Where do you stand on Animal Testing?

 

History:

When did animal testing start:

• Aristotle (384-322 BCE): Performed comparative anatomy studies on animals, for understanding biological structures.
• Erasistratus (304-250 BCE): Credited as one of the first to perform vivisections (dissections on living animals), seeking to understand organ function.
• Galen (129-216 CE): A Roman physician, Galen heavily relied on animal dissections (particularly pigs and apes) to develop his understanding of anatomy and physiology.

These early experiments established a precedent for using animals to explore the inner workings of the body. 

While dissection was still practiced during the Medieval period, it was primarily focused on confirming Galen’s existing theories rather than pursuing new discoveries.

The Renaissance marked a resurgence of scientific inquiry, leading to renewed interest in anatomy and physiology.

• Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564): While primarily known for his human dissections, Vesalius also used animal studies to refine his anatomical knowledge.
• William Harvey (1578-1657): Demonstrated the circulation of blood through experimentation on animals, challenging Galen’s centuries-old theories.

The 18th century witnessed the emergence of modern physiology as a distinct scientific discipline.

• Albrecht von Haller (1708-1777): Conducted extensive experiments on animals to study muscle irritability and nerve function.
• John Hunter (1728-1793): Performed numerous animal experiments to understand various physiological processes and surgical techniques.

 The 19th century is where modern animal testing truly took shape. Several factors contributed to this:

• Advances in Physiology: Physiological processes created new avenues for experimental investigation.
• Germ Theory of Disease: The use of animals to study infections and test potential treatments.
• Development of Anesthesia: The use of anesthesia gradually became more widespread, mitigating some of the suffering inflicted on animals during experiments.
• Pharmaceutical Development: The pharmaceutical industry increasingly relied on animal testing to assess the safety and efficacy of new drugs.

Key figures included:

• Claude Bernard (1813-1878): Rigorously applied the scientific method to animal experimentation, emphasizing the importance of controlled experiments and reproducible results.
• Louis Pasteur (1822-1895): Demonstrated the germ theory of disease and developed vaccines through animal experimentation, revolutionizing medicine and public health.
• Robert Koch (1843-1910): Identified the causative agents of several infectious diseases, including anthrax, tuberculosis, and cholera, relying heavily on animal models.

This era saw a significant increase in the number of animals used in research, as well as the emergence of ethical concerns about animal welfare.

Current Animal testing:

It could be said that animal testing saves lives. It could also be said that animals experience cruel and unusual treatment as they’re being tested. Both of these statements are true, and the question is, which of them do you choose to stand behind? 

 According to the World Animal Foundation, these are the Top 9 Most Disturbing Facts about Animal testing:

• Almost 192.1 Million Animals Were Tested in Scientific Laboratories in 2015
• Federal Animal Protection Laws Don’t Include 95-99% of the Animals Used for Experiments
• Yearly, 75,000 Animals Die in Just a Single Experiment
• More Than 110 Million Animals Are Killed in the U.S. Annually for Experimentation Purposes
• Stats of 243,000 Experiments Show Animals Went Through a Lot of Pain
• Around half of the NIH Budget Goes for Animal Experimentation in the US annually
• In 2024, 2.64 million scientific procedures involved reusable living animals.
• 95% of the Drugs Which Prove Potency in Animals Have Failed in Humans
• Almost 56 New Test Guidelines Are Available That Don’t Include Animal Testing

The sheer number of animals killed and abused is staggering, since even the abuse of one animal should be unacceptable. On the flip side, countless human lives have been saved from this testing. 

Mice and rats account for the vast majority of animals used in laboratory research worldwide.  Their popularity comes down to a combination of practical and biological advantages: they are small, relatively inexpensive to house, breed quickly, and have short life cycles that let researchers observe multiple generations in a manageable timeframe. More importantly, they share a striking degree of anatomical, physiological, and genetic similarity with humans.

Zebrafish have become one of the fastest-growing model organisms in biomedical research.  Their embryos are transparent, which means researchers can watch organs form, blood vessels grow, and tumors develop in real time under a microscope.  They are cheaper and faster than mice, but more biologically complex than cells in a dish.

Two of the most widely used organisms in genetics and developmental biology are the fruit fly and the nematode worm. Both have fully sequenced genomes, are easy to manipulate genetically, and reproduce fast enough that researchers can study multiple generations in weeks rather than years.

The use of dogs in research is one of the most emotionally charged aspects of animal testing.  Dogs are not used in the volumes that rodents are, but they play a specific and, under current regulations, often legally required role in pharmaceutical safety testing. Regulatory agencies in most countries require that new drugs be tested in at least two species before human trials begin: one rodent (usually a rat or mouse) and one non-rodent. The dog has long been the default non-rodent choice for many types of compounds.

Among dogs, beagles are overwhelmingly the breed used in research, selected for their relatively small size, docile temperament, and the existence of extensive historical data that makes it easier to compare results across studies. A review of published studies involving dogs found that beagles were the sole breed used in multiple experimental and clinical trial settings, with typical study sizes of around a dozen animals.  These are purpose-bred animals, raised in licensed facilities specifically for research rather than taken from shelters or the pet population.

Rabbits hold a distinctive and somewhat notorious place in the history of animal testing. The Draize test, developed in 1944, became the standard method for evaluating whether chemicals and cosmetic ingredients cause eye and skin irritation. For decades it was considered the gold standard, formally adopted as an international guideline. But the test involved applying substances directly to the eyes or shaved skin of rabbits and observing the damage over days.

Non-human primates occupy the most contentious position in animal testing. Their close evolutionary relationship to humans makes them, in certain narrow applications, the only species that can provide relevant data. This is especially true for vaccines, biologics, and therapies that target immune pathways specific to primates, where rodent immune systems simply do not respond in comparable ways. The numbers involved are small compared to rodents. Primate studies are extraordinarily expensive, heavily regulated, and subject to extensive ethical review.

 

Laboratory animals live in enclosures regulated by federal standards that specify minimum floor space, vertical height, and temperature ranges for each species. Dogs, cats, and primates have different space requirements than rodents, and nursing mothers with young require additional room. Every facility must have a veterinarian on staff who provides routine and emergency care, including nights, weekends, and holidays.

Federal guidelines also require environmental enrichment, meaning the animals’ living spaces should include more than just food and water. Social species like primates and rats are supposed to be housed in pairs or compatible groups rather than alone, unless the experiment specifically requires isolation. Enclosures for group-housed animals include features like perches, visual barriers, and hiding spots so that dominant animals can’t monopolize food and space. Rodents receive nesting materials for warmth and comfort. The gap between what regulations require and what individual facilities actually provide, however, is a persistent point of criticism from animal welfare organizations.

The Animal Welfare Act sets the legal floor for these standards, but it has a significant gap: rats, mice, and birds bred for research are excluded from its protections. Since those species make up the vast majority of lab animals, most research animals fall outside the Act’s direct oversight. Institutions using these species still typically follow guidelines from the National Academies, but compliance is largely voluntary and tied to funding requirements rather than federal law.

Most laboratory animals are euthanized at the end of a study. For rodents, the most common methods include injectable sedatives that cause rapid unconsciousness followed by cardiac arrest, or carbon dioxide exposure under specific conditions.  The American Veterinary Medical Association sets detailed standards for each method, with the core requirement being rapid loss of consciousness before death.

Adoption or retirement is possible for some larger animals, particularly dogs and primates, and several states have passed laws encouraging or requiring facilities to offer healthy animals for adoption when studies end. In practice, adoption remains uncommon relative to the total number of animals used, partly because many studies require tissue analysis that can only happen post-mortem.

 

Animal testing has long been used to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs, chemicals, and medical treatments before human trials. However, the vast majority of these tests do not successfully translate to humans. Studies indicate that 90% to 95% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animal models ultimately fail in human clinical trials due to differences in physiology, metabolism, genetics, and immune responses between species.  These high failure rates highlight the limitations and ethical concerns of relying heavily on animal models.

Gallup’s 2025 poll found that only 47% of Americans now consider animal testing morally acceptable, down from 65% in 2001. A 2024 Physicians Committee poll showed 85% of adults support phasing out animal experimentation in favor of modern methods, with 80% wanting the federal government to lead a phase‑out plan.  This support is consistent across age, gender, location, and education levels, and about 84% agree government funding should prioritize non‑animal research.

 

What alternatives are there to testing on animals?

Here are just some of the health conditions currently benefitting from advanced non-animal technologies, with no animals harmed in the process:

Cancer

A lung organ-on-a-chip—a tiny 3D chip created from human cells that looks and functions like a miniature human organ—showed that the fluid buildup in the lungs caused by a drug frequently used by cancer patients was triggered by a patient’s lungs expanding and contracting, a finding that would not have been possible in animal experiments because researchers can’t stop and restart an animal’s lungs. The organ-on-a-chip was then used to test for drugs that would reduce the fluid buildup.

Cystic fibrosis

Organoids—3D replicas of human organs—were created from the intestinal cells of a person with cystic fibrosis and were then used to test various drugs to determine which drug would be most effective in that person.

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP)

A nervous system organ-on-a-chip using human cells and blood samples was created to show that muscle weakness in people with CIDP—a rare autoimmune condition—was caused by a component in the blood causing nerve damage. The results allowed scientists to get approval for a human clinical trial for a drug to treat the condition in people with CIDP. Rare conditions like CIDP can’t be studied using animal experiments because scientists aren’t able to recreate these diseases in animals, but the development of organs-on-chip models using cells from patients will help scientists to understand the cause and progression of these diseases and test possible treatments.

Skin allergies

A series of non-animal tests examining how human cells react to chemicals and how those chemicals interact with other substances is being used to determine if ingredients in everyday products such as laundry detergent, body lotion and drain cleaner will trigger an allergic reaction in human skin. These non-animal approaches have been proven to be more accurate than the outdated tests on guinea pigs and mice that are still used.

Zika virus

Brain organoids created with human cells proved that the Zika virus was causing microcephaly (small head size) in babies born to mothers who were infected with the virus. This discovery would not have been possible in animal experiments due to differences in animal and human brain structure. Scientists then used human brain organoids to test drugs that could be used to prevent or reduce the damage caused by microcephaly.

Heart arrhythmias

Computer models using recordings from human heart activity are being used to test the adverse effects of potential drugs. Many drugs that are successfully tested in animals fail in human clinical trials because of dangerous effects on the human heart. This approach allows researchers to screen out potentially dangerous drug compounds before they are tested in humans—without using animals.

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD): Scientists are using non-embryonic stem cells from the discarded baby teeth of children with ASD to create nerve cells, which are then used to study how the brains of children with ASD are different.

 

Why do some cosmetics companies still use animal testing?

When choosing to develop or use new ingredients in their cosmetic products, some companies conduct tests on animals to assess the safety of these new ingredients. This practice is both cruel and unnecessary because companies can already create innovative products using thousands of ingredients that have a history of safe use and do not require any additional testing.

Although they are not required by law, several invasive tests are performed on rabbits, mice, guinea pigs and rats. These can include:

• Skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed onto the shaved skin or dripped into the eyes of restrained rabbits, without any pain relief.
• Tests that deliver doses of chemical substances to mice through repeated force-feeding. These tests last weeks or months so researchers can look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards such as cancer or birth defects.
• Widely condemned "lethal dose" tests, in which rats are forced to swallow large amounts of chemicals to determine the dose that causes death.

At the end of the tests, the animals are killed, normally by asphyxiation, neck-breaking or decapitation. Pain relief is not provided. In the United States, a large percentage of the animals used in such testing (such as laboratory-bred rats and mice) are not counted in official statistics and receive no protection under the Animal Welfare Act.

You can actively oppose animal testing by supporting cruelty-free products, advocating for legislation, educating others, donating to animal welfare organizations, and promoting alternative research methods.

Support Cruelty-Free Products

By 1996, 'cruelty-free' shopping had become popular, but it was also confusing, sometimes misleading, and ultimately frustrating. Companies had begun designing their own bunny logos, abiding by their own definition of 'cruelty-free' or 'animal friendly' without the participation of animal protection groups.

In response, eight national animal protection groups banded together to form the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC)*. The CCIC promotes a single comprehensive standard and an internationally recognized Leaping Bunny Logo. We work with companies to help make shopping for animal-friendly products easier and more trustworthy.

*(these groups are American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animal Alliance of Canada, Beauty Without Cruelty, Doris Day Animal League, Humane World for Animals, National Anti-Vivisection Society and Rise for Animals)

Always choose products labeled as cruelty-free, such as cosmetics, household items, and personal care products. Look for certifications like the Leaping Bunny or PETA’s cruelty-free logo. Purchasing these products sends a market signal to companies, encouraging them to adopt ethical practices and reduce reliance on animal testing.

You can download the official Leaping Bunny Cruelty‑Free Shopping Guide app for free from the Apple App Store and Google Play Store or direct from Leaping Bunny

Advocate for Legislation

Supporting laws and regulations that reduce or ban animal testing is crucial. Individuals can contact lawmakers, participate in campaigns, and support organizations lobbying for humane research policies

    

HR 10522 — 119th Congress (2025–2027)

 

Title: Companion Animal Protection Against Cruel Testing Act
Sponsor: Rep. Nicholas A. Langworthy (R‑NY‑23)
Introduced: September 21, 2026
Purpose:

·       Prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from using funds for biomedical research involving live dogs and cats.

·       Strengthen accountability for federal research expenditures.

·       Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

How to Get H.R. 10522 Passed

H.R. 10522 is currently introduced in the U.S. House and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce; it has not yet advanced to a vote, so “getting it passed” requires moving it through the committee, the full House, the Senate, and presidential approval.

Current Status

Introduced: September 21, 2026, by Rep. Nicholas Langworthy (R‑NY)

Committee referral: House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Status: In committee for only a few days; historically, most bills stall at this stage.

Next steps: Must be passed by the committee, then reported to the full House, passed by the full House, passed by the Senate in identical form, and signed by the President.

Legislative Path to Passage

1.    Committee Action – The Energy and Commerce Committee must hold hearings, markups, and a vote to approve the bill. This is the first major hurdle

2.    House Floor Vote – If approved in committee, it goes to the full House for debate and a vote.

3.    Senate Action – The Senate must receive the bill, possibly amend it, and pass it in identical form.

4.    Presidential Signature – The President must sign it into law, or it becomes law without a signature if Congress adjourns within 10 days without a veto.

How to Influence the Outcome

While you cannot directly “pass” a bill, you can influence it by:

• Contacting your Representative (Rep. Langworthy) and Senators to express support or opposition.
• Joining or forming advocacy groups focused on the bill’s goals (prohibiting HHS funds for live dog/cat biomedical research)
• Providing testimony or comments during committee hearings.
• Monitoring and sharing updates via official trackers like GovTrack.us

 

Key Points About the Bill

• Title: Companion Animal Protection Against Cruel Testing Act
• Purpose: Prohibits HHS funds for live dog/cat biomedical research, adds accountability measures, and includes transparency and whistleblower protections
• Cosponsors: 9 members (6 Democrats, 3 Republicans)
• Prognosis: Current models suggest a low chance of enactment without strong momentum

 

Bottom line:

To “get H.R. 10522 passed,” it must survive committee review, pass both chambers, and be signed by the President. The most effective way to help is to engage your congressional representatives and support the bill’s sponsors through advocacy and public engagement.

 

Educate and Raise Awareness

Every year the United States federal government invests round $15 billion into the animal testing industry, despite the National Institutes of Health (NIH) asking the U.S. Congress to end this cruelty.

Even speaking up against using classroom dissection as a justified method of education is a step in the right direction. And this is not just down to the children; educators need to make a stand too.

Share information about the ethical issues and scientific limitations of animal testing. Educate friends, family, and your community through social media, workshops, or distributing educational materials. Highlight alternatives like in vitro testing, organ-on-a-chip technology, computer modeling, and microdosing to demonstrate viable, humane research methods.

Donate and Volunteer

Support organizations dedicated to ending animal testing, such as March for Animals, Cruelty-Free International, and local animal welfare groups. Donations fund advocacy, research into alternatives, and direct care for animals. Volunteering your time can amplify campaigns and help spread awareness

Engage with Companies

Contact companies that still conduct animal testing and urge them to adopt cruelty-free practices. Public campaigns, letters, and social media engagement can influence corporate policies and encourage transparency about testing practices.

Promote Scientific Alternatives

Encourage and support research into non-animal testing methods, including human cell-based studies, advanced imaging techniques, and computer simulations. Highlighting the accuracy and efficiency of these alternatives can reduce reliance on animal models and foster ethical scientific progress
By combining these actions—ethical consumer choices, advocacy, education, donations, and support for alternative research—you can contribute meaningfully to reducing and ultimately ending animal testing.

Try to view impartially - the remaining accusers

Note:  This post examines publicly available information and defense-raised challenges.

Accuser #7

Kaitlin (whose last name is not public) is a former employee of the Executive Chamber. She worked as Deputy Director of Governor’s Offices from December 2016 to January 2018.

On December 12, 2016, Kaitlin attended a fundraiser for the Governor, which was hosted by Kaitlin’s employer at the time, a lobbying firm. Kaitlin introduced herself to the Governor and her bosses told Cuomo that she was a superstar. Cuomo had Personnel reach out to see if she would be interested in working as an administrative assistant.

The allegations

The photo   When Kaitlin introduced herself to the Governor at the fundraiser, she extended her hand to offer a handshake, at which point the Governor pulled her by her hand and held her in a dance pose that was captured in photographs.

Kaitlin called her mother, two of her sisters and her roommate after the event, sharing that the Governor had “grabbed [her] and [that they] took those weird photos and that he said [she] was going to work . . . in government again, at the state level.”    Kaitlin claims she was only hired for her looks.

Office work   Kaitlin says she received very little guidance or direction from anyone once she joined the Executive Chamber.  She was simply instructed at some point by the Governor to act like a “sponge” and soak up knowledge, an instruction that evolved into the Governor giving her the nickname “sponge.” Kaitlin testified that she found the nickname to be “embarrassing . . . , condescending [and] demeaning.”

One staff member said they “felt [Kaitlin’s job performance] was lacking at times” and that Kaitlin did not “necessarily love the role.” The Governor testified that Kaitlin “did not work out on the telephone” and that he “asked her a number of times to please learn how to transfer a call . . . [b]ut she just didn’t work out.”

Clothing     Kaitlin testified that the Governor often made comments about her appearance.  On days she rushed into the office, the Governor would comment on her lack of makeup or share his impression that she hadn’t gotten “ready” for work that day and “didn’t look right.”  The Governor also commented on her clothing, including on one occasion when she wore a “black and red button down and a black skirt”. The Governor “said [she] looked like a lumberjack.”

Kaitlin also testified that the Governor called her into his office and asked her to search for car parts on eBay for him. While she stood at the Governor’s desk, he sat in his chair “directly behind” her “backside[.]”  Kaitlin recalled feeling anxious because she was standing with her backside to the Governor in a skirt and heels, with him sitting close behind.  She felt that the request for assistance was a pretext to be close to her and watch her from behind. 

What nobody told you    The only corroboration of these claims are people that she told, not anyone independent.

Kaitlin testified that she has never characterized her experience working in the Chamber as sexual harassment because she did not want to think of herself as a victim.  But she was moved by Boylan’s public allegations.

8 – State Entity Employee #1

According to the AG report, State Entity Employee #1 is an employee of a State-affiliated entity created by State legislation. 

The allegations

Touched her butt    State Entity Employee #1 alleged that, on a Saturday in September 2019, following the Governor’s speech, he asked her for a photograph. State Entity Employee #1 posed for a photograph with the Governor, along with her supervisor.  The Governor “took his hand and double tapped the area where [State Entity Employee #1’s] butt and [her] thigh meet,” and then moved his fingers upward to “kind of grab that area between [her] butt and [her] thigh.”

State Entity Employee #1 testified that she understood the Governor’s actions to be intentional.  After the event, State Entity Employee #1 sent messages to her siblings and mother about what had happened. She also told some friends later that evening what had happened.  The AG’s assessment was that State Entity Employee #1’s written description of the incident, in an email to herself composed the day after the incident, matched her testimony, as did messages she sent to friends and family recounting the key details.

What nobody told you    There is no one that saw the event happen. The only people who can corroborate her allegation were told by her.

The photograph shows nothing.  There are two people in the background of the picture.  There is no testimony released from them.

The claim was dismissed by the Manhattan District Attorney

 

9 – State Entity Employee #2

State Entity Employee #2 is Elizabeth Dufort, former Director at the New York State Department of Health and a doctor.  On March 17, 2020, she performed a live demonstration of a COVID-19 nasal swab on the Governor during a televised press conference.

Allegation #1     While preparing for the press conference, Cuomo asked Dr. Dufort not to put up the swab ‘so deep that you hit my brain’, it is alleged.  She replied that she would be ‘gentle but accurate’ in carrying out the test, to which Cuomo replied: ‘Gentle but accurate, I’ve heard that before.’

Allegation #2    

During the live televised press conference, Dufort appeared on camera in full personal protective equipment, including a face shield and gown. Cuomo stood up and walked toward Dufort for the nasal swab, and said, “Nice to see you, Doctor—you make that gown look good.” His remark was in front of the press and livestreamed publicly, as well as captured as a video recording.

What nobody told you    Dufort didn’t allege harassment.  She was contacted directly by the Attorney General.

10 – Virginia Limmiatis

Virginia Limmiatis is an employee of an Energy Company that hosted an event Cuomo spoke at.

The allegation  

He touched her   In May 2017, after the formal program, Limmiatis joined a rope line to meet Cuomo.   When Cuomo reached her, he walked up close to her and pressed his first two fingers of his right hand on each letter of the Energy Company’s name printed across the chest of her shirt.  Cuomo pressed his fingers on each letter before sliding his fingers to the next letter, while saying “[Energy Company] I know you.”  Cuomo leaned in so his cheek was touching Limmiatis’ cheek, and said something along the lines of, “I’m going to say I see a spider on your shoulder.”  And Cuomo brushed his hand in the area between her shoulder and breast below her collarbone. 

Shortly after the rope line had dispersed, Limmiatis approached three other attendees of the event, and told them about Cuomo’s conduct and later confided in her sister.

What nobody told you    Pictures entered into evidence are just pictures of Cuomo at the event.  Event photos clearly shows this did not happen. There is no rope line. She puts her hand on his shoulder but he does not touch her.  She is also seen hanging around in other photos.

Her case was dismissed by the Oswego County DA. 

11-Trooper #1

Trooper #1 began working for the State Police on March 2, 2015. 

The allegations  

Recruitment    At a November 2017 RFK Bridge event, Cuomo allegedly became involved in having her transferred to the Protective Services Unit, even though she did not yet meet the unit’s then-existing three-year service requirement.   A senior investigator later recalled that the change was made to accommodate her hiring and said a high-level Executive Chamber staff member instructed him to hire “the female trooper from the bridge.”

Cuomo said his involvement was motivated by an effort to recruit more women and minorities to the State Police detail, and he denied knowing about any minimum service requirement. Vincent Straface, Detail Commander, said there was no change made.

Touch #1     Trooper #1 alleged that she was touched in an unwelcome way when Trooper #1 was at the Governor’s New York City office and was escorting him upstairs in the elevator with Senior Investigator #1. She stated that, as is typical when riding the elevator with the Governor, she stood in front of the door, and the Governor stood behind her.  The Governor placed his finger on the top of her neck and ran his finger down the center of her spine midway down her back, and said to Trooper #1, “Hey, you.”

Touch #2     On September 23, 2019, while providing security assistance as a member of the travel team, Trooper #1 held the door open for Cuomo as he left the event.  As he walked by Trooper #1, he ran the palm of his left hand across her stomach in the direction opposite the direction that he was walking.  The center of Cuomo’s hand was on Trooper #1’s belly button, and he pushed his hand back to her right hip where she kept her gun.

What nobody told you    The AG states that this account is fully corroborated by Senior Investigator #2 but there is no transcript released to see this.

 

The following women also accused Cuomo of harassment, however, they are not in the AG’s report nor are there any transcripts to review.  Their accusations are shown in the attached reported articles

Jessica Bakeman, a former Albany report, is listed as the seventh woman to accuse Cuomo. She is not listed in the AG report and there was no transcript released.  She alleges that at a 2014 holiday party, Cuomo held onto her firmly for a photo.

(Full story in the 03/12/2021 New York Post article:  Ex-Albany reporter Jessica Bakeman is 7th  woman to accuse Gov Cuomo of sexual harassment)

Karen Hinton, former Cuomo aide and consultant when he was HUD secretary, alleges Cuomo hugged her in an "inappropriate" and "unethical" embrace in a California hotel room 21 years ago. No other information except for her story and she released a book after the accusation.

(Full story in the 03/06/2021 NBC New York article:  Former Aide Says Cuomo Hugged Her in 'Inappropriate' Hotel Room Embrace)

Sherry Vill, she is a flood victim in Rochester NY.  Cuomo was touring the area and she accuses him of an unwanted kiss

(Full story in the 03/29/2021 New York Post article:  New Andrew Cuomo accuser Sherry Vill speaks out alongside Gloria Allred)

Valerie Bauman, a reporter for Bloomberg, accused Cuomo of making unwavering eye contact

(Full story in the 03/18/2021 New York Post article:  Reporter details 'uncomfortable' encounters with Gov. Cuomo)

 

This concludes the allegations.  Coming soon we will discuss Cuomo’ reaction and the Attorney General’s actions.

Beyond the Microphone: An Open Letter to Andrew Cuomo and the "Politically Homeless" Majority

Beyond the Microphone: An Open Letter to Andrew Cuomo and the "Politically Homeless" Majority

Traditional media gatekeepers want us to believe we only have two choices:  the far-left or the far-right. They are wrong. There is a massive, battle-tested middle ground of common-sense voters who currently feel completely politically homeless.

Tired of watching traditional outlets ignore our segment of the electorate, I bypassed the editors this week and sent a direct message to Andrew Cuomo's core strategic and media trust.

Below is the full, unedited text of my open letter.

To: Fmr. Governor Andrew Cuomo & Team

From: A Former New York Campaign Volunteer

Governor,

Every Sunday evening, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo sits behind a microphone on 77WABC for his show, The Pulse of the People. He talks with historians, rabbis, and everyday citizens about how fractured this country is. He dissects the toxic extremes of our current public discourse with the sharp, pragmatic eye of someone who spent years running a major state government. He knows how to cut through the noise, and he isn't afraid to say what needs to be said.

​​There is a massive, silent constituency in this country that has been completely abandoned by the modern political machine. We are the politically homeless, and we are completely exhausted by the choices forced upon us.

The Rise of Partisan Extremes

On one side, we see a Democratic Party pulled further toward democratic socialism—an approach that too often values political conformity over practical governance and economic stability. On the other side, we see a Republican Party completely tethered to the orbit of Donald Trump, trading institutional respect for grievance-driven populism.

​We don’t want socialism. We don’t agree with Trump. We look at the dysfunction, the late budgets, the rising cost of living, and the systemic paralysis making a total mess of this nation, and we see a country adrift. We want to turn the boat around from the misery both parties have created.

​Worse still, this exhausted majority is watching an alarming erosion of basic moral clarity. At a time when antisemitism has spiked to historic, terrifying levels—with Jewish institutions targeted and political activism crossing the line into open hostility—too many current leaders respond with deliberate indifference or calculated silence. They are too afraid of their own political fringes to enforce public safety. The Jewish community, and those who deeply care about their safety and right to live without fear, feel fundamentally unheard.

We Need Executives, Not Commentators

We need a leader.

Just talking, giving speeches, or writing posts isn't leading; it's just making noise. True leadership is defined by action, execution, and the willingness to do the heavy lifting. ​When a leader moves past talking, they shift into specific roles that drive physical momentum.  This is where Andrew Cuomo’s unique, battle-tested political DNA becomes exactly what we need. 

​Love him or hate him, no one has ever accused Cuomo of being soft or timid. Throughout his career, he built a reputation as a heavy-handed executive who believed government’s job was to work and deliver tangible results, not to perform identity politics. He has never minced words when it comes to standing with the Jewish community, routinely using his current platform to confront antisemitism head-on.

​Cuomo frequently tells his listeners that he has "learned lessons good and bad" from his time in and out of power. If those lessons have taught him anything, it should be that diagnosing the rot in our system from a safe, comfortable studio isn't enough. True leadership means stepping into the breach when the stakes are highest.

When you lead from outside the political sphere, you aren’t bound by party lines, re-election anxieties, or backroom deals. You have the freedom to focus entirely on the mission.

​The country is full of people who feel completely invisible, looking for a strong, common-sense alternative to the two extremes. Andrew, you have the microphone, the name recognition, and the executive scars to command attention. It's time to stop just taking calls from the people. It’s time to start leading them. Help us turn this around.

Help us Andrew Cuomo, you’re our only hope.

What Do You Think?

Traditional media wants us to believe we are isolated, but the "politically homeless" majority is real, and we are waiting for practical governance.

Are you feeling politically homeless in today's landscape? Is it time for battle-tested executive leadership to return to the arena? Let's talk in the comments below.

Take a Balanced View - Accuser #6

Note:  This post examines publicly available information and defense-raised challenges.

Accuser #6

Alyssa McGrath currently works in the Executive Chamber as an executive assistant, providing administrative assistance to certain assigned staff members of the Executive Chamber, and has been in that role since May 2018. In December 2018, McGrath also assisted the Governor, including by covering phone calls and other executive assistant functions on weekends at the Executive Mansion.

The allegations

Italian word  In early 2019, McGrath was assisting Cuomo at the Executive Mansion by herself when he asked her whether she spoke Italian.  McGrath replied that she did not speak Italian, although she is of Italian heritage.  Cuomo then said a short Italian phrase to McGrath and grinned at her.  McGrath did not recognize the phrase, but when she consulted her parents, who are fluent in Italian, her father told her that Cuomo’s comment had been about how McGrath was beautiful.  McGrath testified that she felt uncomfortable and surprised at learning this, especially given that this had also been one of the first times she had assisted Cuomo at the Executive Mansion by herself.

There is a footnote on the AG report. 

Bella means beautiful in Italian. My grandmother used to call me that.  “I can’t believe he said that.”  Really?  There are a lot worse words she could have been called.

Necklace Incident  Also in early 2019, McGrath was working on a dictation assignment with Cuomo for the first time and was nervous.  McGrath says she was seated slightly bent over her notepad and pen, ready to take dictation from Cuomo, when she noticed he had not spoken for an unusual amount of time. McGrath says when she looked up at him, and saw that he was staring down into McGrath’s shirt, which was a silk-like blouse that was loosely hanging off of her as she was slightly bent forward.  After McGrath looked up and saw that Cuomo had been looking in the area of her chest, he asked her what was on her necklace, which was hanging between McGrath’s breasts and the shirt. McGrath responded that her necklace had a pendant of the Virgin Mary and an Italian horn.  McGrath understood Cuomo’s question about her necklace as confirmation that he in fact had been looking down her shirt, and she felt embarrassed, uncomfortable, and stressed.

Cuomo testified that he did not recall ever looking down McGrath’s shirt, and noted that he believed it was physically impossible to do so from across his desk. He did recall that  McGrath was “very nervous when she came in,” and acknowledged that he may have complimented her on her necklace “to sort of make her feel more at ease.”

My only question is how slightly bent over were you sitting for anyone to see straight down your shirt considering how far away you were?

McGrath’s testimony is corroborated by Executive Assistant #1 (Commisso), her best friend.

Holiday Photo  McGrath also testified that, at the annual holiday party, Cuomo “would intentionally go up to [her and Executive Assistant #1] instead of us going up to him. And he would always want to take a picture with the two of us,” even though “people are all like trying to get to him.” McGrath recalled being “a little surprised that he came up to us out of . . . everyone there.” Photographs of Cuomo with McGrath and Executive Assistant #1 at holiday parties show Cuomo holding both of them tight, with his hands on their sides right under their breasts. In one of the pictures,

“Right under their breasts” is normally called your waist.

On March 19, 2021, the New York Times published an article reporting on “a series of unsettling interactions” that McGrath had with Cuomo.

what was left out

Matt McGrath’s testimony

The AG’s assessment was that based on her demeanor during her testimony, as well as the level of detail and consistency in the substance of her allegations and the corroboration from other individuals and documents, we found Ms. McGrath to be credible.

it was like, “Hey, I’m gonna say some stuff, you might know it’s BS, but can you keep your mouth shut?” And it wasn’t in exact words, that was my interpretation of it, knowing what I know.  Matt McGrath Testimony, p. 27-51