PA-SN 2022 megathread: Shrek vs. The Wizard of Oz

[Calthrina950]

The Dog Story has been shuffling around the internet for awhile now. I'm surprised the media hasn't picked up on it until now.

This could be the Hunter Biden of this cycle. Oz torturing animals and Walker having abortions….and the Media gives them the BotD.

Except unlike Hunter Biden, this is directly relevant to the actual candidates running. The abortion story is particularly relevant this year, and seems particularly damning with particularly strong evidence.

Is it almost safe to say that Oz and Walker are doomed at this point? This is the impression I'm getting from some here. These stories certainly are horrible, and just further confirm that Republicans botched so many of these races this year.

[cb584968]

Oz is sick.

[ꙮ]

The Dog Story has been shuffling around the internet for awhile now. I'm surprised the media hasn't picked up on it until now.

This could be the Hunter Biden of this cycle. Oz torturing animals and Walker having abortions….and the Media gives them the BotD.

Except unlike Hunter Biden, this is directly relevant to the actual candidates running. The abortion story is particularly relevant this year, and seems particularly damning with particularly strong evidence.

Is it almost safe to say that Oz and Walker are doomed at this point? This is the impression I'm getting from some here. These stories certainly are horrible, and just further confirm that Republicans botched so many of these races this year.

I’d call both Lean D for now and see how badly these stories blow up over the next few days. Ultimately GA and PA are tossup states in what should be a Republican year. I see both staying Democrat in spite of that, but its hard to tell what scandals are going to sink a campaign and which ones are going to fade without the benefit of hindsight.

[Calthrina950]

The Dog Story has been shuffling around the internet for awhile now. I'm surprised the media hasn't picked up on it until now.

This could be the Hunter Biden of this cycle. Oz torturing animals and Walker having abortions….and the Media gives them the BotD.

Except unlike Hunter Biden, this is directly relevant to the actual candidates running. The abortion story is particularly relevant this year, and seems particularly damning with particularly strong evidence.

Is it almost safe to say that Oz and Walker are doomed at this point? This is the impression I'm getting from some here. These stories certainly are horrible, and just further confirm that Republicans botched so many of these races this year.

I’d call both Lean D for now and see how badly these stories blow up over the next few days. Ultimately GA and PA are tossup states in what should be a Republican year. I see both staying Democrat in spite of that, but its hard to tell what scandals are going to sink a campaign and which ones are going to fade without the benefit of hindsight.

Oz probably still has a chance of emerging through this latest controversy, especially since it is something which has been circulating out there for some time now. But it's hard for me to see how Walker recovers from this kind of allegation. He is such a flawed candidate and has so many personal problems.

[ꙮ]

The Dog Story has been shuffling around the internet for awhile now. I'm surprised the media hasn't picked up on it until now.

This could be the Hunter Biden of this cycle. Oz torturing animals and Walker having abortions….and the Media gives them the BotD.

Except unlike Hunter Biden, this is directly relevant to the actual candidates running. The abortion story is particularly relevant this year, and seems particularly damning with particularly strong evidence.

Is it almost safe to say that Oz and Walker are doomed at this point? This is the impression I'm getting from some here. These stories certainly are horrible, and just further confirm that Republicans botched so many of these races this year.

I’d call both Lean D for now and see how badly these stories blow up over the next few days. Ultimately GA and PA are tossup states in what should be a Republican year. I see both staying Democrat in spite of that, but its hard to tell what scandals are going to sink a campaign and which ones are going to fade without the benefit of hindsight.

Oz probably still has a chance of emerging through this latest controversy, especially since it is something which has been circulating out there for some time now. But it's hard for me to see how Walker recovers from this kind of allegation. He is such a flawed candidate and has so many personal problems.

I think the Walker scandals are more damaging too, but he’s been strangely resilient in the polling before this point. Fetterman’s had at least a 4 point lead in every poll while Walker has outright led in some. Warnock has less of a buffer (if polling is to be believed).

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://t.co/GtcZ5CcSGn

🚨 NBC confirming the story as well.

[Green Line]

https://t.co/GtcZ5CcSGn

🚨 NBC confirming the story as well.

Lol.  Got so excited to post this, you didn't even bother clicking on the link I guess.

[UncleSam]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why conducting routine scientific trials on animals as a researcher at Columbia is a big deal.

Are people just now realizing that when you test unproven medicines on animals sometimes the animals suffer and die? Obviously they try to make it so that the animals don't suffer much if things do go south but that's literally how we test all potential medications before we move on to human trials.

Maybe people are just daft or don't understand the scientific process. The abortion story in Georgia seems like clearly the bigger deal to me.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://t.co/GtcZ5CcSGn

🚨 NBC confirming the story as well.

Lol.  Got so excited to post this, you didn't even bother clicking on the link I guess.

Works fine 👍🏻

[Green Line]

https://t.co/GtcZ5CcSGn

🚨 NBC confirming the story as well.

Lol.  Got so excited to post this, you didn't even bother clicking on the link I guess.

Works fine 👍🏻

Then I guess I was being too charitable.  You’re illiterate.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

https://t.co/GtcZ5CcSGn

 NBC confirming the story as well.

Lol.  Got so excited to post this, you didn't even bother clicking on the link I guess.

Works fine 

Then I guess I was being too charitable.  You’re illiterate.

[Green Line]

https://t.co/GtcZ5CcSGn

 NBC confirming the story as well.

Lol.  Got so excited to post this, you didn't even bother clicking on the link I guess.

Works fine 

Then I guess I was being too charitable.  You’re illiterate.

Good one, Scott.

[soundchaser]

https://t.co/GtcZ5CcSGn

 NBC confirming the story as well.

Lol.  Got so excited to post this, you didn't even bother clicking on the link I guess.

Works fine 

Then I guess I was being too charitable.  You’re illiterate.

When you see Dr. Oz across the room.

[It’s so Joever]

This is giving VA-Gov white supremacist allegations vibes.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

This is giving VA-Gov white supremacist allegations vibes.

How?

[GALeftist]

This is giving VA-Gov white supremacist allegations vibes.

I don't think this will end up moving the needle much unless it gets picked up by a big PA newspaper but this is delusional lol

[Crumpets]

If this is real and the major news outlets pick up on it, that would be very, very bad for Oz.

NYT: Dr. Oz is reportedly responsible for the illegal torture and killing of over 300 dogs. We sat down with the Bedford County Save Our Children from Vicious Killer Dogs Society to see how this affects voters' opinions of the candidate.

[kwabbit]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why conducting routine scientific trials on animals as a researcher at Columbia is a big deal.

Are people just now realizing that when you test unproven medicines on animals sometimes the animals suffer and die? Obviously they try to make it so that the animals don't suffer much if things do go south but that's literally how we test all potential medications before we move on to human trials.

Maybe people are just daft or don't understand the scientific process. The abortion story in Georgia seems like clearly the bigger deal to me.

Here in Central NJ there's a huge pharmaceutical industry. Animal testing is how the sausage gets made when it comes to researching new medicine. It sucks because the animals suffer, but that doesn't make all of the people I know in the pharmaceutical industry, whose research needs animal subjects, psychopaths.

I don't know whether people calling Oz a murderer are aware that the dogs were going to die even if the research was conducted as ethically as it could've been. It was more that they weren't euthanized quickly enough or that they weren't given adequate painkillers to reduce their pain after they were given the medicine.

It's not like Oz was being dog Mengele. He was conducting legitimate research funded by 75 NIH grants. His lab wasn't just injecting dogs with random drug cocktails just to see what happens, it was still following the scientific method. Any pharmaceutical or medical research is going to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of animals over the course of decade like Oz' lab did. Faulting him for that is more of a criticism of animal testing as a whole, as the NBC article did. 

[Calthrina950]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why conducting routine scientific trials on animals as a researcher at Columbia is a big deal.

Are people just now realizing that when you test unproven medicines on animals sometimes the animals suffer and die? Obviously they try to make it so that the animals don't suffer much if things do go south but that's literally how we test all potential medications before we move on to human trials.

Maybe people are just daft or don't understand the scientific process. The abortion story in Georgia seems like clearly the bigger deal to me.

Here in Central NJ there's a huge pharmaceutical industry. Animal testing is how the sausage gets made when it comes to researching new medicine. It sucks because the animals suffer, but that doesn't make all of the people I know in the pharmaceutical industry, whose research needs animal subjects, psychopaths.

I don't know whether people calling Oz a murderer are aware that the dogs were going to die even if the research was conducted as ethically as it could've been. It was more that they weren't euthanized quickly enough or that they weren't given adequate painkillers to reduce their pain after they were given the medicine.

It's not like Oz was being dog Mengele. He was conducting legitimate research funded by 75 NIH grants. His lab wasn't just injecting dogs with random drug cocktails just to see what happens, it was still following the scientific method. Any pharmaceutical or medical research is going to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of animals over the course of decade like Oz' lab did. Faulting him for that is more of a criticism of animal testing as a whole, as the NBC article did. 

Of course, this story only further validates Democratic preconceptions of Oz - that he is a shady and cruel man who cannot be trusted with public office, and has no morals or values to speak of. Republicans, on their part, will dismiss this story out of hand and designate it as a unfair hit-job. The responses would be entirely reversed if Oz were a Democrat. That also explains why most Democrats have forgiven Fetterman about the jogging incident and moved ahead, while Republicans are still emphasizing it. Individual morality is very much heavily influenced by partisan identification.

[UncleSam]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why conducting routine scientific trials on animals as a researcher at Columbia is a big deal.

Are people just now realizing that when you test unproven medicines on animals sometimes the animals suffer and die? Obviously they try to make it so that the animals don't suffer much if things do go south but that's literally how we test all potential medications before we move on to human trials.

Maybe people are just daft or don't understand the scientific process. The abortion story in Georgia seems like clearly the bigger deal to me.

Here in Central NJ there's a huge pharmaceutical industry. Animal testing is how the sausage gets made when it comes to researching new medicine. It sucks because the animals suffer, but that doesn't make all of the people I know in the pharmaceutical industry, whose research needs animal subjects, psychopaths.

I don't know whether people calling Oz a murderer are aware that the dogs were going to die even if the research was conducted as ethically as it could've been. It was more that they weren't euthanized quickly enough or that they weren't given adequate painkillers to reduce their pain after they were given the medicine.

It's not like Oz was being dog Mengele. He was conducting legitimate research funded by 75 NIH grants. His lab wasn't just injecting dogs with random drug cocktails just to see what happens, it was still following the scientific method. Any pharmaceutical or medical research is going to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of animals over the course of decade like Oz' lab did. Faulting him for that is more of a criticism of animal testing as a whole, as the NBC article did. 

Of course, this story only further validates Democratic preconceptions of Oz - that he is a shady and cruel man who cannot be trusted with public office, and has no morals or values to speak of. Republicans, on their part, will dismiss this story out of hand and designate it as a unfair hit-job. The responses would be entirely reversed if Oz were a Democrat. That also explains why most Democrats have forgiven Fetterman about the jogging incident and moved ahead, while Republicans are still emphasizing it. Individual morality is very much heavily influenced by partisan identification.

If I'm being honest the absolute worst quality of the American electorate is for elections to often be swung by precisely this kind of thing. There are 5-10% of the voters in the middle who DO care about stuff like this and don't care about policy so the voters who care least about policy in effect end up dictating policy.

[Calthrina950]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why conducting routine scientific trials on animals as a researcher at Columbia is a big deal.

Are people just now realizing that when you test unproven medicines on animals sometimes the animals suffer and die? Obviously they try to make it so that the animals don't suffer much if things do go south but that's literally how we test all potential medications before we move on to human trials.

Maybe people are just daft or don't understand the scientific process. The abortion story in Georgia seems like clearly the bigger deal to me.

Here in Central NJ there's a huge pharmaceutical industry. Animal testing is how the sausage gets made when it comes to researching new medicine. It sucks because the animals suffer, but that doesn't make all of the people I know in the pharmaceutical industry, whose research needs animal subjects, psychopaths.

I don't know whether people calling Oz a murderer are aware that the dogs were going to die even if the research was conducted as ethically as it could've been. It was more that they weren't euthanized quickly enough or that they weren't given adequate painkillers to reduce their pain after they were given the medicine.

It's not like Oz was being dog Mengele. He was conducting legitimate research funded by 75 NIH grants. His lab wasn't just injecting dogs with random drug cocktails just to see what happens, it was still following the scientific method. Any pharmaceutical or medical research is going to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of animals over the course of decade like Oz' lab did. Faulting him for that is more of a criticism of animal testing as a whole, as the NBC article did. 

Of course, this story only further validates Democratic preconceptions of Oz - that he is a shady and cruel man who cannot be trusted with public office, and has no morals or values to speak of. Republicans, on their part, will dismiss this story out of hand and designate it as a unfair hit-job. The responses would be entirely reversed if Oz were a Democrat. That also explains why most Democrats have forgiven Fetterman about the jogging incident and moved ahead, while Republicans are still emphasizing it. Individual morality is very much heavily influenced by partisan identification.

If I'm being honest the absolute worst quality of the American electorate is for elections to often be swung by precisely this kind of thing. There are 5-10% of the voters in the middle who DO care about stuff like this and don't care about policy so the voters who care least about policy in effect end up dictating policy.

This is certainly true. Republicans could have done better than Oz and Democrats could have done better than Fetterman. But at this point, it comes down to who aligns with your ideological viewpoints more. A vote for Oz is a vote for McConnell; likewise, a vote for Fetterman is a vote for Schumer. At least, that is how it is for the majority of voters. However, this is a story that has been circulating for months already, so I'm not sure how much more of an impact it could have. This is especially so, when you consider some of the negative stories that have come out about Fetterman recently.

[coloradocowboi]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why conducting routine scientific trials on animals as a researcher at Columbia is a big deal.

Are people just now realizing that when you test unproven medicines on animals sometimes the animals suffer and die? Obviously they try to make it so that the animals don't suffer much if things do go south but that's literally how we test all potential medications before we move on to human trials.

Maybe people are just daft or don't understand the scientific process. The abortion story in Georgia seems like clearly the bigger deal to me.

Here in Central NJ there's a huge pharmaceutical industry. Animal testing is how the sausage gets made when it comes to researching new medicine. It sucks because the animals suffer, but that doesn't make all of the people I know in the pharmaceutical industry, whose research needs animal subjects, psychopaths.

I don't know whether people calling Oz a murderer are aware that the dogs were going to die even if the research was conducted as ethically as it could've been. It was more that they weren't euthanized quickly enough or that they weren't given adequate painkillers to reduce their pain after they were given the medicine.

It's not like Oz was being dog Mengele. He was conducting legitimate research funded by 75 NIH grants. His lab wasn't just injecting dogs with random drug cocktails just to see what happens, it was still following the scientific method. Any pharmaceutical or medical research is going to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of animals over the course of decade like Oz' lab did. Faulting him for that is more of a criticism of animal testing as a whole, as the NBC article did.

Nice to see we are at the point where the blue avatars are unironically saying s*** like “at least he wasn’t dog mengele.”  

That is straight from the Selina Meyer School of Politics.What’s next “hey at least he didn’t f*** the dogs!”

[Stockdale for Veep]

Am I missing the source of the outrage?

Animal testing is a necessary evil (ask Rhesus Monkeys how the vaccine was made in record time?) Oz not being humane is what crosses the line. If that 'corpse sent back to intimidate the survivors' is real... yikes.

[kwabbit]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand why conducting routine scientific trials on animals as a researcher at Columbia is a big deal.

Are people just now realizing that when you test unproven medicines on animals sometimes the animals suffer and die? Obviously they try to make it so that the animals don't suffer much if things do go south but that's literally how we test all potential medications before we move on to human trials.

Maybe people are just daft or don't understand the scientific process. The abortion story in Georgia seems like clearly the bigger deal to me.

Here in Central NJ there's a huge pharmaceutical industry. Animal testing is how the sausage gets made when it comes to researching new medicine. It sucks because the animals suffer, but that doesn't make all of the people I know in the pharmaceutical industry, whose research needs animal subjects, psychopaths.

I don't know whether people calling Oz a murderer are aware that the dogs were going to die even if the research was conducted as ethically as it could've been. It was more that they weren't euthanized quickly enough or that they weren't given adequate painkillers to reduce their pain after they were given the medicine.

It's not like Oz was being dog Mengele. He was conducting legitimate research funded by 75 NIH grants. His lab wasn't just injecting dogs with random drug cocktails just to see what happens, it was still following the scientific method. Any pharmaceutical or medical research is going to kill hundreds, if not thousands, of animals over the course of decade like Oz' lab did. Faulting him for that is more of a criticism of animal testing as a whole, as the NBC article did. 

Nice to see we are at the point where the blue avatars are unironically saying s*** like “at least he wasn’t dog mengele.” 

Many of you are acting like you've never heard of animal testing before. Even if everything was conducted completely according to standards, the dogs would've died. It's sad to think about, but that's the process in testing medicine. Animals are given an affliction, given medicine, they die, they are subjected to a whole battery of tests. There is criticism by PETA and the whistleblower that studies' designs were cruel, but anyone who is against animal testing would find them cruel. If the point of the study is to simulate cardiac events by using canine subjects, not quickly euthanizing might be essential to the study. The NIH kept on giving Oz grants after evaluating the design and merit of the studies, so they clearly weren't pointless.

Outrage about the death of the dogs should be directed at the industry as a whole. Outrage about Oz's lab not reducing the suffering is wholly justified and Oz should be sharply criticized for it, but it's unclear how culpable Oz was for the day to day unethical practices. He wasn't carrying out the euthanasia himself, so it was more a failure on his end to not ensure his lab was being ethical. However, it's inaccurate to call Oz a demented puppy murderer and too soon to call him a psychopath.

There's a reason no major newspapers have picked this up. Besides the NBC paper, which was an opinion piece on why animal testing should be abolished. I guess we'll see if a major paper picks it up as a news story, but I think the NYT would love to have published this if it was truly this year's October surprise. The editors must think that running a story calling Oz a puppy murderer is dishonest given the realities of the medical industry. If this becomes a story picked up by major news outlets, then I'll have been wrong, but there's less to this story than at first glance.

I hope this doesn't come off as a reflexive blue av defending the GOP candidate. I'm just trying to give a perspective from someone familiar with the industry. Hell, my father has been the PI on many pharmaceutical studies. Is he a psychopath because hundreds of mice and rats have died from the testing of his medicine? Maybe to some. But there's usually quite some distance between the PI designing an experiment or medicine and the actual testing of the animals, to the point where personally faulting Oz might be a little dubious given the sparse details currently available.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

NBC link is an opinion piece. The author used the the Jezebel article as an enterance point to discuss the morality of animals in research in general. It did not confirm or deny the valdidity of the article and the opinion piece was not focused on Oz but rather research at large.