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


sherlock wrote:
> *********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.

Thanks for this work. I agree with you. People wonder what goes on in
their heads, but if you read the psychiatrist Dr. Michael Schwartz'
analysis of Allen Steere (Schwartz was one of Steere's early victims),
you get the impression that these "researchers" do not think of human
subjects as humans.

That's the other part of the dynamic. We don't understand the
callousness of psychopaths-in- medicine, nor how they succeeded in
acquiring their positions.

We can watch McSweegan, though. He gave us a rare opportunity to study
the higher level criminal mind. They're very intense.

Kathleen

.