GRU's testing was sloppy

  • Follow Letters

I may not be a physician like Georgia Regents University President Ricardo Azziz or hold a Ph.D. like GRU Senior Vice President for Research Mark Hamrick. My scientific education is limited to what I learned by graduating high school.

I paid attention in high school, though. I learned about the scientific method. I had good teachers. I think that at GRU they have forgotten about basics.

In any scientific experiment you have to have controls. For instance, if you wanted to do a test on inflammation of dental implants, it seems that to eliminate variables in your data you would want the treatment of your test animals to mirror that of any human subject on which you would conduct the same experiment. Under those circumstances, you would get the best results.

Now let’s take a look at the dog named Shy Guy from the Humane Society of the United States’ video showing GRU’s dental-implant test animals. Let’s face it: Shy Guy looked way underweight, scared and isolated – not how you would treat a human test subject. With that being said, we know that hunger and stress hinder healing, thus affecting data gathered. That’s not all. We now also know that excessive stress can wreak havoc on your mouth – a factor researchers may have overlooked.

So with that all being said, I believe you have to take data gathered from Shy Guy and throw it in the trash. I am guessing that if Shy Guy was malnourished and stressed, there must have been others like him. So now take all that data and throw it in the trash as well. It’s a senseless waste of life.

There clearly was not enough scientific controls in these tests, but it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out. It’s clear that this wasn’t about good science; it was about rushing a new patent to the market for profit. That’s something that we have historically proved to be harmful to humans. These tests were a formality.

Dennis Briatico

North Augusta, S.C.

Comments (44) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 12/26/13 - 07:46 am
6
6
Two points. First of all, it

Two points. First of all, it should be clear from the outset that studies like this are published in peer review journals. That means that people who actually have training in science have the opportunity to question the validity of the scientific controls performed.

Second of all, the USDA inspected these studies and found no fault in their animal care. That means that if ShyGuy had a body condition score indicating his weight was low, he received veterinary attention and extra food/supplements. The presence of a thin dog does not necessarily indicate maltreatment. In this case in particular, the USDA found it did not.

The layperson reading about this controversy needs to understand that the animal rights movement would attempt to discredit research using animals irrespective of its values and animal care. They are not motivated by animal suffering. They are motivated by both animal rights, and making money. They run campaigns like this to boost donations.

ymnbde
9585
Points
ymnbde 12/26/13 - 08:57 am
4
6
bacteria aren't prone to emotions

and while a simple tv screen shows a bacteria carrier with a name
the increased clarity of microscopes is necessary to see how bacteria harms humans
while simple emotional responses are engaged by pictures of dogs
the absence of pictures of humans suffering from infection due to dental implants doesn't mean they are no less pitiable and suffer no less
and the "emotional" method may be disguised in "scientific" method clothing
perhaps some more training in higher level biology would help
some statistics knowledge from khanacademy.org
or some reading in the more rigorous ethical philosophy texts
or some maturity to realize respect for both sides is necessary for a proper debate
and to accuse the researchers of harming dogs simply for monetary profit and to write so condescendingly about their intelligence and training (which are obviously beyond your own training and manners) lacks respect for all involved
the researchers have already written an article debunking your argument
perhaps you could use your analytical skills
to develop a method of eliminating bacteria that does not involve testing?

Little Lamb
45398
Points
Little Lamb 12/26/13 - 09:10 am
4
7
Science

This letter is about as unscientific as it gets.

Bizkit
30906
Points
Bizkit 12/26/13 - 10:25 am
4
6
Perfect test subject as some

Perfect test subject as some people are under weight-hope they had some over weight dogs too. Actually most people allow their dogs to get over weight-a skinny dog is usually a healthy dog just like a human. The controls could be different dogs or in the same dog different tooth implants-one with and one without anti-bacterial agent. It's a non-issue because the USDA found GRU in compliance and the humane society complaint without major merit.

Fiat_Lux
15146
Points
Fiat_Lux 12/26/13 - 10:39 am
2
6
BTW,

just because you weren't shown the control animals, what makes you believe there weren't any? How about if an earlier study results were used as the control for the study in question?

High school covers some of the basics, and mostly in a pretty general overview kind of way. That limits how useful your critique is when it comes to experimental design and scientific method.

If you had college level statistics, you might have more to say, but I work there and couldn't tell you what their study design was. How would you have any idea?

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 12/26/13 - 11:12 am
5
3
Didn't Gru purchase the

Didn't Gru purchase the animals from a supplier that was under investigation for animal abuse and/or mistreatment? Or better yet, I think he was already found guilty of it. There is a proper way and then the way where you cut-corners. Supporting the guy who fails to treat life with respect is not as honorable as is made out sometimes folks. Hate the opinion as much as you want, doesn't change that the guy doing business supplying test-dogs is doing so b/c Gru and the like continue to patronize his business. Just watch where you get your animals and I'll be fine with your testing methods.

Bizkit
30906
Points
Bizkit 12/26/13 - 11:37 am
2
6
The class B animals are still

The class B animals are still regulated by USDA the issue is the "source" of these dogs "can" be questionable, but they are animals that are destined to be put down usually. There is only 7 class B dealers in the country.

corgimom
31535
Points
corgimom 12/26/13 - 11:41 am
5
6
I received a dental implant,

I received a dental implant, and I thank God that there were researchers that developed implants and that they were tested first on animals for safety and effectiveness. A few years ago, I would've lost a tooth and had a very poor alternative- a bridge, which destroys the adjacent teeth and starts people on the road to dentures.

I do not understand people that value dogs over people, and that want to stand in the way of medical and dental progress.

It is now known that dental health plays a direct part in medical health, and that implants are far better than bridges or dentures, which cause future dental problems.

Some people have very skewed priorities in life.

corgimom
31535
Points
corgimom 12/26/13 - 11:42 am
4
5
By the way, I own 3 dogs, and

By the way, I own 3 dogs, and all of them are "thin"- meaning, they are healthy, far healthier than overweight dogs.

itsanotherday1
42296
Points
itsanotherday1 12/26/13 - 12:41 pm
5
6
Corgi

"I do not understand people that value dogs over people, and that want to stand in the way of medical and dental progress."

It is called "emotion trumping reason"; a malignancy among some.

Esctab
837
Points
Esctab 12/26/13 - 12:50 pm
6
3
The research question posed

The research question posed by GRU Dental faculty may have of scientific value and benefit to humans; however the research methods and source of dogs are questionable. Additionally, the USDA DID in fact find several concerns; readers should carefully review the list of five concerns released by GRU regarding the preliminary USDA report. Walter is overstating it when stating no problems were found by the investigation. While the USDA found evidence that the study procedures were approved; the USDA preliminary report also indicates concerns about an enrichment environment (or lack thereof ?) and that GRU should search for an alternative to dental extractions and alternatives to animal research (this suggests that subjecting dogs to these tests is an unnecessary method for studying the research question).

It is no insignificant matter that GRU was using dogs obtained from a Class B dealer who is under investigation. Although Little Lamb seems to think it is a great idea and wants to encourage GRU to continue the practice, readers may want to evaluate this for themselves by reading an NIH report entitled: "Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research." The report can be found at this site: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32665/

Random source animals do have desirable qualities; but that is not the end of the story. Below are excerpts from the NIH report about obtaining them from Class B vendors (Little Lamb please note it is not always the least expensive purchasing approach):

“Because random source animals come from various sources, they are more likely to be associated with undesirable aspects such as infectious disease, occupational health (zoonotic) hazards, and inconsistent health and welfare standards. These undesirable aspects may limit their value for research purposes and place additional burden on institutions resulting from increased health and welfare surveillance.
Cost may be a factor in the decision to use random source animals for research, as they are less expensive than most purpose-bred dogs and cats. However, there are often additional costs associated with conditioning the animals to make them suitable for research, including quarantine, treatment for parasites, vaccination, de-worming, and other procedures. These costs for research institutions, as well as those incurred by the federal government (USDA) related to inspection and enforcement of Class B dealers, tend to equalize the costs compared to purpose-bred animals. Furthermore, cost alone should not be the sole determinant of the appropriateness of a particular animal model used in research.

The principal question posed to the Committee was not whether such animals should be used in research but whether dogs and cats from Class B dealers are necessary. Animals with similar qualities are available from such alternate sources as direct acquisition from pounds and shelters, Class A dealers of purpose-bred dogs and cats, existing research colonies, and owner-donated animals. The Committee therefore determined dogs and cats from Class B dealers are not necessary for NIH-funded research.

Although random source dogs and cats represent a very small percentage of animals used in biomedical research, this small number is not commensurate with their potential value, and it is desirable to assure continued access to animals with random source qualities. This access can be accomplished with existing alternative mechanisms other than Class B dealers and can be assured with additional effort. The Committee thus determined that Class B dealers are not necessary for supplying dogs and cats for NIH-funded research.”

Bloggers to this letter (and other AC articles on this topic) have harshly ridiculed individuals who have expressed concern about the value of the research and the welfare of the animals; some of these bloggers have gone so far as to call people with concerns as “stupid” and “ignorant.” Some of these bloggers have suggested that since the dogs were destined for euthanasia anyway that is shouldn’t matter than GRU conducted research on them. Well, again, just because the animal had the bad luck of being an unwanted animal doesn’t justify subjecting it to potentially unnecessary testing before killing it. But moreover, as NIH concluded in the report mentioned and excerpted above, researchers have sufficient other options for obtaining genetically diverse animals so that buying them from a Class B vendor is unnecessary. Those bloggers who want to call views contrary to their own as “stupid” and “ignorant” may want to reconsider that naming calling in light of the NIH report on Class B dealers as well as the list of USDA concerns specific to GRU.

Bizkit
30906
Points
Bizkit 12/26/13 - 01:30 pm
4
7
This isn't NIH funded

This isn't NIH funded research so they broke no law using class B animals for this privately funded research. NIH likes to use dogs breed-class A for research purposes because of knowing the genealogy and health of the dogs. Stem cell research was funded by private funds to side step Bush restrictions. The research wasn't frivolous as past accusations made. I stated they found minor problems but those weren't an issue when they passed their last inspection. Since about every College requires cat dissections for Human Anatomy and Physiology I can see that will likely be next on the sights of protestors. Comments that directly call a person stupid, etc-an ad hominem are removed by Sean. But I guess you can make general statements to the stupidity of specific logic-or the lack of it. "Ignorant" or "naive" isn't an insult but statement of fact-who isn't ignorant of many topics. But you can't call people stupid-course as Forrest says "stupid is as stupid does".

Bizkit
30906
Points
Bizkit 12/26/13 - 01:36 pm
3
6
People need to realize that

People need to realize that during the 80's Clinton expanded research funding massively-really over expanded because it wasn't sustainable. During the Bush years spending decreased and it has continued to do so. The numbers of PhD competing for a smaller pie makes research very competitive. States have had dramatic loses of revenues since the economic downturn. My bet the number of Class B dealers may expand from 7 to more as the slow economy makes expensive research difficult. Not that I approve but logistically it may happen to keep costs down.

Bizkit
30906
Points
Bizkit 12/26/13 - 01:50 pm
5
6
Maybe all the people who get

Maybe all the people who get free Medicaid health care now can contribute to society, rather than just be a burden, and donate their life for research. That way there will be no abuse of dogs. What better research model than an actual human being.

Esctab
837
Points
Esctab 12/26/13 - 02:16 pm
7
3
Bizkt, NIH is anticipating

Bizkt, NIH is anticipating that the number of Class B dealers will continue to decline, not expand as you suggest. Also, the fact that the dental study at GRU is not NIH funded is irrelevant to the point that obtaining animals from Class B dealers is potentially unwise and unnecessary. If GRU wants to rise to the level of a world class research institution, it needs to carefully weigh how and where it obtains animals for any research whether NIH funded or not.

David Parker
7923
Points
David Parker 12/26/13 - 03:13 pm
5
2
x2

If GRU wants to rise to the level of a world class research institution, it needs to carefully weigh how and where it obtains animals for any research whether NIH funded or not.

Fiat_Lux
15146
Points
Fiat_Lux 12/26/13 - 03:22 pm
3
6
You can tell who's trolling the animal rights whine articles

Yup. There's no mystery when rational comments dealing with facts rather than emotion get more red thumbs than green.

What a waste of time and ethernet space. It's like reasoning with a rockpile.

Bizkit
30906
Points
Bizkit 12/26/13 - 03:25 pm
1
5
Here read from the NIH the

Here read from the NIH the reason why is public opinion and political.
"Many medical advances that enhance the lives of both humans and animals originate from animal studies. The types of animals used in research are chosen for their biological similarity to humans in areas such as anatomy, physiology, and genetics. This research can lead to insights into how to prevent, treat, and cure human diseases. Often the treatments developed for humans can also be used to improve the health of animals.

All animals used in federally funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies to ensure the smallest possible number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their comfort. Fulfilling these protections is a collaborative effort between NIH, federally supported scientific investigators, and research institutions. The majority of dogs used in biomedical research are either “purpose-bred” for research by USDA Class A vendors, or bred and raised in privately owned research colonies. Some research dogs, however, commonly referred to as “random source” dogs, are procured from USDA licensed Class B dealers. These dealers acquire dogs from random sources such as individual owners, small hobby breeders, dog pounds and animal shelters.

The public and Congress have expressed concern about the humane treatment of animals acquired for use in biomedical research, particularly that of “random source” dogs. In FY2008, the NIH Appropriations language asked the NIH to “seek an independent review by a nationally recognized panel of experts of the use of Class B dogs…in federally supported research to determine how frequently such animals are used in NIH research and to propose recommendations outlining the parameters of such use, if determined to be necessary.” (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2008 (S. 1710) Referenced in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, P.L. 110-61 signed 12/26/2007.)

The scope and timeline for the requested report were discussed with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in early 2008 and an award was made to conduct the study in June 2008. In May 2009 representatives from the NAS met with NIH staff and delivered the study report Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research. The report made a number of recommendations and concluded that it is desirable to assure continued access to animals with random source characteristics, e.g., large, mature, tractable, and socialized. However, this access can be accomplished with existing alternative mechanisms other than through USDA Class B dealers and can be assured with additional effort."

Bizkit
30906
Points
Bizkit 12/26/13 - 03:26 pm
1
4
"To facilitate the transition

"To facilitate the transition from USDA Class B to other legal sources of dogs, NIH is implementing an aggressive acquisition plan to develop a USDA licensed commercial Class A vendor to breed dogs possessing the same characteristics as those previously acquired from USDA Class B dealers, namely large, mature, socialized out-bred hounds or mongrels. Under this pilot project, a limited number of dogs with these characteristics will be acquired and made available at no charge to NIH supported investigators with a demonstrated scientific need. A limited number of animals will be available in Fiscal Year 2011, as part of the 3-5 year pilot project, allowing for the potential need to expand breeding colonies and the forecasted time necessary to breed, wean, socialize and raise animals to a size and age required for selected research purposes. NIH Program Officers will be contacting grantees over the next 48 months regarding participation in the pilot project. Initially, dogs will be made available to test the maturation and socialization programs for these animals, as well as consistency with phenotypic characteristics sought in previously procured USDA Class B animals. During this transition period, NIH will closely monitor the pilot project to ensure that scientifically appropriate animals in adequate numbers will ultimately be available for NIH-supported researchers.

NIH strongly encourages awardees that use or are considering acquisition of dogs from USDA Class B dealers for use in NIH supported research to begin identifying and acquiring dogs from other legal sources. It is anticipated that no later than 2015, NIH will fully implement a new policy prohibiting the procurement of dogs from USDA Class B dealers using NIH grant funds."

Bizkit
30906
Points
Bizkit 12/26/13 - 03:44 pm
2
5
So actually the class B dogs

So actually the class B dogs are more desirable but public opinion and Congress are forcing the issue-now they are basically going to breed class B type dogs for research. The use of dogs nor the type B large social mature are being restricted for research-they support both. Just where they come from is being regulated. So the type B dealer is vanishing but the use of the type B dog will increase as the pilot study indicates and as I suggested. Dog research is in its infancy especially now we have their genome and they make a great model for human disease. Dog research will expand with govt regulation of type A breeders breeding type B large mature social dogs as NIH stated. Get over it-you are supporting this with your tax dollar. Just gonna cost more to produce the type B dog. Because of genetic manipulation dogs exhibit many diseases as man and because they have a simpler genetic system of fewer alleles they make the perfect model to help science understand and cure human disease. I just think it is a blessing that the Lord has produced such animals for study.

Bizkit
30906
Points
Bizkit 12/26/13 - 03:47 pm
1
4
I've said the same Fiat. Yet

I've said the same Fiat. Yet I bother-isn't that inane repetition the definition of stupidity? I am a big dummy. Watch the deluge of thumb ups.

Esctab
837
Points
Esctab 12/26/13 - 04:29 pm
5
2
Somehow Bizkit and Fiat Lux

Somehow Bizkit and Fiat Lux continue to miss the point that the primary objection is not whether the animal is class B or diverse/random versus purpose bred, rather it has to do with the SOURCE for that animal. When the source is a Class B DEALER, then the potential is rather high for undesirable issues. Bizkit, Fiat Lux and others want to insist that it is only overly emotional stupid people who are concerned about the source of research animals. However, the NIH shares the same concerns (referred to in the NIH report as the “Committee”). See below from NIH:

“UNRESOLVED CLASS B COMPLIANCE ISSUES
The public harbors two major concerns about the use of Class B dogs and cats in research, and the Committee shares those concerns. The first is the perception of pet theft or displacement of lost pets by dealers who may profit through the sale of such animals to research.
The second is the deplorable husbandry conditions that have been documented at some Class B dealers (AWI 2007).

With respect to the first concern, loopholes in the AWR permit pets to enter the research pipeline via Class B dealers who acquire and sell dogs and cats that originated from auctions, shelters, and pounds.
The second concern arises from the requirement that Class B dealers adhere to only the AWR, whereas institutions that receive NIH funding for research comply with PHS Policy, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and the U.S. Government Principles (defined in Chapter 1). Class B facilities are therefore not held to the same standards as NIH-funded research facilities. In addition, the USDA, which is responsible for enforcement of the AWR, has different internal inspection manuals (see Chapter 1), allowing—and inconsistently applying—different standards of the AWR among dealers, research institutions, and exhibitors. It is difficult for the public to understand why there are different standards of care when the purpose of the AWR was to establish minimum standards.

Finally, the Committee recognizes that the USDA is severely hampered in its ability to implement the AWR standards. USDA has insufficient enforcement powers, including the ability to act more swiftly, assess sufficiently punitive fines, issue temporary injunctions, and impose immediate cease-and-desist orders for serious or repeat animal welfare citations. As explained above, because of insufficient staffing and the time-consuming multiple steps and documentation required for enforcement, only serious and repeated infractions are worth pursuing, allowing many “minor” infractions to persist unaddressed. It is of great concern to the Committee that animals can be removed from Class B dealer sites only if they are in need of immediate veterinary care, leaving the possibility that severely stressed animals or those in need of less intensive care may be left unattended.

These serious unresolved Class B compliance issues and humane concerns were major factors in the deliberations that led to the Committee’s final recommendations (Chapter 5).”

Unless you forgot, the NIH is discontinuing the funding of research that uses Class B DEALERS. The value of a random, diverse animal is not being overlooked or misunderstood, it is the SOURCE. NIH has concluded that valuable diverse (class B) animals can be obtained many other ways and that researchers do not need to rely on Class B DEALERS.

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 12/26/13 - 04:34 pm
3
4
> While the USDA found

> While the USDA found evidence that the study procedures were
> approved; the USDA preliminary report also indicates concerns
> about an enrichment environment (or lack thereof ?) and that
> GRU should search for an alternative to dental extractions and
> alternatives to animal research (this suggests that subjecting dogs
> to these tests is an unnecessary method for studying the research
> question).

To clarify. The USDA recommended additional search terms be added to the comprehensive search for alternative methods already performed by the researchers, and furthermore recommended improved documentation of the existing enrichment program. As I stated earlier, there is no animal welfare issue at issue. It is important to improve compliance however, even when it consists of dotting i's and crossing t's.

These studies are performed regularly because the FDA requires two different species of animals be tested, and one of them must be a non-rodent species. It is the law, and if you want to introduce new dental devices (or antimicrobial treatments on devices), you will need to test in dogs or pigs. Furthermore, the complexity of the bone healing response is so incompletely understood that it is a GOOD thing the FDA requires such tests be done.

The main point to end on is that the Humane Society's investigation really dropped the ball. Their alleged mistreatment and unnecessary conduct of tests were in fact found to be compliant in animal welfare, and legally required to meet the goals of the funding agency. The debate on animal welfare is carried out by committees of legislators, veterinarians, researchers, and laypersons who attempt to balance the use of animals against the potential for discovery in science and medicine. These committees do not harass individuals that are compliant. They do not call their cell phones at all hours of the night. They do not speak to the children of the researchers to lecture them on what a bad person their mother or father is. Those are acts of soft terrorism, designed by intent to instill fear into the people involved in the research. In so doing, they will forcibly alter the state of progress in science and medicine. And those acts were all carried out in this case, triggered by the Humane Society's actions.

There is a proper table to discuss the use and regulation of animals in research, and that ain't it.

Fiat_Lux
15146
Points
Fiat_Lux 12/26/13 - 06:08 pm
3
5
Bottom line, Esctab

is that the dealer, though found to be or designated as class B, was approved and licensed to provide dogs to GRU.

You can't exactly blame GRU for not doing background checks when the dealer is approved by whatever agency of the NIH or its designee. Perhaps that agency/designee or whatever has not done due diligence, but GRU was using an approved dealer.

So, yeah, I think you pretty much nailed my opinion about what's going on with this. I think it's an emotion-laden witch hunt by people with too much time on their hands.

I'm quite serious about rigorous enforcement of the policies, procedures and standards regarding research, probably far more than you are and for far more serious reasons than just the welfare of the animal subjects. Not following proper methods and not adhering to the appropriate standards leads to bad data and misleading results. People have died because of that, or been born with funny limbs or heart defects or cranio-facial abnormalities.

We have a moral obligation to treat research animals humanely, and nothing other than that is going on at GRU, even if you aren't satisfied by the governmental oversight inspections. That's probably because you don't like having pets used for research. Nothing wrong with that--until you start obstructing valid, peer-reviewed and good research that impacts the lives of human beings.

Then there is a problem, and it's yours.

Esctab
837
Points
Esctab 12/26/13 - 06:06 pm
5
3
Walter, if GRU would (1) dot

Walter, if GRU would (1) dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s (meaning be in compliance with ALL standards and be able to verify it with proper documentation), and (2) stop buying animals from questionable dealers, then questions regarding research sloppiness might not come up. It seems that an institution that is eager to establish a reputation as world class would be eager to ensure public trust at all levels.

Esctab
837
Points
Esctab 12/26/13 - 06:10 pm
3
2
Fiat Lux, then by default the

Fiat Lux, then by default the NIH is a bunch a emotional laden people on a witch hunt too since they have documented their grave concerns about Class B dealers and as a consequence are discontinuing the funding of studies that use animals from that source.

Fiat_Lux
15146
Points
Fiat_Lux 12/26/13 - 06:13 pm
3
4
Esctab

Really, GRU doesn't care if you are offended. And your assessment of what will or won't make GRU a world class research institution is, I'm relieved to say, simply your own opinion. It carries no weight with GRU, nor with the agencies that oversee these things.

Oh, they will investigate alright, since people are raising a stink. And the investigation will be paid for by all of us. It's a huge waste of time and money, but since the Humane Society needed a little free publicity, I guess we are required to foot the bill.

Fiat_Lux
15146
Points
Fiat_Lux 12/26/13 - 06:19 pm
2
4
Please, Esctab

The NIH looks at these things because these things affect the quality of research and because it's wrong to treat research animals inhumanely. When research animals are being treated according to NIH policy and standards, which is the case at GRU, then a kerfuffle like you are fomenting is just flushing taxpayer and research money down the toilet.

And kindly stop with the bizarre interpretations of plain and simple explanations. It's just wrong to do that. If a class of providers is verboten, then GRU will not be using them.

Retroactive castigation and condemnation is a despicable libtard tactic.

Fiat_Lux
15146
Points
Fiat_Lux 12/26/13 - 06:20 pm
2
4
That's enough.

I find this too stupid for words.

corgimom
31535
Points
corgimom 12/26/13 - 08:03 pm
3
1
"What better research model

"What better research model than an actual human being."

Bizkit, as someone who was involved in the MCG research scandal several years ago, your comment, quite frankly, is sickening.

I invite YOU to be part of a research study- and then find out, after the fact, that it was conducted illegally and immorally and unethically, with no regard as to the very real people involved.

Yes, it's GREAT knowing that I, and several others, were exploited and victimized, that we were jeopardized and that crimes were committed so that two doctors could get even richer than they already were.

Yes, sirree!

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs