46 MBR beagle puppies debarked and sold for deadly and painful experiments

The only reason for debarking is so experimenters do not have to endure their cries of suffering while they undergo laboratory procedures.

Documents obtained by US based White Coat Waste Project (WCWP) through the Freedom of Information Act, shows Marshall BioResorurces removed the vocal cords of 46 beagle puppies and then sold them to be tortured at one of Dr Fauci’s infamous experiments.

After cutting the vocal cords of these 46 dogs, MBR ship them to a toxicity study at a research institute in California. The documents obtained by WCWP show that, at the young age of just 6 to 8 months, these beagles were repeatedly injected with, or force-fed, an experimental drug for weeks. They were then killed and dissected to determine the internal body damage caused by the repeated exposure to the testing drug. It is likely that these dogs came from one of the MBR breeding sites in the USA, although their exact origin has not been confirmed.

Link to PDF files of invoices obtained via FOI by WCWP

The White Coat Waste Project

The White Coat Waste Project is an American watchdog group gathering evidence via FOI requests on how taxpayers’ money is being wasted on funding cruel animal experiments that are unnecessary. They have published an investigation report known as #BeagleGate which exposes 6 different dog experiments funded by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). This American tax funded institution, directed by Dr Fauci, paid for an experiment in which puppies’ heads were trapped inside muslin cages infested with hungry sand flies.

In another of their exposes, six months old beagle puppies were injected with a tick causing bacteria, and left with up to 250 ticks sucking their blood for up to a week.

Debarking. Cordectomy. Devocalisation.

Cordectomy, also known as de-barking, is an unnecessary procedure that exposed these young beagles to serious surgical risks and to a great deal of post-operative pain.

Dogs undergoing this surgery are at high risk of haemorrhage, infection, injury to the larynx, and adverse reaction to the anaesthesia.

They also develop scar tissue in the back of their throats, which permanently narrows their throats, making them more susceptible to breathing difficulties, choking on food, suffering from chronic throat inflammation, and regularly gasping and coughing.

There are two surgical approaches to remove dogs vocal cords, both are performed under general anaesthesia:

  • Orally: a laryngoscope is introduced in the dogs open mouth to gain accesses the larynx. Then using a crushing instrument the vocal folds on one or both sides are damaged. This surgery causes a higher incidence of ‘webbing’ (vocal cord tissue regrowth) which leads into respiratory risks. This approach is less costly and requires les post operative care, therefore it is likely this is the how the MBR beagles have their vocal cords removed.
  • Laryngotomy: the surgery is performed through an incision in the throat into the larynx. This approach provides better access to the vocal cords, but it involves an additional surgical procedure, a laryngotomy,
    with all its attendant risks, potential complications and requirements for healing. This approach is more invasive and more costly.

There was no scientific or medical reason for MBR to debark these dogs, the only reason they cut their vocal cord out was to stop them from barking while they were being poisoned at the laboratory. In fact, the procedure likely increased the dogs discomfort, because the scar caused by the cordectomy would have made the practice of force-feeding that they endured even more painful. Debarking is an unjustifiable cruel procedure that deprives the dogs of their primary means of expression. MBR deprived these beagles from vocalising the distress, pain and fear they suffered during the toxicity study they were sold to.

UK Legislation relating to cordectomy

Dogs cordectomy is prohibited in the UK. The Animal Welfare Act (2006), which protects the well being all the dogs in the UK states that “interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of the animal, other than for the purpose of its medical treatment” is an offence.

Unfortunately, the UK legislation has created a critical loophole for all the animals used in animal experimentation. Section 58(1) of the Animal Welfare Act states that “nothing in this act applies to” any animal placed under the Animals Scientific Procedures Act 1986 (ASPA). Therefore, all the animals bred for or used at UK laboratories do not have any level of protection from the Animal Welfare Act.

The paradox is that the same department responsible for issuing licences to use animals in procedures which are likely to cause pain, suffering, distress or/and lasting harm – the Animals in Science Regulatory Unit (ASRU) – is also responsible for enforcing welfare legislation to laboratory animals.

There is evidence that ASRU is failing to resolve this paradox:

  • In 2020, the ASRU revoked only one licence for non-compliance out of the 2,429 project licences and 14,796 personal licences granted for carrying out experiments on over 4,500 dogs. Either they are mindlessly stamping all licences, or it’s a case of ‘anything goes’.
  • In 2018 ASRU employed only 22 inspectors (20.8 full time equivalents), making each inspector responsible for the welfare assessment of 159,890 laboratory animals.
  • In 2018 ASRU filed 28 cases where there was failure to comply with the regulations but only one case gave rise to a formal Compliance Notice. This is beside the fact that 100 animals died or were killed because of the breaches found.

In the UK there is one set of welfare standard for animals on this side of the fence, and another completely different one for the animals inside the UK laboratories and their breeding facilities. Cordectomy, cutting the vocal cords of dogs when it’s not medically indicated is a cruel procedure that violates animal well-being legislation if the dog happens to be on this side of the fence, but it is a very different story for the beagles behind the gates of licenced establishments like MBR Acres.

MBR Acres ‘Gates of Hell