		It is the sum total, but here's the thing, the 20 billion though, you said the right word, transparent.
		We don't know how much they're actually spending.
		20B is the floor.
		That's billion with a B. Okay, not million, billion.
		That's the floor, not the ceiling.
		We know that the NIH, just the NIH, wastes about 50 cents on the dollar for every one of those grants has an animal testing component to it.
		Some is monkey smoking crack, some is beagles having their vocal cords cut out and fed to flies, and some of it is gain-of-function animal testing.
		But that's the floor, not the ceiling.
		It could be a lot higher.
		Yeah.
		And that's just the NIH.
		We talk about stuff like Flint, Michigan, a lot in the modern narrative, the Democrats complaining for a decade, you know, all the pipes need to be fixed.
		These poor kids, they're suffering.
		Flint, like the Michael Moore's movie from years ago.
		Right.
		And my attitude is like, I completely agree with the left on this issue.
		How is it Insert thing being funded is happening and we haven't just gone in and spent the millions, the millions with an M, to fix the pipes in an American city where people are suffering.
		There's so many things that I could complain about.
		Why are we funding war in Ukraine?
		Why are we funding war in the Middle East?
		Why are we funding animals smoking crack?
		Before, like I'll tell you this, if you fixed all of America's problems, cleaned the pipes in Pittsburgh, got fresh water in Flint, cleaned, fixed those pipes, every city's crime is going down, mental health services across the board, we're all in flying cars with perfect health care, and then you say, now can we give the monkeys crack?
		I'll be like, well, I'm not okay with the monkeys getting crack thing, but if there's a pile of money laying around and you can justify, like, how is it that these, I know I'm singling out the monkey smoking crack, but it is, it's a really absurd example.
		Of wasting money.
		How is it that we're spending money on these things before helping Americans in need?
		Anything is better than what we're spending.
		Anything is better than causing lab leaks, lockdowns, mandates.
		I mean, anything is better than what we're doing with how we're spending it.
		Anything.
		So you guys are censored?
		We are censored.
		We've been censored for a long time.
		We are still censored on Twitter right now, okay?
		So We're still trying to run ads on Twitter today.
		Is your account locked or anything?
		Our account's not locked, but they're banning us from running ads.
		We have written Twitter a check.
		They haven't cashed it.
		And the reason they gave us literally, I think, let's say Friday, so as of Monday or Tuesday, they're telling us because we're promoting lab leak And also, they're saying we're not sufficiently credible on $20 billion being spent on animal testing.
		Wait, they're saying you can't promote the lab leak theory?
		Correct.
		Jon Stewart promoted lab leak theory two years ago.
		Well, Elon Musk is sharing our own FOIA investigation himself, Tim!
		That's terrific, our gain of function.
		We're the investigators who funded the FOIA challenge that got that, and yet he won't take our money to fund To run Twitter ads and promote it.
		You guys are even a business enterprise customer.
		Maybe he's still cleaning house from, you know, the woke policy people over there.
		Maybe he still hasn't gotten to it yet.
		I'll give him a little, you know, a little more time.
		But come on, Elon, you were supposed to be on TeamLabLeak here.
		So what is, on Twitter you're trying to run ads to promote these stories and they're saying no?
		Yes!
		We literally have the emails from his people, his policy people are saying they're promoting COVID disinformation and lab leaking.
		Hold on a minute.
		Wait a minute.
		Nancy Mace.
		The president says the government doesn't have to cut any spending, but the federal government spent $3 million in 2022 watching hamsters fight on steroids.
		That was our FOIA investigation.
		Look, the video is right there.
		Tim, Roman gladiator- These are the stupidest of people.
		Tim, Roman gladiator style death matches.
		We got the, we have the video.
		We have the secret video.
	They filmed it.
	We have the videotapes of them.
	This is, this is, I can't believe this country, man.
	They're putting- But Twitter won't let us run ads showing this stuff.
	Why are they doing this?
	Lab leak, disinformation, COVID disinformation they're claiming.
	I'm going through your Twitter, I'm not trying to find the ad, and then I'm like, what?
	$3 million to watch hamsters fight on steroids.
	These are not serious people.
	Dude, I would rather just give that $3 million straight up to any homeless veteran.
	Anything.
	Don't care what you do with it.
	Here's three million dollars.
	Anything is better.
	Whatever they spent it on, it's better than Roman gladiator death matches.
	There's a video of this?
	We have it.
	It should be right there.
	I think we chimed in with the video right under Nancy, Congresswoman Mace's tweet.
	2.3 million to inject beagle puppies with cocaine.
	That's us too.
	Nancy Mace, that's amazing.
	She's sharing this stuff.
	Stop the waste.
	Yeah, she's been great with getting us out.
	She was great with Monkey Island.
	It's in her district.
	It's right off the coast of her district.
	We went on a fact finding.
	We sailed with Congresswoman Mace to film the monkeys.
	She's tweeting this stuff like crazy.
	This is fantastic.
	A million dollars to watch mice binge drink?
	Yeah, that's another one.
	You know, I can walk down the street in any major city and see a homeless veteran saying, please help me.
	Yeah, they're not curing sick kids with this money.
	I mean, there's no sick kids getting cured here.
	I mean, come on.
	Dude, I'm sorry.
	The hamsters on steroids fighting sounds like two guys who were drinking and they were like, let's make videos where hamsters are on steroids and we make them fight.
	Can we get money for that?
	Like, bro, the NIAID will just give me money for anything, let's do it!
	Nice work if you can get it, where you can just sit around and watch and film them doing this.
	I mean, it's cruel, it's horrible, but it's also, it's like a bad Saturday Night Live skit here.
	So what you posted the video of the hamsters fighting?
	It should be right.
	Yeah, you could probably see it right under the Nancy Mace.
	No, I don't see it.
	She chimed probably chimed in right there with under her.
	Oh, I see it replied with it.
	Yeah.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Let me see if I can.
		Yeah, you see if you can find the I'm like scrolling through.
		Oh my God.
		That's it.
		That's the actual they film that.
		Oh my God.
		Yeah, that's it.
		Why?
		This is the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
		It's not even entertaining.
		Like.
		Oh, this is brutal.
		Yeah.
		There are aggression experiments and things, you know.
		That's crazy, man.
		Did you get your money's worth?
		You know, it's like the first thing I think when I see the picture is I'm laughing and then I watched the video and now I'm upset.
		Same thing with the dogs with cocaine, right?
		It sounds.
		It is.
		It does sound funny.
		And I mean, you have, you have, look, we have to have a sense of humor about black humor, dark humor for sure.
		But, but you gotta have a little bit of a sense of humor about this stuff.
		But no, it's, it's, it's terribly cruel.
		I mean, the dogs, you know, how do you think they're, they're getting the coke?
		They're not snorting lines of it, right?
		They're not, they're not, they put, um, They tether them with these straight jackets and infuse it into them.
		Through IVs?
		Well, they put them in a restraint jacket and right into catheter, you know, right into them.
unidentified		Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, you know, it is... Into their... Right into the... Stomach or vein?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Artery or vein or whatever.
unidentified		You know, I'd have to go back and... Intravenous.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's the idea, yeah.
		I mean, exactly.
		So, you know, they're not going to the club and going, Sniffing.
		It's not quite how it works, but, um, man, it is, it is, it is cruel.
		I mean, it's, it's, it's even these addiction experiments, you know, they, they usually forcibly withdraw them.
		And anybody who knows anything about addiction is it, it's, it's misery.
		Yeah.
		Forced withdrawal is, is, is awful.
unidentified		I shouldn't have watched that hamster video.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I was laughing at the absurdity of the idea until I watched it and I'm pissed off.
		Yeah.
		Yeah.
		You know, and that, and that we got that from a, from a, you know, state, state level freedom of information act.
		Yeah.
		Well, not, not FOIA is federal, but a state level, you know, open records request.
		Um, and that's what we do.
		We, you know, we get this stuff to the hill and work with both sides, Democrats and Republicans.
		There is something in it for everyone.
		Um, whether they're, whether they love puppies and kittens, whether they hate government waste or, or like us both.
		Okay.
		That, that graphic you made for the article though, is, is genius.
		Which one?
		The, the hamster ninja kicking the other hamster in the face.
		Fight club.
		Yeah.
		Hamster fight club.
		Hamster Fight Club.
		Can I just... 1.5 million dollars.
		And this is just... for what reason?
		You know, it's the Ghostbusters thing, like you mentioned.
		It is!
		If they can get the money from it, they'll get it.
		And the rest of us aren't paying attention.
		We don't know... or I don't think it's just that we don't know we need to.
		We're not paying attention, but they're also hiding it, concealing it, censoring it.
		They're not disclosing it.
		The transparency is a major part.
		A lot of our public policy work is to get price tags put on this wasteful spending.
		Even if you support, in principle, animal testing, or at least some of it.
		This ain't it.
		But even if you did, or at least some of it, You should have a right to know how much you're spending on it.
		At least put it in the public square.
		Transparency hurts no one.
		I think you're right about the private sector approach to it.
		I still think there should be probably heavy regulation as it pertains to that.
		I'm not this laissez-faire free market absolutist.
		I like mostly leaning towards free market.
		I think some regulations can be okay.
		Problem is government tends to screw that up.
		So difficult position.
		Ghostbusters was not, you know, when I watched... They went private.
		Well, that's the thing.
		It's both a window onto the problem...
		And the solution in my, in my personal opinion, and I know something about this issue now, but haven't been doing this for the better part of the last decade, but it's the window onto the problem.
		Endless grants for, and you don't know what the private sector is like.
		They demand results, but it also is a clue on how we solve this problem.
		Shift it into the private sector because they're going to demand results and whack this stuff.
		Look, I worked in an animal lab when I was 17.
		That's how I got into this issue.
		I'm dating myself, but it was back in 1995.
		It was just an internship in between my junior and senior year of high school.
		I wanted to be a doc, just a doctor, like a human doctor.
		My dad's a dentist and I wanted to go to medical school and I thought this would be a great letter of recommendation.
		I had a friend whose father was a doctor.
		I thought I'd get a great letter of recommendation from the lab I worked at.
		Leg up for college admissions.
		I'm just being honest about it.
		I worked in an animal lab for a few weeks.
		I was horrified.
		I was no animal rights activist.
		I loved animals.
		I had pets, but I wasn't a vegetarian or vegan.
		I wasn't an activist.
	I was a kid playing the drums in high school and wanting to get a leg up on his competition.
	Anyway, So I work in the animal lab just for a few weeks and I was just, I hated what I saw.
	I horrified by it and I wanted to do something about this for my whole life.
	And you know, when I was 17, I didn't, I didn't know the, the, the experiments I was looking at were, were, were taxpayer funded.
	I didn't pay taxes.
	I didn't know anything about government spending.
	I didn't know about any of my policy or politics or anything.
	I just didn't like what I saw.
	You know, it was just cruel and, and, and, and, and sadistic, but I didn't know that at the time.
	I learned that much later.
	And again, Ghostbusters providing that window onto how do we solve the problem?
	It's not that the private sec wouldn't Abuse of a dog is abuse of a dog, whether it's in, you know, that's manifestly true.
	Whether you're, if you're cutting a dog, the dog don't care whether it's a private lab or a public lab.
	Um, I care because it's worse that I'm forced to pay for it.
	I don't get a chance to boycott.
	So it makes it a little bit worse.
	But, but so we're not shifting it into the private sector.
	We're not trying to get into the private sector because private sector is inherently good.
	We're trying to do that as a strategy to just, we know we're going to whack this stuff faster and more efficiently by doing it and clean up the problem.
	I think it should be private sector and I think it should still have oversight in the public space.
	You want to run a lab, when it comes to any kind of biosecurity level stuff, I think that's got to be outright in the middle of nowhere.
	I don't think we should be allowed to outsource it to foreign countries the way Fauci was doing, which is just...
	Making the problem worse.
	And not doing it through these secretive pass-through grants.
	I mean, like EcoHealth, I mean, that was our big major investigation, was finding that loophole.
	Nobody knew about that.
	You should be in jail until we found that.
	If we say you can't do it.
	How would anybody have known?
	This is why Fauci, in my view, I think it's fair to say that he lied to Rand Paul, to Congress.
	I think so.
	You've got the paper saying they did gain-of-function research, that they funded it.
	It describes it as gain-of-function, it shows that they were providing the funding, and they said, no we didn't.
	Semantics aside, the point was clear.
	I hope that we get a serious investigation, maybe if Trump wins.
	You know, I look at the current establishment political class and they're just, everyone says, we all got a good thing going.
	It's like all these different criminal organizations looking at each other being like, I won't screw with you if you don't screw with me.
	We need someone to come in and be like, guys, enough of this.
	But my view on the private sector version of this is, I still don't like the idea that they're going to give monkeys crack or something like that.
	So there should be public oversight of how the private sector is running these things.
	You should not be able to just go and torture dogs.
	There should be something clearly defined as to what the purpose is for the experiments that you do with a stated... It can't be like, well, we're gonna see what happens.
	No dice, no dice.
	That curiosity stuff, it just don't work.
	Even in the private sector.
	Well, let me do you one better.
	I'll do you one better.
	In addition to the whole find-your-own-fund-it, Find your own funding, let the private sector, if it's so valuable, let the private sector pick up the tab for it.
	In addition to that, I'll do you one better.
	How about we stop forcing, meaning the government, forcing private companies to test on animals whether they want to or not.
	A few years ago, we started with defund, defund campaigns to cut funding, which is most of it.
	So for example, the dog labs in the country.
	About two-thirds, you can break down, two-thirds of it is funded by taxpayers and government spending.
	But about one-third of it is picked up by private companies, just for the dogs and pharmaceutical research.
	But here's the thing, that one-third is mandated.
	They are forced to.
	Okay, so Again, I have no love for private companies or hate.
	It's not the point.
	The system is forcing private companies, pharmaceutical companies, to test on dogs even when their own industry doctors and scientists don't want to do it.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, we have the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, has a mandate, okay?
		A mandate for preclinical testing of efficacy of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, that kind of thing.
		Okay.
		So the FDA has this red tape thing going since really since the 30s, since the late 1930s, forcing anyone who wants to bring something to market any, any pharmaceutical company who wants to bring a drug to market, they have to, they have to do it on two species.
		And one of those species is usually the beagle dog.
		That's about a third of all the dog testing in the country.
		So that's about 20,000 beagles a year.
		They're also, you know, these are also maximum pain experiments in most cases, no anesthesia, no pain relief.
		But here's the thing.
		This isn't actually a case of just greedy pharmaceutical companies, you know, testing on dogs because they want to make money.
		That was, that was the lie.
		We were sold by the establishment animal rights groups for a long time, just beating up private companies because it's, you know, it sounds good and it fits the narrative and people, you know, people believe it.
		It is true that they're doing it, but they're mandated.
		Pharmaceutical research, it was mandated by FDA regs.
		So, let's also not force companies to do it.
		So, let's jump into the non-profit stuff, because I love talking about this.
		I used to work on fundraising for some of these big non-profits.
		The first thing I'm curious is, how are you guys funded?
		About, give or take, 66%, two-thirds of our funding, 66-70% of it is grassroots, okay?
		So it's $20 donors is the majority of our funding, you know, online, mail, grassroots.
		So most of our, almost all of our funding is grassroots.
		We have a couple foundations, a couple, some other, a few grants, but most of our money has always been grassroots funded.
		When we started it, we had no startup funding.
		I had to cede the money to get the organization going, but we grew it through grassroots funding.
		Yeah, so I ask because I've worked for some of these big nonprofits, and the one thing I learned, and I learned this from other fundraisers, I learned this from former directors and staff at nonprofits, most of the big brand name NGOs, nonprofit organizations, do not want to succeed.
		And couldn't agree more.
		I remember talking to a guy who had quit and he said that he quit because it seemed at a certain point that they intentionally wanted to make the problems worse.
		And he was like, I think it was because if they solve the problem, they're out of business.
unidentified		Mm hmm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, with the private sector, you have planned obsolescence, which is similar in a way.
		They say that with the invention of the light bulb, the original filament invented for the light bulb, Essentially lasted forever and the the first light bulb I believe is still on to this day in a firehouse in New York City.
		That's what they say and They decided you know what we need to film it that burns out so we can keep selling these things You know candle burns down got to buy a new one.
		We give them a light bulb that lasts for 20 years We sell 10 light bulbs.
		We're done.
		So they intentionally fail.
		You see the same thing with nonprofits They say if we get this banned Then what do we do?
		So you do see in some instances, without naming any of these non-profits, maybe they start with, you know, nuclear weapons testing is bad.
		You know, because radiation is blanketing the earth, and so they start protesting this.
		A lot of people agree and say, you're going to wipe the planet out if you keep doing these bomb testing.
		So they protest these things, and then eventually when the tests start dying down and they start succeeding in a certain respect, they say, well now what do we do?
		I know!
		Let's throw in whales because the nuclear testing was harming the whale population.
		Then they say, well now that whaling is mostly being made, what would you do?
		Trees!
		Trees.
		There's always got to be something we're fighting for.
		Now I can respect to a certain extent if they're like, hey, we've solved this problem.
		Now we're going to announce that we're going to carry on the mission.
		But then you start to learn that some of the policies that they fight for, these nonprofits, don't actually stop these problems.
		I've seen it with a bunch of these big organizations.
		They don't want to go out of business.
		And so it's almost like, you know, we had a Republican Freedom Caucus guy on who explained to us that When they were going to overturn Obamacare, Republican leadership said, hey, don't vote yes.
		Wait, wait, wait, why?
		We have a chance to actually be rid of Obamacare, but we need this to raise money.
		Lose the issue.
		Yep, you lose the issue.
		I don't know if you've experienced things like that with other nonprofits.
		I have a few thoughts on this.
		I think there's something to what you're saying about losing the issue.
		When you look at why I founded this organization, I was very frustrated with the lack of progress on animal testing.
		This could explain why the labs weren't being shut down.
		You know, in the United States, not a single primate lab was shut down.
		Outside of the White Coat Waste Project, not a single primate lab has been shut down for the better part of a decade.
		Zero.
		Despite establishment groups raising tons of money on it.
		You know, so either they don't want to put them out of business or they're incompetent and failing the approach either, but both are unacceptable.
		Whether they don't want, you know, whether they just don't want to lose the issue and are not trying or they are trying and failing.
		: But you know, didn't PETA kidnap a dog from some woman's porch and then kill it?
		: I, that scandal, I mean it's been, you know, it's troubling.
		It's: It's a little above my pay grade.
		I know a little bit about the... Don't get yourself in legal trouble.
		I'll pull it up right here.
		PETA says sorry for taking your own pet chihuahua and putting it down.
		I'm not an expert on the euthanasia issue.
		It's a little above my pay grade, but I've heard the disturbing story, the headline, but it's a little above my pay grade, but the real scandal to me The real scandal is why aren't labs getting shut down by establishment animal labs?
		They can take someone's dog, but they can't stop actual wasteful animal labs and cruel animal labs?
		You know, I started this organization out of nowhere a few years ago, and I shouldn't have had to.
		Right.
		This issue is old.
		Animal testing is an old problem in the United States.
		It goes back to the reconstruction in the 19th century.
		It goes back a minute.
		Okay.
		This has been on the public radar for a long time.
		Animal testing is not new.
		The issue is not new.
		But we came up with a new way to look at an old issue.
		I shouldn't have had to do that.
		And I was very frustrated, Tim.
		And after working in an animal lab, I wanted to do something about it.
		I could have gone and worked for an establishment group.
		I didn't want to because they weren't doing a great job on this issue.
		On the one hand, if you look at the public opinion polling, public support for animal testing, Hit an all time low, right?
	Public opinion was moving in the right direction.
	Down, down, down, down, down.
	They weren't supporting this stuff.
	But on the other hand, the number of kills in these animal labs was going up, up, up, up, up.
	Think about that.
	In spite of the great shift on public opinion, why were the Animal Lab deaths and kills going way up?
	What does that tell you about the quality of the campaigns that were being run?
	I want to read a little bit from this.
	This is from August 16th, 2017.
	PETA says sorry for taking girls' pet chihuahua and putting it down.
	They say, Zerate alleged PETA operated under a broad policy of euthanizing animals, including healthy ones, because it considers pet ownership to be a form of involuntary bondage.
	PETA denied the allegations and maintained the incident in 2014 was a terrible mistake.
	Two women affiliated with PETA, Victoria Carey and Jennifer Wood, traveled to Acomac County, Virginia, because they said a mobile home park owner asked for help capturing wild dogs and feral cats.
	The women removed an unattended and unleashed chihuahua named Maya, which was a Christmas present to nine-year-old Cynthia Zarate.
	Maya was put down later that day, a violation of state law that requires a five-day grace period.
	PETA was fined $500 for the violation.
	A trial had been scheduled for September, during which Zarate's attorneys had planned to question current and former PETA employees about its euthanasia policy.
	The group later said it would pay the family $49,000 and donate $2,000 to a local branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to honor Maya.
	The family had set up to $7 million.
	There is one thing that makes me not want to watch a movie more than anything else, and that is when in the movie the bad guy kills a dog.
	You can make a movie where the villain is kidnapping and mercilessly beating people, and I'm like, oh man, this bad guy.
	But when you give me a movie where the bad guy shoots a dog, I'm just like, turn it off, turn it off.
	You know, and it's because, uh, I'm biased.
	But, um, you know, I care deeply about humans, humanity, human rights issues, of course.
	But when it comes to the purity of dogs, the loyalty, the companionship, and the innocence.
	There's some dogs that are probably evil, don't get me wrong.
	That really irks me when I see in movies that dogs are a true symbol of loyalty.
	Are you familiar with Hachiko the dog?
	No.
	Let me tell you the story about Hachiko the dog.
	No, who's it?
	So, uh, a Japanese professor adopted a, um, Akita puppy, and he named it Hachiko.
	And I'll give you the simple version, because I'm probably going to get something wrong, but every day, uh, one day when he was leaving to go to the train station to go to the university, Hachiko breaks out of the yard and follows him and goes with him to the train station and watches him get on the train and leave.
	When he comes back, Hachiko is waiting for him.
	And this begins this tradition where every day in the morning, he and Hachiko would get on the train and Hachiko would see him off, go home, come back around the same time when he knew the professor was coming back and they'd walk home together.
	One day when the professor was at the university teaching, he had a stroke and he died.
	And Hachiko waited at the train station and wouldn't leave.
	For I think about 10 years, Hachiko would wait at the train station and would not leave.
	Brings tears to my eyes.
	They built a statue for Hachiko.
	Sitting there waiting for... And I think March 8th now is Hachiko Day.
	It's a day celebrating loyalty.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		See I'm cracking up.
		Dogs are incredible.
		When you start needlessly killing these animals, you make me very angry.
		And so, hear my voice when I hear this story.
		If you did what PETA did to my dog, it would be John Wick times 10.
		But I'm not talking about being violent and merciless, I'm talking about a reign of legal hellfire by which I would dedicate my life to making sure that you would never operate again.
		And I've heard these stories about what PETA does.
		I am no fan of this.
		Pets are special.
		It's not slavery, it's not bondage.
		I'm proud I adopted two of the mothers who were breeding the kittens at that USDA lab that we shut down.
		Dogs are special pets are special.
		It's not bondage It's you can be abusive to a pet or you can love a pet and most people love their pets and it's special Do you know do you know the story about how it's just nonsense that pets are slavery.
		I mean, that's right.
		That's it.
		Well, it's just nonsense That was the allegation against PETA.
		I'm not necessarily interested in giving them the benefit of the doubt because I've heard many other stories similar.
		They went to a woman's porch.
		I read this once.
		Maybe I'm wrong.
		I want to be very careful here.
		But I read that they went on a porch and grabbed a dog off a leash or something like that.
		But the story of how dogs get domesticated is partly why I care so much for dogs.
		The story is... Are you familiar with the story about how dogs get domesticated, by chance?
		Flight time, for those that aren't familiar, is the distance between a human and an animal before the animal flees.
		And human tribes would leave refuse behind, which wolves would scavenge from.
		Over a very, very long time, the human tribes that tolerated the wolves, and the wolves that were less aggressive, lowered that flight time.
		If a wolf pack came too close to the human tribe, the humans would fight them off.
		The humans that were more tolerant of them, and the wolves that were more tolerant of the humans, succeeded more often in survival.
		The wolves would urinate around the area, creating a wolf territory, which kept predators away from the humans, which started to flourish.
		The wolves eventually started to become proto-dogs in that they would actually walk through human camps, and the humans that tolerated the wolves, again, more likely to survive because the wolves would keep other predators away.
		And eventually, it came to a point where the humans would follow the wolves on a hunt.
		Successfully take down large game the wolves could not and they all ate substantially more and this Through thousands of years of pressure created the human dog bond.
		Yeah 10,000 years of hard wiring to create that special bond where the dog will wait for for 10 years You ever see Futurama?
		The Futurama show?
unidentified		Oh yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's like Fry.
		Remember there was that episode with his dog, Fry's dog.
		It's very sad.
		My girlfriend, she breaks up crying every time.
		But it's the same idea.
		It's very real.
		It's special, you know.
		But scarily, that's also why the government targets dogs.
		Because they say it themselves, the beagle is the breed of choice.
		Because they're gentle and docile because of that hard wiring of 10,000 years of evolutionary pressure.
		They are targeted for that because they're not going to, they're not going to fight back.
		They're docile.
		And that flight time is not going to happen with the dog.
		It's a sick, sick government policy.
		And we've smoked that out.
		We found it on their site, on their website themselves, the HHS You know, I learned this when I was a little kid.
		My dad's a firefighter.
		He said, do you know what happens when there's a fire and the family has a dog?
		Typically, the dog has scratched the door bloody, trying to open the door to alert the family to the fire or save them.
		He said, do you know what a cat does when there's a fire?
		We don't know.
		We never find them.
		I like cats.
		I have a cat.
		His name is Mr. Baucus.
		He's very nice.
		Cats are very independent.
		I respect cats for what cats want to do.
		They're more libertarian.
		Dogs are more loyal soldiers.
		Do you know what happens when... I'll get a little brutal on you.
		Do you know what happens when an elderly person, or just a person in general, dies home alone with their dog?
		Not with a dog.
		Typically they find, this is what I'm told, they find the dog dead of dehydration next to the owner.
		The dog stays with them and then passes on after running out of, you know, food or water.
		Do you know what cats do?
		I think I know where you're going.
		They eat the body.
		I think I know where you're going.
		I can to a certain degree respect the cat being like, I'm not gonna die.
		They're fiercely independent.
		I'm not trying to rag on cats.
		I have heard that.
		I can't confirm or deny it, but I have heard that too.
		I'm just trying to exemplify the...
		Understanding of what dogs mean to humans and and and why they say man's best friend and all that and why you know for me to hear that these these large nonprofits care so little for these animals and Would do something like this.
		I just want to stress.
		I think we should all I Read a story once about a farmer whose dog was shot by his neighbor and the government said you're awarded $300 for the replacement of your property and Uh-uh.
		It's not property.
		You know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's awful that, yeah, it's awful, but it's, it's, you know, and, and, and with nonprofits and all of them, you know, all these establishment groups who are working in the and with nonprofits and all of them, you know, all these establishment groups who are working in the I work on with animal testing.
		It's really been a culture of losing, losing so many campaigns on animal testing.
		That was not necessary, right?
		We, this problem of animal testing getting worse.
		worse on their watch, on the establishment's watch.
		It never should have happened.
		Government funding of animal testing wasn't always $20 billion, okay?
		It was much less.
		This may have been a $5-6 billion a year problem not that long ago.
		You go back, the NIH budget started the process of tripling in 1995, the same year I worked in an animal lab when I was in high school.
		The budget began a process of tripling, right, over the course of many years.
		And at the same time, they were doling out 50 cents on the dollar for dog experiments, vaping experiments, all of them.
		So the point is, the establishment could have killed this thing in the crib.
		This wasn't a 20 billion dollar program back then.
		It was like a five, you know, or less billion dollar program.
	They could have killed it in the crib.
	They didn't.
	This is the problem of government.
	But it's also the problem of establishment nonprofits, because a lot of them like government.
	A lot of them think government is a good thing and it's an inherently good force for animals, and it's not.
	I mean, it was the big problem in the room.
	It was the elephant in the room.
	And this culture of thinking that the way to help animals was to grow government.
	I mean, listen, you go to these... I'm telling you, that's what they think.
	And they were asleep at... Nobody was watching the store when government was growing and growing and growing.
	And what happened?
	What did we get out of it?
	I mean, we got this virulent growth.
	The virulent growth of taxpayer-funded animal testing happened on the establishment's watch.
	We had to come in and reverse this course.
	You know, it feels like the new Manhattan Project in a sense.
	Secretive, compartmentalized, biological weapons research.
	You know, I like to say this.
	The media will call you a conspiracy theorist.
	I just say, you know, I'm not gonna... I'm not going to... I'm not going to ascribe intent to any of these people.
	I'm going to discuss the results.
	If you wanna tell me that you think Fauci was funding weapons research, biological weapons labs existing in these countries, I'll say, it doesn't matter what you call it.
	Let's talk about the results.
	If Fauci was intentionally coming out saying, we're going to make weapons, then sure, fine, but does it matter?
	He funded the same thing.
	If they're doing gain of function research that creates- Impact is more important than intent.
	Exactly.
	So I say this, I don't care if you wanna believe that Fauci did it on purpose, he did it.
	So when the media says, oh, you think there's bioweapons of like, oh, I don't know about all that.
	All I know is that Fauci provided funding for gain of function research, which resulted in some of the most deadly viruses known to man that can be weaponized.
	So you want to say that he was funding weapons research?
	I'll say, no, no, no.
	Let's not say that because we need a court to prove that's what the intent.
	He made weapons.
	It's like when, when Nobel invented dynamite, I think it was dynamite, TNT, whatever.
	I don't know if the same thing.
	He was intending it to be used for mining.
	They called him the merchant of death.
	He got freaked out by that, made the Nobel Prizes because he wanted to be known for something else.
	If Fauci is funding the creation of deadly viruses, do you think that when they make these viruses, the government's going to be like, better not weaponize these?
	Or do you think they're going to be like, hey, we can kill people with that?
	And a lot of this stuff is dual use.
	So the truth is, I mean, it's just, it's truly just a flip of a switch to go from Benevolent to, uh, but the main, the main point here is that the impact is more important than the intent.
	What do we get out of these grants to nowhere?
	It doesn't matter if you had good intentions or if you had bad intentions, meaning just greed.
	Um, what did we get out of it?
	And it's like, but, but Tim, the same phenomenon, the same dynamic we're talking about here for the, for, for the white coats, for the animal testers and stuff.
	About impact is more important than intent.
	It's the same for the nonprofits, right?
	It doesn't matter.
	Even if they had bad intents, they didn't want to shut down these labs because they could raise money off of it.
	Even if their intent was good and they were trying.
	Their impact was not good.
	They failed.
	Listen, not a single government primate lab, again, outside of our work, has been shut down since 2015.
	Not a single government dog lab outside of our work has been shut down since 2007.
	And not a single government cat lab, maybe not ever, has been shut down at least 40 years.
	That's an embarrassingly bad track record.
	Do you have any examples of good animal research done right?
	I mean, look, there are There are certainly less invasive, less painful, I mean, or no painful.
	I mean, there are, there are some innocuous, you know, observatory things out there.
	I don't, nothing's coming to mind at the moment, but you know, observational in the wild kind of, I mean.
	You know, I asked, but I imagine if your focus is.
	I'm sure there is.
	I mean, less, you know, on a, I'm sure there are plenty of things out there that are, you know, not.
	That makes sense.
	That are not.
	You know, they might either make sense or, or, or, um, certainly no, no sadistic abuse.
	Right.
	I only asked, I wouldn't expect you to know of good ones considering you're focused on the waste and abuse to shut it down.
	You know, I'm just curious.
	Or even ones that worked.
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, Sure.
		I mean, if I'm going to be honest about it, I mean, it's, it, it, look, the failure rates are horrifically bad upwards of 95%.
		This is what the government admits to is that 95% of, of, of, of, for example, drugs that work, work in an animal fail once they go to the humans.
		Right.
		So, so we know the failure rates are terrible, but four to 5% Presumably it works.
		So, but here's the problem.
		I mean, I'm sure there are examples.
		I'm not going to lie.
		I mean, it works except when it doesn't.
		It just doesn't work far more often and it's not predictive.
		And science is supposed to be predictive.
		Science is supposed to be tested.
		Science is supposed to be a predictive mechanism in which we predict that it works in the mouse and therefore it will work in Tim.
		You know, but humans are different than animals.
		Yeah.
		Humans are, it predicts from a mouse to a rat about 50% of the time.
unidentified		Wow, really?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Mice to rats.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, you know, we're not, we're not, we're not mice.
		We're not rats.
		We're not cats.
		They're all different.
		I don't think we're all equal.
		I think we're, I think, I think if we're honest about it, I mean, I think I love dogs and cats, you know, as much as you do, you know, but, but I don't think we're all the same.
		I think we're biologically different.
		I think we're genetically different, histologically different.
		I think we're all different.
		I don't think an oyster is the same as a cat.
		I don't think a cat's the same as a human.
		That's just the reality.
		I don't value animals the same degree I value humans.
		I care for dogs.
		I think dogs are loyal.
		They're like loyalty incarnate to a certain degree.
		Not all dogs are perfect.
		Some dogs are bad.
		But I still, I just, I imagine the needlessness and the horror of the pain induced on any life form.
		Now, I'm not some like hippie vegan dude.
		I'll kill a deer, I'll eat it.
		Probably more of like a Native American style, thank you for what I'm about to receive and for your sacrifice kind of mentality.
		Maybe sort of a saying grace for the gifts, the life that was taken for us.
		That's just, that's how the world works.
		But man, I think about some of these experiments and I'm just like, did we need to do that?
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Are you familiar with the rat hope experiment?
		Which one?
		The, uh... They put the rat, the researcher put the rat in the cylinders full of water and let him drown?
		Yeah, oh yeah!
		It's just so merciless.
		We learn something interesting from it, but I'm just kind of like, how much do we benefit from knowing that?
		And actually, is it used against us?
		So for those that aren't familiar, researcher takes rats, puts them in cylinders full of water where they can't get out.
		They swim for about 15 minutes before realizing they can't win, they give up, they sink to the bottom, they drown.
		In the next round, he puts them in, and right as they're giving up, he takes them out, dries them off, lets them rest, then he picks them up and puts them back in.
		The second time, they swam for about 60 hours, because they had hope.
		They believed that if they just kept going, the hand would come back and save them.
		What did we learn from that, that we needed to know?
		Well, I think governments learned they can torture humans and they'll tolerate it.
		That's not information I think we needed.
		And I don't think we needed to subject animals to this kind of just absolute horror of psychological torture and then death.
		That kind of stuff horrifies me.
		And why did we do it, repeat it?
		Even if we did need Fauci's dog experiments, which we didn't, why did we repeat it like eight times?
		Why did we do it in-house at NIAID and then outsource it to Georgia and then outsource it to Tunisia?
		Variations on it.
		Why are we doing the same, duplicating the same thing over again?
		That's one thing.
		But let me tell you another story.
		You just reminded me of one with the rat's despair drowning.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What if it wasn't part of the experiment at all?
		When I worked in the animal lab, I didn't see this, but, uh, but one of the techs told me he did this.
		It horrified me.
		And I, and I remember this like it was yesterday.
		It was, I only worked in the lab for like a few weeks, uh, but it was, it wasn't a long time.
		So it had to have been pretty quick into the tenure.
		And he told this was again, we were, we were working with pigs.
		That was the specimen that the lab I was in was Doing experiments on.
		But, you know, they had other animals.
		And he told me that there was this one time he had a rat.
		Not part of the experiment.
		This was like after the day's work concluded.
		Took the rat, injected her hind legs with a paralytic agent, presumably a ketamine or something.
		Some kind of paralytic agent.
		Paralyzed the hind legs.
		Went over to the sink.
		Closed the drain, inserted the rat, inserted her into the sink and then... Turned the water on.
		Yeah.
		And I said, why would you do that?
		Why would you do that?
		It wasn't even part of the, you just say, this was no psychology experiment or this was not like, this isn't even what you were saying, which was actually the purpose of the grant.
		He said, and here's what he told me.
		He said, she was mine.
		I could do whatever I wanted.
		And it just struck me as like, The mindset of some of these people, that's depraved.
		I mean, I think it's depraved.
		I don't care.
		I mean, that wasn't even this, again, I didn't see this, but this, but he told me this himself and, and, and, and I believed it.
		I do believe it because again, he told me with a straight face, he goes, it was my, it was my animal.
		It was my animal.
		I could do what I want.
		It's not his animal.
		Too many people in these days.
		There's so many problems with this story.
		I mean, it's the depravity.
		Anyway.
		Are you religious at all?
		I'm a Roman Catholic.
		I am not a Catholic nor Christian.
		I grew up Catholic.
		I do believe in God.
		I do believe in I'll phrase it this way.
		I think there are people who believe we are in a cold callous universe of nothingness, and there are people who believe that there is something much bigger and more important than them.
		I don't like killing bugs.
		I don't.
		There are some exceptions with... I'm not going to cry over stepping on a bug or flushing a stink bug or anything like that.
		Well, mosquitoes, they suck your blood.
		You gotta...
		I mean, I still don't like, I don't like killing needlessly.
		I don't like just, ah, bugs, snap.
		Especially spiders, you know, people are like, oh, it's a spider killer.
unidentified		Like, no way, no, a spider gonna do its thing.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, what would you rather have in your house, spiders or roaches?
		You know, I heard that what people do when they first buy property is they bring a bunch of spiders in on purpose and let the spiders do their spidery thing.
		For someone to say that the animal was mine, I'm like, the animal doesn't belong to you.
		The animal is a part of Earth and life and all of that stuff.
		And this idea that the animal is yours to do as you please, it's a very egocentric, narcissistic worldview in my opinion.
		Life is life.
		Life exists.
		I think we're fine to eat plants and animals because it serves a purpose, but the needless destruction, that to me is what evil is.
		I believe that we are here to be good stewards of the earth.
		We are here to create and expand.
		I typically see that most things we consider to be good are in the service of creation, and most things we consider to be bad are in the service of destruction.
		Sometimes you can destroy things for the better good.
		If there is a weapons stockpile being built by an evil person who intends to destroy, and we blow that up, we have destroyed, but we did it in the service of more creation, of more organization.
		So when I hear stories like that, where there are people who feel that they have some sort of absolute right to do something like that, I'm just like...
		No, you don't.
		No, you don't.
		If you get away with it, sure.
		If you look at, look at, look at the euphemisms that the, the animal experimenters, the white coats, the bad guys are using.
		When you read their papers, right?
		They never say we killed the animal.
		You know, they'll say we sacrificed the animal.
		Is that what they say?
		They'll use euphemisms like sacrifice.
		Now we work with a, um, pathologist on our on our board named Dr. Hanson, who's a world famous Alzheimer's researcher and against what we're doing to these dogs and other animals in the lab.
		And he told me and he pointed this out to me and he goes, you know, and he again, he killed dogs as part of his training and is now vocally against it and his works with us to shut the labs down.
		Long story short, he pointed this out to me.
		He goes, And he said this to his peers who were doing this, and he said, you guys say you sacrificed that animal.
		You didn't sacrifice anything.
		When you sacrifice something, you're giving up something that's important to you.
		Yeah.
		If you sacrifice for Lent, if you sacrifice for, for whatever you sacrifice, you know, in biblical story, you sacrifice your child for the, you know, whatever.
		You're giving up something you care about and it's important to you.
		You're doing nothing of the kind.
		This is property.
		This is a test tube or a government, you know, piece of government property that you're not sacrificing.
		That's window dressing.
		That's euphemism.
		I think kind of to deviate to a similar space with what people describe as factory farming.
		I know a lot of people say they don't like the term.
		It doesn't really make sense.
		Farms are farms, but there's just like larger scale farms where the animals do not have very good lives.
		I'm not a fan of any of that.
		And I think it's not so much just about, you know, if you want to call it animal rights or something or respecting life, it's about what it's doing to us as people in taking away our agency and responsibility for ourselves.
		Similar to what you're saying about someone saying they sacrificed, like no you didn't, you received a shipment of mice and then you killed them.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Just admit to what you're doing, be honest about it.
		Yeah, yeah, be honest about it.
		Yeah, just say that.
		And can you justify to yourself why you did it?
		Too much of these projects that you talk about and what you focus on make no sense.
		They're unjustified.
		It is just somebody saying, I need the grant.
		I don't want to be out of work.
		And so they say, yeah, make hamsters fight on steroids, I guess, and we'll see what happens.
		And it's like, come on.
		We know in human steroids boost aggression and like this is a what is the people want money?
		Yeah, but I think We would be better served as a community as people Our children are better served if they learn responsibility and respect For for life in general and that means you know, I think in the bigger picture people are better off with more space to themselves I think cities have become a very big problem in terms of the density the pollution and The social decay and all of these things.
		I've been saying for a long time, get out of cities, get a small piece of land, get some chickens, get some animals, care for them, tend to them.
		Be more responsible for yourself and your life.
		Be a better steward of the earth.
		What I see with animal testing, what I see with big cities is the mechanization and industrialization of life, which is turning us into mindless drone robots that are addicted to this system.
		It's, it's the antithesis of what I think life on earth should be.
		Yeah.
		In all of it.
		Yeah.
		I mean, it's gone way off the rails.
		It's, it's, you talk about sacrificing just needless, needless wastefulness of not just money, but life.
		One of the things we work on is what happens on day two for these animals, if we shut the lab down, right?
		If we shut the lab down, what happens to the survivors on day two?
		What happens to the dogs, the cats, monkeys, et cetera?
		What does happen to them?
		Well, good question.
		Because we found out in sometime around summer 2018, we were having some success, fortunately, of getting the projects defunded, getting labs shut down.
		And what was happening to them, we realized, was They were killing healthy survivors.
		In other words, the government was not even letting the taxpayers who pay for animal testing, giving them the right.
		They're not even allowing taxpayers to adopt survivors, right?
		So think about that.
		Once the experiment was done, completed, or the lab was defunded, they were offing They were, they were wasting these animals.
		They were, they were literally killing them out of convenience because these bureaucrats were, were, were too lazy or too cheap to adopt them out.
		Yeah.
		And there were no policies in place to let families adopt dogs and cats or let sanctuaries adopt the monk or take the monkeys, retire them.
		So.
		But PETA fights against that stuff.
		Well, I mean, it's, it's, we're fighting for it.
		We're, we, you know, we started this initiative, this project called Give Them Back, right?
		Taxpayers bought them.
		We bought them, Tim.
		Give them back.
		Give them back to us.
		Let the taxpayers have the right to adopt out the survivors.
		I have two of them from the U.S.
		Department of Agriculture, the two from the Kitten Slaughterhouse.
		And, you know, we are fighting to change that across the federal government to make retirement a requirement, to make adoption an option.
		Uh, in Florida, we have, uh, we shut down a nicotine addiction lab.
		This was, this was, this was back in 2017, 18 during the, it was the Trump administration.
		We shut down a nicotine addiction lab at the, at the food and drug administration.
		Where baby monkeys were put in chambers.
		There's also video of those smoke or something.
		Yes.
		But the way they smoke was they pushed levers for nicotine hits.
		So they, they were wearing the cat, they were wearing the vests, you know, the street jackets kind of thing.
		And, uh, the catheter was infusing nicotine into their veins and arteries.
		So they, they would push a lever for a hit.
		We have this on video.
		We got the, uh, we have these monkeys are addicted and they would, they would press it to get more correct.
		So there were baby monkey nicotine addiction experiments and...
		This was a $5.5 million addiction lab in Arkansas at the Food and Drug Administration.
		Did they explain what the purpose is?
		Did they say like, here's what we're trying to find?
	I mean, they were doing vaping and looking at the, yeah.
	So for example, they said, well, we know that smoking is addicting and we know that vaping has this effect, but here's the thing, Tim, we don't know what the effect is on the juvenile.
	So there are four variations on a theme they do.
	So, you know, we got the, we exposed this one, Find, expose, defund.
	We had success in shutting it down.
	And we got the monkeys, they got retired and to a sanctuary in Florida.
	And we're trying to create the same effect now across the federal government so that taxpayers have a right to adopt them.
	I don't know a lot of the specific details, but I know that there is challenges with a lot of these animal rights organizations trying to take away people's rights to adopt survivors or abused animals and things like that.
	They try to make it illegal in a bunch of states.
	They even, as we mentioned, in some instances have kidnapped animals.
	And I feel like that's also just not solving the problem.
	There was a funny story in New Zealand.
	I interviewed this guy named Gareth Morgan.
	He's apparently famous because he said, Well, the media reported he said, kill cats.
	We should go out and kill all the house cats.
	And everyone was like, I never said that!
	He's like, I said, we just don't let them have any more babies because they're killing the local animal population and things like that.
	And, uh, you know, his, his, his attitude towards the cats was, uh, they were brought here.
	They're destroying everything because they're essentially apex predators.
	Let's stop breeding them.
	You know, a harsh reality, but of course then people are like, oh, he's evil and he wants to kill cats.
	So I recognize that there are some times where it's like hard decisions are made, you know, for balance and things like that.
	But it does feel like when it comes to a lot of what these larger animal rights organizations do is we need to justify our existence.
	Let's just say people shouldn't have a right to own animals.
	And then it's like, well, look, we know the animal labs are bad.
	Not, not all of them.
	I think it's unfair to, I think that important research has to be done and there's terrifying things that get done sometimes, but you know, I'm not an absolutist.
	But then what do you do with the animals afterwards?
	Are we just going to be like, put them down?
	That's ridiculous.
unidentified		But a lot of people, yes, let them live, let them live.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Madness.
		I mean, it's absolute madness.
		And, and, you know, the establishment animal rights, Movement really needs to check itself on some not just priorities, but also on impact.
		I mean what if you care about shutting animal labs down and you're donating?
		You really should be asking some hard questions.
		Again, why is it that not a single primate lab in the federal government got shut down during either the Trump administration or the Biden administration?
		It's not a partisan thing.
		And again, outside of our work, because we have shut them down, but we're not an establishment group.
		But if you were, I'd be asking some tough questions.
		Is misplaced priorities or failed strategy?
		Well, let me ask you a thought on this.
		I don't know if it's fair to say or not, but Fauci retires.
		Do you think that was largely due to the work you guys did?
		Well, you know, I think it had a—you never know for sure, but I would say I do think that— I give you credit.
		Well, thank you.
		Look, the goal wasn't to make him retire, but the goal was to get the truth out there.
		The goal was to cut the wasteful spending.
		The goal was to expose the Wuhan lab.
		The goal was to end the Beagle experiments, and we've had success with a lot of that.
		Fauci wasn't alone.
		We've exposed... Listen, I mean, we were doing this during the Trump administration.
		We were doing it during the Biden administration.
		We are still doing it during the Biden administration.
		We started at the tail end of the Obama administration.
		Fauci was the most well-known.
		But, you know, the The Fauci's resignation, unfortunately the dirty business is still going on at NIH.
		The lab leak investigation still needs to proceed.
		The Beagle Labs, the rest of them still need to be shut down.
		Thinking about Fauci's retirement, And, you know, mentioning the work you did through the Trump administration, I'm having this strange feeling of optimism in that I feel like, you don't have to agree with me on this one, but I kind of feel like that if Trump gets re-elected, there's a possibility that so much good can come about and so much can be cleaned up in government because of the things that they did to Donald Trump politically.
		He seems like a man hell-bent on revenge.
		That sounds to me like he's gonna be open ears on all of these kinds of stories of wasteful spending, of government corruption, and he's gonna be just hell-bent on fire them all.
		And I think We may see something really good in the next few years.
		It may be... Are you familiar with the fourth turning, Strassau Generational Theory?
		No.
		It's the fourth turning.
		There's four seasons, they call it, every 20 years.
		And these guys hypothesized that every 80 years is a great calamity.
		So we had, 80 years ago, we had World War II.
		80 years before that, we had a civil war.
		80 years before that, it was a revolution.
		Watershed moments.
		Yeah, and we should be in it now and coming out of it around 2026.
		I'm wondering if this is it, this extreme degree of corruption and malice, manipulation, mismanagement.
		And maybe, some people fear that the fourth turning results in World War III.
		Maybe.
		Maybe it's civil war.
		Maybe we're in the worst of it and, you know, we're just used to seeing the worst of it.
		This government corruption in so many different ways, reckless spending, global conflict, and maybe coming out of the fourth turning into the springtime season, they call it, where things start improving.
		You know, because you get a good time and you get hard times and you get a good time.
		Maybe it's with a, maybe not Trump, maybe whoever comes after him, cleaning up all of this corruption and bureaucracy and these messes and we just start to see the blossoming of something positive and the cleaning up of the negative.
		It's a much bigger picture than just wasteful spending and animal stuff.
		But I do feel like when it comes to the animal, Experimentation.
		Trump's going to be going in and he's going to be like, where are we wasting money?
		What can we solve?
		What can we fix?
		And who are we firing?
		And someone like he's going to come around and be like, look at what Fauci was signing off on.
		He's going to be like, yeah, that guy was bad news.
		And that was a mistake.
		What should we do?
		And I think there's going to be a huge opportunity.
		He's going to be like, I'm done with this.
		We met with the Trump White House in January of 2020.
		It wasn't.
	And we went and we met with them.
	Among other things about the Wuhan lab.
	Remember the cat lab, the USDA lab that we had shut down was the year before.
	So the 27 labs in China was on our radar, right?
	Chance favors the prepared mind.
	That's how we knew about it.
	We were involved with China and animal testing in 2019.
	So we were lucky and fortunate, but at the same time, we, you know, some luck, some skill.
	We met with them in January of 2020.
	It wasn't a pandemic yet.
	It was an epidemic.
	It literally wasn't pronounced a pandemic for a little while longer.
	But again, we were there to talk about all of the administrative state animal testing problems, because that is where the epicenter of animal testing problems.
	It's in the administrative state, the NIH, the CDC, the EPA, the USDA, the FDA, the DOJ.
	That is what we focus on.
	These acronym bureaucracies riddled with tyrants and white lab coats who abuse animals.
	That was the agenda.
	But we also knew that President Trump was prioritizing China in his, and that would have been the fourth year of the administration.
	So that was the agenda.
	And we were there to meet about all the animal testing in the federal government.
	And when we fired the shot around the world, the first investigation, US taxpayers funded the $3.7 million grant, of which part of it went to the Wuhan lab.
	That Investigation didn't come out until Easter Sunday of 2020 that was our investigation in the Daily Mail, which was the very first Time we covered it.
	Yeah, we talked that one came out.
	That's right.
	And that's we Easter Sunday that came out Okay about a week later About a week later.
	There was what the famous press conference on stage President Trump and One of those coronavirus briefings, remember?
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		When he whacked the EcoHealth grant on stage about a week after our investigation came out and he said the words he used, go back and watch it.
		There's tremendous waste in the government.
		Okay.
unidentified		Oh yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It was one of the greatest days of my life when he did that.
		And one of the greatest days of my life when our brand name was tagged on that for exposing that.
		The lab leak money.
		How did you feel when John Stewart?
		Came out to Colbert and said awesome.
		It was awesome I mean and they and Colbert argues with them and I was awesome, you know early on my position I'm fairly middle-of-the-road.
		And so I said lab leak seems to make a lot of sense We'll see, you know if there if this is we're at I'm always very very much But as time goes on it becomes more and more impossible to deny the obvious especially when you've got the majority of people being like let's hold on here a minute and Either it came from bats a thousand miles away, and then somehow brought to a wet market to be consumed, or they brought it to the lab where they do the research on bats with coronaviruses that we know they did.
		And I remember when I covered the initial publication from, I think it's South China University, I think I could be getting the name wrong, where they said it may have resulted because the bats did these things.
		That was called a conspiracy theory.
		Yeah.
		It's remarkable.
		And they started suspending people and demonetizing people and telling you to shut up.
		The crazy thing about all this, to be honest, is when, I believe it was like January 18th of 2020, could be the day, I could be wrong, 16th maybe, when I covered the story of this virus in Wuhan.
		YouTube was telling us, we will lock your content.
		We will demonetize you if you talk about this.
		That was very strange.
		Something happening in a foreign country about a pandemic, we can't talk about it?
		There's video, it's very weird.
		Videos of guys in full bio suits, spraying things down, people collapsing in the street.
		And they said, if you talk about this, we take your money away.
		That makes no sense.
		Something weird was going on.
		No, so, you know, and, and look, it's, it's, it's the, so you asked about Jon Stewart.
		When I, when I saw that, it was, it was amazing.
		It was a year later, I think that was May of 21.
		Um, I'm pretty sure it was May or possibly early June, but it was the spring of 2021.
		So it was a year after, you know, uh, April of 2020.
		Long story short, look, We fired the shot heard around the world, the very first investigation, US taxpayers spent $3.7 million, right?
		That was us that put that in the Daily Mail.
		But I didn't think at that moment in time that it was probable that the Wuhan lab I mean, look, I thought it was possible that it came out of there.
		You know, who's to say?
		But, you know, look, 20 years before that, it is true that the SARS-1 did come from the wet market.
		You know, we know that.
		We pinned the animal down.
		All previous, you know, not all, but, you know, In many cases, if not most, they did come from direct animal to human.
		That is true.
		There was a pattern of that.
		You know, I thought it was possible.
		And remember, again, we were invested in the wet markets in the sense of the USDA rounding up wet market meat.
		So, you know, I thought it was possible.
		I shifted from... And again, remember, we were not following the science.
		We were following the money.
		So our contribution was the grant, you know, pinning down the EcoHealth grant.
		We exposed that.
		But in terms of me shifting my perspective of possible to probable didn't happen until much later in 2020.
		I read Dr. Stephen Quay and others in drastic and which I'm now a member of scientists and researchers who put out you know all the evidence started moving decisively towards The probability that it happened.
		I shipped it later in the year, but.
		Yeah, I'm trying to be careful.
		I don't want people to think that I'm taking credit for knowing or thinking it was obvious.
		Like, no, I was fairly middle of the road for the most of it, because I don't know, I'm not a scientist, and I try not to come out.
		But I think at this point, with everything we have, it's just, we're there, we're there.
		I suppose we should wrap up on one final segment, and that is the future.
		H5N1, I believe, is the avian flu strain.
		I read that a few years ago, they were doing gain-of-function research.
		We did briefly touch on this earlier, but I think this is the takeaway for people to understand what's going on.
		Gain-of-function research where they intentionally transmitted, they did everything, this is what they do with gain-of-function, they do everything in their power to make sure the virus mutates in a way that can attain an acquired outcome or whatever.
		In this instance, they wanted to infect mammals with ferrets, with the bird flu, and they succeeded.
		However they did, whatever happened, we are now seeing it emerge in mammals.
		60% mortality.
		It could be.
		The only reason this thing happens, I mean, in what circumstance do you have avian flu being in such close proximity to a large group of mammals that the mutation can occur?
		It is a rare thing in nature.
		Maybe with chicken farms, something like that?
		There is a strong possibility that if H5N1 does become a pandemic, and we're hearing the murmurs already of it popping up in mammal pop, I think a few humans may have died already from it, it could be gain-of-function research that caused it.
	Yeah.
	That's the fear.
	It is.
	And, you know, on that note, I mean, it's whether or not you care about animals or love animals or just kind of like them, whether or not you care about wasteful government spending and excessive taxation regulation and burden of the administrative straight, even if you don't.
	Do you care about life on the planet?
	Do you care about the, you know, that 80 year turmoil that, you know, that you were talking about, that 80 year apocalypse or whatever that we're due for?
	I mean, do you care about that?
	Taxpayer funded animal testing is now at the core.
	of that kind of apocalyptic scenario.
	I mean, do you care about 19 to 20 million dead?
	Do you care about the lockdowns?
	Do you care about the mandates?
	Do you care about what our lives became over the last few years and what they did to us?
	- I can imagine.
	- It's taken on a new level of significance.
	- I can imagine a worst case scenario.
	If you Google right now, for those who are listening, the stories about H5N1, humans who have died from it, the spread to humans, to mammals, it's scary.
	And hopefully it goes nowhere.
	Hopefully it's nothing to worry about.
	But I could imagine a reality in which they'd lock down again, H5N1, especially, look, whether you're of a conspiratorial mind or not, there's an election coming up.
	And politicians love a good crisis.
	So I'm not saying they will make a pandemic.
	I'm saying the media will start screaming about the dangers and they'll want to get you scared and stuff like that.
	But I could imagine a future in which a very serious avian flu kills way more than COVID did, and your rights and your freedoms are destroyed.
	And they say, oh yeah, we did that research.
	We did that.
	Maybe in the next few years it'll come out more definitively about the research being done at Wuhan.
	Maybe not.
	Maybe they've gotten rid of all the events already.
	But you can't play with fire, and then when the fire spreads, be surprised.
	And that's exactly what we're doing right now, and I just don't think it makes sense.
	There are still 27 labs in China eligible for payouts.
	There are labs all around the world.
	The Government Accountability Office itself just endorsed our findings on this.
	We are playing with fire.
	You know, the lessons are not being learned here.
	Tim, it took three years to delist the Wuhan Institute of Virology from eligibility from the payroll.
	So we're not moving fast.
	It was almost an admission of guilt.
	We smoked it out.
	Just last week, we had to smoke that.
	I was on the Washington Times front cover.
	You're right.
	Why did the NIH not comment on the story?
	You know, I mean, it's admission of guilt.
	Hmm, let's just brush that one under the rug.
	Maybe we shouldn't give them money.
	Yeah, let's just quietly remove them from the list.
	And putting it in China, I mean, where the standards are probably so lax.
	I mean, it's like doing it in the, I mean, somebody told me that it's the equivalent where we were doing the experiments in a dentist's office, that level of biosecurity, right?
	Yeah.
	No knock on dentists.
	My dad's a dentist, but again, they're not prepared to do gain of function, serial passaging, and that kind of dangerous animal testing.
	So let's, we'll tie this up with a nice little bow.
	What do you think the key takeaways for people after watching this?
	What's the final thoughts?
	What people, what should they know?
	What should they think?
	Where can we go?
	Look, to stop taxpayer-funded animal testing, you really have to stop wasteful government spending.
	That is the key.
	I mean, it's $20 billion a year of animal testing money.
	It's all taxpayer-funded, whether you like it or not.
	Stop the money, stop the madness.
	That's the key takeaway.
	Stop the money, stop the madness.
	And that's what the White Coat Waste Project is all about.
	And the madness could lead to the apocalypse.
	It may already have.
	I hope not.
	Do you want to shout anything out?
	How people can find you, your website?
	Thank you so much, Tim.
	I really appreciate being on the show today.
	Anybody in the audience watching can find us, follow us on social media.
	Hopefully we'll be unbanned soon on Twitter.
	White Coat Waste is our handle.
	You know, you can visit us on White Coat Waste, our website, whitecoatwaste.org.
	It's a funny name, whitecoatwaste.org.
	Hard to say a little bit.
	White Coat Waste.
	Peter Piper picked a peck of pickle.
	But you gotta have some fun with it too.
	Yeah.
	In these dark times.
	Whitecoatwaste.org.
	Yeah, I guess my final thoughts on all this is that it comes from sometimes the strangest of places or where you're not looking.
	I think the average person isn't really thinking too much about wasteful animal research.
	But I think that if people knew years before COVID, pandemic may have never happened.
	Man, it's just kind of fascinating to me.
	If you tracked down needless beagle torture You could have prevented the pandemic, but nobody saw that coming.
	And so that's what I say, you know, you look at this and it could come from anywhere and you should never know.
	If we pay attention to these wasteful projects, if we pay attention to wasteful government spending, we could prevent the apocalypse.
	You just never know.
	That's why it's so important to be active, to pay attention, to have people held accountable for whatever it may be, sometimes seemingly innocuous things.
	So, those are my final thoughts.
	But thanks for hanging out, man.
	This has been absolutely fascinating.
	My pleasure.
	Thank you so much for having me on, as always.
	And for everybody watching, become a member at timcast.com.
	A little late in the show, but castbrew.com, support our coffee company, help us build this culture.
	And thanks for hanging out.
	We'll have clips from this show up throughout the week, and then more to come.

▲