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

[Person Man]

https://t.co/GtcZ5CcSGn

🚨 NBC confirming the story as well.

Looks just like my Lazy. If I got Oz alone in a room, I'd break his fuggin' arm and nose.

[wbrocks67]

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.

Yeah, animal testing happens (it's not right) but the bigger part of the story here is the abominal way that everything was handled.

[wbrocks67]

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.

True - but I would imagine there is a standard for opinion pieces at NBC. I don't think they would be able to just link off to anywhere on the internet without some practice of getting legitimacy confirmation.

Billy Penn had written about it when it first surfaced - https://billypenn.com/2022/09/13/oz-dog-abuse-columbia-usda-settlement-medical-research/

I think the key here is that Jezebel seemed to get more confirmation, but I think the fact that the actual story is a little convoluted (with Oz 'overseeing' the research and it appears that things were covered up with the payment by Colombia) that other outlets are possibly waiting to see if they can even get further confirmation of everything.

Either way, it appears something did happen and there seems to be enough solid facts here (especially with Welfare Act violations and Oz being linked to the 70-something practices) that there is a "there" there. Or for all we know there is even more to the story and other outlets are waiting. Interested to see if the Inquirer picks this up.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Bro dogs are literally the happiest people on this planet. Both Democrats and Republicans like dogs. Oz is just a bad doctor.

[wbrocks67]

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.

I disagree - let's not put them into the same category. I think Fett was probably the best candidate still. And it's no short charge to still be up in positive net favorability after a $40M negative onslaught of ads.

[wbrocks67]

Oz raised $10M in Q3, with another $7M loan from himself, for $17M total

https://www.axios.com/2022/10/04/scoop-oz-to-report-17-million-including-7-million-loan?utm_campaign=editorial&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[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.

I disagree - let's not put them into the same category. I think Fett was probably the best candidate still.And it's no short charge to still be up in positive net favorability after a $40M negative onslaught of ads.

I must disagree with you again. Between his health issues and some of the controversies we've had, I clearly don't think Fetterman was the best candidate Democrats could have nominated. Cartwright would have been better, Lamb probably would have been better. One of the Democratic representatives from the Philadelphia suburbs would have been better.

[Person Man]

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.

I disagree - let's not put them into the same category. I think Fett was probably the best candidate still. And it's no short charge to still be up in positive net favorability after a $40M negative onslaught of ads.

There's only so much Willie Horton and "you can't afford new taxes" can get you. The 2006 GOP went really hard on taxes in October. It helped a little at first (probably let them keep a seat in NM at least) but it all got swallowed up by the diddling stuff.

[wbrocks67]

Inquirer reporter tweets about the story - seems to be where some of the disconnect is coming from - Oz was not the person doing the euthanizing, but he and his team oversaw it

https://twitter.com/JuliaTerruso/status/1577291629236453377

[wbrocks67]

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.

I disagree - let's not put them into the same category. I think Fett was probably the best candidate still.And it's no short charge to still be up in positive net favorability after a $40M negative onslaught of ads.

I must disagree with you again. Between his health issues and some of the controversies we've had, I clearly don't think Fetterman was the best candidate Democrats could have nominated. Cartwright would have been better, Lamb probably would have been better. One of the Democratic representatives from the Philadelphia suburbs would have been better.

We'll just have to disagree - I'm not sure what controversies you're speaking of, and not sure how his health issues have anything to do with it?

I like Lamb, but I don't think he would've been better. Fetterman's particular appeal, especially with young voters, is something that Lamb could not have recreated.

[HidingCommentary]

Inquirer reporter tweets about the story - seems to be where some of the disconnect is coming from - Oz was not the person doing the euthanizing, but he and his team oversaw it

https://twitter.com/JuliaTerruso/status/1577291629236453377

I dont think I was ever under the impression he was personally euthanizing the dogs, just that he oversaw it.

[Skill and Chance]

 Still not feeling this one.  Enough technicalities and complications that it makes Fetterman's claim look like a stretch.  Still, it's apparently not like defamation level false either, so maybe it won't tank either candidate and just nets out to nothing. 

[wbrocks67]

Still not feeling this one.  Enough technicalities and complications that it makes Fetterman's claim look like a stretch.  Still, it's apparently not like defamation level false either, so maybe it won't tank either candidate and just nets out to nothing. 

It's not Fetterman's "claim." He's just latching on to the story like everyone else. The bottom line is, enough people will see the headline "Dr Oz" and "puppies killed" so it's a stretch to see how this is.... somehow bad for Fetterman.

Oz has done much to little in improving his actual campaign and yet some on here really give him the benefit of the doubt lol.

[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.

I disagree - let's not put them into the same category. I think Fett was probably the best candidate still.And it's no short charge to still be up in positive net favorability after a $40M negative onslaught of ads.

I must disagree with you again. Between his health issues and some of the controversies we've had, I clearly don't think Fetterman was the best candidate Democrats could have nominated. Cartwright would have been better, Lamb probably would have been better. One of the Democratic representatives from the Philadelphia suburbs would have been better.

We'll just have to disagree - I'm not sure what controversies you're speaking of, and not sure how his health issues have anything to do with it?

I like Lamb, but I don't think he would've been better. Fetterman's particular appeal, especially with young voters, is something that Lamb could not have recreated.

I'm referring to the jogging controversy, and another controversy involving Fetterman vandalizing a business sign when he was Mayor. He did not want for that business, a black-owned nightclub, to remain in Braddock. Of course, I would expect for you to say that this controversy is minor and has no bearing on the race.

Perhaps so. But if a Republican candidate were accused of these same offenses, they would be denounced as racist and called out for engaging in such behavior. And his health is a legitimate issue. If we're going to be concerned (and rightly so) about Trump's mental acuity, then surely we can have the same concerns about Fetterman.

At any rate, Fetterman is beloved by progressives, and I still believe he's favored over Oz. But if he loses, it will not be difficult to see why.

[GeorgiaModerate]

This one probably can't be topped:

https://twitter.com/macrotargeting/status/1577130174231240705

[coloradocowboi]

I’ll repeat it again: it does not matter what “technicality” you bring up. Simple messages win election, especially lies. If anybody knows that it should be Republicans. And while you may not like it or even agree with it, your five paragraph “well, actually” posts defending animal testing (which is controversial anyway) can’t change the fact that we can and will call him a puppy killer

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I’ll repeat it again: it does not matter what “technicality” you bring up. Simple messages win election, especially lies. If anybody knows that it should be Republicans. And while you may not like it or even agree with it, your five paragraph “well, actually” posts defending animal testing (which is controversial anyway) can’t change the fact that we can and will call him a puppy killer

Yeah exactly. Oz can try to squirm his way out of this but it will be difficult

[Holmes]

It's difficult to even respond to this because it would cause more people to dig into it. "I didn't kill those puppies." Then the MSM digs into it, and then you have "Oz didn't kill hundreds of puppies but the team he oversaw did" all over the news.

[It’s so Joever]

This is giving VA-Gov white supremacist allegations vibes.

CALLED IT! Oz win incoming.

[Crumpets]

I’ll repeat it again: it does not matter what “technicality” you bring up. Simple messages win election, especially lies. If anybody knows that it should be Republicans. And while you may not like it or even agree with it, your five paragraph “well, actually” posts defending animal testing (which is controversial anyway) can’t change the fact that we can and will call him a puppy killer

Yeah exactly. Oz can try to squirm his way out of this but it will be difficult

Agree. I remember some adage about "if you're explaining, you're losing" and I think that fits where Oz finds himself here. People don't like hearing about dead dogs. They may accept it as some necessary evil of the modern medical world, but just the fact that someone on the Oz campaign will have to come out and say "well, he wasn't the one directly killing the dogs" and "Columbia already settled the matter with regulators..." means more people are going to end up hearing "Dr. Oz" and "killing dogs" in the same sentence.

[Crumpets]

One other thing that makes this scandal a bit different from a lot of other scandals of this scale, especially for Republicans, is that this has already been adjudicated legally and Columbia had to pay a fine. That's obviously not a huge punishment, but it negates one of the GOP's favorite scandal comebacks of "it's an allegation and he is innocent until proven guilty." It did go through the legal system, they paid a fine, now the rest of us can judge him for his responsibility in that act.

[wbrocks67]

Last poll had Fetterman 47/42 fav and Oz 36/52.

Fetterman had 49% definitely or probably vote, while Oz had 39%

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1577338921708666880

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Fetterman and Shapiro are polling like Wolf numbers in 2014 and Casey numbers in 2012 Shapiro will win 55/45 and Fetterman will win 52/46

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Oh boy, we're in the season where I just stay home on my days off from my residency awaiting those glorious polls.  

[Crumpets]

Oh boy, we're in the season where I just stay home on my days off from my residency awaiting those glorious polls.  

I miss those NYT/Siena polls form 2018 where you could watch the responses live. I definitely had those running on my phone while I was supposed to be working a couple of times.