Here's the &#$%@# deer study information, or at least some of it. you lesbian.

*********Most of this below is plagiarized from a book, also I am
abbreviating Bb.

...."The presence of Bb and babesia and their vecot ticks was examined
on two islands inhabited by deer and mice and four islands without deer
{but with mice} in rhode island. Both pathogens were isolated from
tick-infested white-footed mice and meadow voles on the two
deer-inhabited islands. Neither of the pathogens nor the deer tick was
detected in mice on the four islands that had no deer. This suggested
that in the absence of deer, other mammalian hosts could not sustain
the tick in sufficient numbers to transmit Bb or babesia...

"the exclusion or reduction of white-tailed deer could potentially
reduce vector abundance and affect the dynamics of disease
transmission...indeed, the exclusion of deer by electric fencing from
two small areas {3.5 hectacres and 7.4 hectacres} in CT was shown to
reduce the abundance of deer ticks, particularly larvae, within the
fenced areas. This resulted in reductions in larvae of 88.5% - 97.8%
and nymphs of 47.4%-55.8% within the fenced area as compared to outside
{**remember, the larvae hatch from females attached to deer, the nymphs
have evolved from larvae and are mainly found on mice, which can evade
the fencing- but ultimately you'll run out of nymphs IF you control the
deer as you'll see below} Daniels et. al {1993} reported 83% fewer
nymphs and 90% fewer larvae inside five enclosure with traditional
fencing. These reductions were similar to those obtained for A.
americanum larvae (98%) and nymphs (53%) in a 2.4 hectacre deer
exclosure in Tennesee {Bloemer et.al., 1986, 1990}. Similarly, the
exclusion of fallow deer by a permanent fence resulted in significantly
lower densities of I. ricinus nymphs compared with an adjacent forested
area in Ireland {Gray et. al, 1992}...

"the incremental removal of deer has been shown to reduce tick
abundance {Deblinger et al., 1993} A gradual reduction in deer
densities over a 7 year period at a 567 hectacre site in MA reduced the
abundance of I. scapularis larvae and nymphs on white-footed mice by
roughly one-half, although the density of female ticks on deer
increased 4 to 6 fold during the 7 year reduction at Crane's Beach
Similarly, the reduction of deer from 97.3 deer/squ km {100 f-ing deer
per square kilometer - that is NOT an ecological balance} to 13.1
deer/square kilometer over a 7 year period on a 176 hectacre forested,
fenced property in CT resulted in an almost 5 fold reduction in nymphal
tick abundance. The virtual elimination of deer from great island, a
240 hectacre coastal peninsula near cape cod, produced a dramatic
reduction in the subadult population of this tick {wilson et. al,
1988}, although adult tick abundance initially seemed to increase after
deer became scarce. This is due to the 2 year life cycle of the tick
and the fact that a reduction in deer density, in the short term,
increases the apparent host-seeking activity of the adult ticks, as
fewer deer will remove fewer adult ticks from the population {remember,
these ticks can go months and months without feeding}. Adult tick
populations eventually decline with the removal of deer. While deer
removal has not eliminated the tick or interrupted the enzootic cycle {
adults still occur on dogs, raccoons, and foxes} the elimination of
deer has apparently reduced or prevented cases of LB on great island
and observations suggest a deer density of 3 deer/km squ will reduce
tick densities sufficiently to interrupt human to tick transmission
{humans being a host of last resort for the ticks; in the current
situation there is an overabundance of deer, and consequently ticks, so
there are zillions of 'surplus' questing nymphs [especially} the size
of pinheads running around everywhere}

The book then discusses a complicated super computer simulation model
developed to assess the population dynamics of I. scapularis. I'll list
the abstract in the next post; here are some of the results of the
simulation. The situation is complicated by the fact that deer serum is
highly borreliacidal; although deer are necessary for the ticks to
reproduce in any capacity which results in risk of human infection, the
deer serum tends to cleanse the adults of Bb, also some nymphs will
attach to deer instead of mice...in the wild, mice are the Bb reservoir
by which Bb is passed to the nymphs which then bite people. so a minor
reduction in deer population can result in increased numbers of
infected nymphs [for a year or two}...but the bottom line is, if you
cut the deer down to a certain level, the nymph population will also be
lowered...In a ten-year simulation, an initial deer density of 25
deer/squ km was reduced to .25 deer/squ km {what the northeast had
around 1900}...With only .25 deer/squ km, infected nymphs {the primary
transmitters of human disease} declined by 74% by year 3, and 98% by
year 10...

and that, folks, is the major crime of these people. here we are, 2006,
there have been no meaningful attempts to control this disease over the
past 30 years. In the early 90's, a decision was made to control the
disease from a public health perspective using a vaccine. If the
federal government forced a deer eradication and fencing program in
endemic areas {and they can do that, and the bambi lovers can't do ***
about it}, however, they would have to explain WHY we are doing that,
and naturally people would begin to question the origins of the
disease...etc. So the government thought, hey, this *** probably isn't
a big deal, it burns itself out, let's do a vaccine. The vaccine was
worthless, only 80% effective even according to the criminal standard.

But if around 1990 or even 1995 aggressive action to eliminate the
threat had been taken, lyme disease in the United States would be a
rare disease indeed...and prolonged abx therapy in the few patients who
required it wouldn't be such a big deal to the insurance companies.

This isn't steere, or mcsweegan, or even the anus fish. they don't make
these decisions. David Dennis, Anthony Fauci, and the executive branch
{if they bothered to consult} make these decisions.

David Dennis and Anthony Fauci are behind this crap. remember, fauci
edits ID articles for harrison's...HE is the one who picks steere...HE
could pick someone else, or request steere make alterations...just one
example.

Also, keep in mind the changeover in 1994 from the CDC making disease
definitions to CSTE making these definitions...it is the CDC and DAVID
DENNIS abdicating their responsibility. They KNEW that they had to lie
about the serologic definitions. They KNEW that for every active lyme
patient there was another asymptomatic or possibly incurable late stage
neuroborreliosis. AND THEY STILL CHOSE THE SHITTY VACCINE.

of course, I don't know the inner workings of ID policy in this
country. I've heard rumors that, for instance, Gary Wormser is heavily
involved in these issues. I don't claim to understand the power
structure but it seems hopelessly corrupt.

.