March 20, 2018

A Call for a Possible Bounty on Coyotes Because of Disease Spread

Jon Lund is the owner and publisher of the Maine Sportsman magazine. In the March 2018 edition, he asks, “Are Coyotes to Blame for Increase in Ticks?” His simple explanation is that the presence of an increased population of coyotes in Maine is causing a reduction in the fox population – the trickle-down effect of an increase in ticks, particularly the tick that carries Lyme disease. The reality is that coyotes compete with and kill, directly and indirectly, the red fox that is sufficiently more adept at killing the small rodents that carry and perpetuate the Deer (Lyme) tick. In an effort to mitigate what appears to be a festering and growing incidence of Lyme disease in Maine, Lund is wondering if it is time, due to the necessity of a public health risk, to make a more serious effort at reducing the coyote population.

Maine got along just fine before the coyote took over the countryside and contrary to the many statements made otherwise, we don’t need them.

However, there is something else I’d like to touch base with readers about that Mr. Lund brings up in his article. This has to do with the use of chemicals and/or “natural” elements to ward off ticks and insect bites.

I’m sure that the pharmaceutical industry, and anyone else who stands to make a profit from their drugs to treat Lyme and other diseases, has thoroughly hyped the presence of ticks and instilled ample fear into the masses. After all, when the people live in fear they will do most anything.

Lund speaks specifically about permethrin. Permethrin is a common ingredient found in compounds marketed as insect repellents or killers. Basically, it attacks the central nervous system of insects.

Permethrin is a synthetic, or man-made, product derived from pyrethrin.

Most fact sheets available to the consumer paint the picture of permethrin/pyrethrin as mostly harmless even though long-term effects have not been studied. Some believe that using products that contain permethrin presents a higher risk of health issues than the odds of getting bit by a tick that will infect you with Lyme or other diseases. This is something you will have to decide for yourself. But to make that decision honestly, you should make the effort to understand the presented “remedies” and “threats.” It’s your health. Know what you are doing.

Lund takes the time to explain how ticks are spread around (I don’t find any factual claims that global warming is the culprit) and refers to a study where “…a growing body of evidence suggests that Lyme disease risk may now be more dynamically linked to fluctuations in the abundance of small-mammal hosts that are thought to infect the majority of ticks.”

The same study tells us that the incidence and presence of Lyme disease are not related to the abundance of deer but to the absence of key small predators. “We then show that increases in Lyme disease in the northeastern and midwestern United States over the past three decades are frequently uncorrelated with deer abundance and instead coincide with a range-wide decline of a key small-mammal predator, the red fox, likely due to expansion of coyote populations. Further, across four states we find poor spatial correlation between deer abundance and Lyme disease incidence, but coyote abundance and fox rarity effectively predict the spatial distribution of Lyme disease in New York. These results suggest that changes in predator communities may have cascading impacts that facilitate the emergence of zoonotic diseases, the vast majority of which rely on hosts that occupy low trophic levels.”

This claim is in direct contradiction to the theory that predators kill only the sick of the prey species and justifies the “need” for predators to keep our ecosystems healthy. Not only is there no evidence that the presence of large predators reduces the presence of disease in ecosystems, this study seems to prove the exact opposite.

We forget or never learned history. Large predators like wolves and coyotes were not tolerated on the landscape by early settlers. And there were reasons for that, some of which include not only the destruction of property caused by these critters but it was known that they carried and spread diseases, many of which are harmful and even deadly to humans.

And yet, today, there is an all-out effort to protect these same predators. It appears that for some anyway, the demand for an abundance of coyotes at the expense of public health is just fine and dandy. I don’t see it that way at all and I’m not alone.

As the trend continues in the direction that it is headed, it should be fairly easy to predict there will be increased fall-out about protecting any animal that spreads dangerous diseases among the people. Few tolerate the presence of rats knowing and remembering the unbelievable death and destruction caused by the bubonic plague. Is there a difference in protecting the health and safety of the public because one culprit is a nasty rat and the other is a nasty wild dog?

Mr. Lund is correct in asking the question about the role of coyotes in Maine, or anywhere else, where, according to provided data, the coyote is directly affecting the growth, perpetuation and spread of Lyme disease.

If Maine cannot effectively control the population of coyotes for public health and safety with the current management strategies, then it may be time to look at something more effective.

It is dishonest by the many who blame hunting and trapping for the decimation and/or extirpation of wolves and coyotes but go out of their way to deny that hunting and trapping of the same animals today have any effect on reducing their population numbers.

Many decades ago when it was decided by governments that wolves and coyotes were destroying property and spreading diseases, one of the elements employed to rid the landscape of the nasty canines and the diseases they spread was a bounty system. Any bounty must be attractive enough to draw enough to the plan. What is the limit in the cost of healthcare?

Such a suggestion will be vehemently opposed by many, especially those who hate hunting and trapping. They are wrong that think people like Jon Lund and myself might promote a bounty system for coyotes only for improving deer hunting. Little do these people know and understand the real conservation of wildlife.

In the normal world which is being left in the dust, there would be no question as to what is the right thing to do. Normalcy tells us public health and safety take precedence over animals and the spread of disease. One has to wonder what the extent of the bubonic plague would have been like if people had known and took real action to get rid of the rats that spread the disease.

But, we live in a Post-Normal world now where many things are upside-down. Are we to wait until more and more people get sick and die before we begin to act? Are we serious about finding a cure to a problem or is there just too much money to be made along with the genocide many promote?

It appears so.


Ban Assault Weaponized Weather Manipulation



They Want Us to Eat Their Mass-Produced Poison Instead

*Editor’s Comment* – If, as is repeated in this column, these leaders of world genocide don’t want us to kill living animals for sustenance, then we must learn to do what the other animals do and eat them while they are still alive – truly fresh meat. From videos I have seen, a slowly-eaten prey animal can live a long time. Learning how to carve out steaks, chops, and roasts while ensuring the longest possible life for the animal will allow those of us who don’t want to eat Bill Gates poison he and others have invested heavily in.

Of course, once the animal dies we will have to stop eating it and move on to the next living animal.

Which reminds of a story about the traveling salesman, the farmer, and his pig. The traveling salesman, while driving down a country road, noticed a pig next to a farmer’s barn that had what appeared to be a peg leg. Curiosity was overwhelming and so he stopped to inquire.

Finding the farmer he asked him if his pig had a peg leg and why. He had never seen such a thing before.

The farmer explained to the traveling salesman that one day while working in the field with his tractor, he got trapped under his tractor. The farmer calling desperately for help was greeted by his prize pig. The short of the story is that the pig saved the farmers life.

Still looking puzzled, the traveling salesman asked, “But how did the pig get the peg leg?” The answer was simple (and perhaps a lesson on how to eat meat from a live animal so you don’t have to kill it), “A pig that good can’t be eaten all at once!”

8 Business Leaders Who Are Investing to Close Slaughterhouses for Good

From Silicon Valley tech moguls to business executives and entrepreneurs, these people know that the future of food means not slaughtering animals.<<<Read More>>>


Aren’t There Profits To Be Made Promoting Lyme Disease?

*Editor’s Note* – Like with many things these days, so-called scientists are using Climate Change to focus all their efforts on to promote more and more fake research. We all suffer, in one form another, when any so-called scientist or scientific institution declare their intentions to focus all efforts on the effects of Climate Change. Such is the case we are seeing here with Lyme disease.

With an all-out focus on Climate Change, it is a guarantee that studies, bought and paid for by the taxpayers, will be never-ending and profit margins will soar.

“The changing climate in Maine caused by global warming is potentially creating new tick habitats and accelerating the spread of Lyme disease, according to research being done in the state.”<<<Read More>>>


Fiber is the “First Ingredient” in Horseshit

Have you taken notice of the ads that are being produced now about nutritional “foods?” I think it first began with dog food. Of course, we all know that it’s more important that our pets eat healthy food than a man does. One ad features two women semi-arguing over whose dog food was better for their pets. One reads the ingredients beginning with whole grain. The other reads her ingredients beginning with some chemical or artificial something or other.

I noticed today – and I might be a bit slow on the uptake as I’m not much of a media ingester – that this method of deception in advertising has moved over to the human food industry. I think it was on a box of cereal where I saw in big bold print: “Whole Grain is the First Ingredient.”

Well, I’ll be. That must make it nutritious right?

Just so that you know. Horseshit contains the following, and perhaps more: whole grain, grain fibers, minerals, water and other things we will keep from readers, just to make a point. I put “whole grain” as the “first ingredient” to show you that eating horseshit must be good for you.

Engage Brain Now!


Depop Poisons In Foods And Containers


Controversial United Nations Cancer Report Selectively Edited to Promote Weed-Killer Scare

*Editor’s Note* – This is a great example of ignorant blathering from those mired in the Left/Right false paradigm. I must ask if any of this information is about the dangers of glysophate found in “Roundup” used to genetically modify crop growth? It is not. It is about incomplete information and ignorance of facts, calling out of someone who has “no background in chemical research” by those who have no background in chemical research, and calling those concerned with the often-proven dangers of ingesting foods laced with glysophate as “leftist cancer claims.”

The claim is that the “Left” is “pursing politics over sound science” as if the Right isn’t or doesn’t do the same thing. Both sides always claim the high ground on “sound science” when it fits their political agendas.

The U.N. report in question deals with “cancer” and yet the concerns of what glysophate does to the rest of the body are being ignored through distractions of political bias between the Left and the Right.

Because we are so deeply manipulated by Left or Right we will actively disregard concerns over health issues from chemically induced foods that are designed to kill us because of political bias? Evidently.

I am not questioning that the U.N. and its players aren’t manipulating and generating propaganda “to advance a wider political agenda.” It’s what they do. However, one has to ask if the “Right” isn’t looking to “advance a wider political agenda” by attacking a claim simply because they believe it to be a Leftist claim of cancer. Is the Right so blindly committed to advancing the profits of big Pharma and big Corporate America, that killing innocent people should become the norm? Again, I say evidently.

Meanwhile, we all are getting sick and dying. Left/Right nonsense has now stooped to the level that politics rules over health.

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Anti-GMO Activist May Have Run Amok in World Health Organization Cancer Agency

Agency Rebuffs Congressional Investigation, Leading to Increased Calls to Cut U.S. Funding of Scandal-Ridden WHO

Global Public Health Too Important to Cede to Political Activists

Washington, DC – With the Trump Administration and congressional conservatives already skeptical of the United Nations’ use of American taxpayer dollars, there is growing concern that an affiliate of the U.N.’s World Health Organization (WHO) is pursing politics over sound science.

Not unlike allegations that demoted FBI official Peter Stzrok changed crucial language in a summary about Hillary Clinton’s email server, suspicion is growing about an anti-GMO activist with no background in chemical research who was brought in to advise the U.N.’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This activist may have played a role in the omission of crucial information — information that casts doubt on leftist cancer claims related to a popular weed-killer used to protect GMO crops. 

“In this season of giving, congressional leaders should be reminded that being a good donor requires responsible stewardship,” said Jeff Stier, the director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Assessment Division. “The U.S. is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization, yet the group – already mired in an array ofscandals – is now blatantly refusing to cooperate with a congressional committee charged with its oversight.”

In the commentary “It’s High Time to Cut U.S. Funding for This Troubled International Cancer Agency,” published in The Federalist on December 19, Stier and freelance science writer Julie Kelly note:

Congress has recently begun asking oversight questions about potential misconduct at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a WHO affiliate based in Lyon, France. But IARC has been snubbing its nose at requests for information. Now, the committee doing the investigation, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, is threatening to cut off federal funding until it gets answers. House leadership must recognize that this move comes not a moment too soon, and it must be prepared to back up the threat if necessary.

“IARC’s alarmist reports occasionally smack of propaganda intended to advance a wider political agenda,” Stier and Kelly point out.

In particular, they focus on increasing concern about an IARC report on glyphosate – a chemical found in the widely-used Roundup weed-killer produced by Monsanto – that backed cancer claims of critics of anti-GMO agriculture while ignoring plentiful research indicating little risk to human health. Like Stzrok’s alleged watering down of former FBI director James Comey’s report on Clinton, Reuters revealed that “significant changes and deletions” were made to the IARC report that removed “negative conclusion[s] about glyphosate leading to tumours.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency just released its own draft assessment on the risk of glyphosate to health and the environment for public comment.

“It seems that IARC has its own Peter Stzrok problem,” said Stier. “Questions are swirling around the role of Christopher Portier – a part-time employee with the Environmental Defense Fund who, despite having no background in chemical research, recommended that IARC evaluate glyphosate. Now on the payroll of plaintiffs’ lawyers suing on behalf of glyphosate ‘victims,’ Portier also served as an ‘invited specialist’ to the IARC group evaluating glyphosate.”

Stier and Kelly want to know what role Portier played in deletion of exculpatory evidence from the IARC report.

Congressman Lamar Smith, the chairman of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the U.S. House of Representatives, is setting the stage for a congressional hearing on the IARC’s glyphosate report and Portier’s influence over it. The agency, which has received $48 million in U.S. funding, has thus far snubbed Congressman Smith’s requests for information and potential witnesses for a hearing on the matter.

In the commentary, Stier and Kelly advise:

Congressional leadership must stand with the committee and state that global public health is too important to cede to scandal-ridden ideologues. This case illustrates again why WHO and IARC must be put on a regimen of tough love in the form of responsible stewardship.


Scientism, Encapsulation, Abstraction, Interface at Work

After publishing yesterday’s article on science modeling fraud, we are treated to an example of the process at work. Two Swedish “scientists” are charged with and found guilty of “scientific misconduct” because supposedly one of the scientists intentionally fabricated data and didn’t properly obtain necessary permits to “experiment” on fish. In addition, if you follow this link you will find many comments about the finding that further supports my claims about the brainwashing in place that makes “modeling” so effective. Whether you agree or disagree, try to get beyond that mindset in order to see the political blinders that just seem to persist at all levels and in everything we do.

As to the corrupt modeling process, clearly, it matters not to all those involved, including those offering comments, the topic of the research and if the claims made are factual or not and to what extent the corruption exists. There is little reason anymore to think that fraud and corruption aren’t deeply rooted in a rigged system.

The supposed “results” of this published study claimed that tiny particles of plastics in ocean waters were harmful to fish. Because to the corrupted rigged system, we don’t know if the intent of the research was to falsely provide “evidence” that this plastic existed and the harm it causes to fish for political purposes and monetary gain. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the charges brought against the researchers are not being done for other political purposes or monetary gain.

That’s how terribly corrupt the entire process has become. One person commented that they just assume that all published papers today are rooted in fraud and deception.



Eastport, Maine’s Continuing “Deer Problem”

Actually, I don’t think Eastport has a “deer problem.” I think they have a people problem who think they can cure a perceived problem with a “new way to look at wildlife management” – i.e. Romance Biology and Voodoo Scientism.

If you live in Eastport, Maine, you have the right to keep and bear arms. However, if you are attacked within the city limits and need to defend yourself, make sure the gun you have for self-defense is small enough to throw but big enough to cause some damage if it should strike a violent criminal. That’s because in Eastport, like many other towns and cities in America, there is a law about discharging a firearm in the city. Why are these laws not being challenged?

That’s part of the so-called deer problem.

Another issue is that a deer committee, formed to look at ways of resolving the “problem” admit they are anti-hunting and seek alternative ways of “learning to live with” the deer. A Bangor Daily News article states that a member of the town’s deer committee said, “…And Bartlett made it clear the committee wasn’t a deer hunting group but rather a deer deterrent group.”

The two biggest limiters of deer populations in Maine are severe winters and depredation by large predators, i.e. bears, coyotes, bobcats and mountain lions(?). What better place to mitigate these life-threatening problems than to take up residence in a town that only wishes to “deter” deer, where they probably get fed by residents and where, usually, these large predators are not interested in having much to do with…until they get really hungry. Then they can take a bunch of pets, livestock and an occasional child or two in their quest for a meal.

Here’s my prediction. According to this news article, “…each of the deer that has been taken during the special hunt has been checked for ticks, with Lyme disease being a concern. Over the past two seasons, none of the deer have had ticks. The deer deterrent committee seems mostly unconcerned about private property and public safety of Eastport residents – at least not enough to do anything serious to lessen the problem. When deer become numerous enough and predators hungry enough to come to town for dinner, along the way they will begin eating up citizen’s pets. People can be put at risk and have their property destroyed, but when something causes harm to their pets, attitudes will change. Add to that the likelihood of increased risk of contracting some kind of disease that hits close to home, and soon bullets will replace arrows.

There’s a reason why the North American Model of Wildlife Management is still the best way to manage wildlife.

It works!


Obamacare Individual Mandate Repeal: House of Representatives Should Follow Senate Lead

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Health Care Expert Says Congress Can Fix Gross Violation of Individual Liberty

Mandate to Buy Insurance Failed to Make Obamacare Exchanges Function Properly

Washington, DC – With the Senate version of tax reform containing a repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate, a health care expert with the National Center for Public Policy Research says the House of Representatives would be wise to embrace this restoration of individual liberty as the chambers conference on a final version of the bill to be sent to the White House.

“If Congress can’t repeal Obamacare all at once, then repealing it piece by piece is the next best thing. That’s what the Senate did Friday when it rolled back the individual mandate,” notes David Hogberg, Ph.D., a National Center adjunct fellow specializing in health care policy.

In a new National Center commentary published by the American Spectator, Dr. Hogberg suggests that the House of Representatives “now follow the Senate’s lead” in its own version of tax reform by adding a repeal of the penalty that compels Americans to buy health insurance, so that it is included in the final version sent to President Donald Trump.

“The Senate struck a blow for freedom,” adds Dr. Hogberg, the author of the bookMedicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians. “The House should do the same. This was never anything more than a gross encroachment on liberty. Nowhere in the Constitution or in constitutional law is there any justification for letting the government force people to buy health insurance. Chief Justice John Roberts erred greatly when he sided with the Supreme Court’s liberals in letting the mandate stand.”

In the commentary, Dr. Hogberg refutes Obamacare supporters who argue that the Obamacare exchanges will fall apart without the individual mandate. “The individual mandate has never worked as advertised,” he says. “It was supposed to keep premiums low and keep insurance companies in the exchanges. It has done neither.”

Also noted in the commentary:

  • The lowest-cost plan for a 27-year-old has risen 77 percent in cost since the exchanges started operating in 2014. The second lowest-cost silver plan has risen a whopping 88 percent in cost since that time.
  • Exchanges had over 250 insurance companies participating in 2014. In 2018 that number will fall to under 170, a drop of over one-third.
  • In 2014, 76 percent of exchange enrollees had at least three insurers to choose from. Only six percent had just one. Due to so many insurers leaving the exchanges, the percentage of enrollees with a choice of only one insurer will rise to 26 percent in 2018, while those with three or more insurers will fall to 48 percent.

“In short, the individual mandate does not now, nor will it ever, work as Obamacare supporters claimed it would,” writes Dr. Hogberg. “Considering that the mandate is also a gross encroachment on individual freedom, there is no reason why Congress shouldn’t repeal it in the name of tax reform.”