August 19, 2019

Human Echinococcosis Mortality in the United States, 1990–2007

Abstract
Background

Despite the endemic nature of Echinococcus granulosus and Echinococcus multilocularis infection in regions of the United States (US), there is a lack of data on echinococcosis-related mortality. To measure echinococcosis-associated mortality in the US and assess possible racial/ethnic disparities, we reviewed national-death certificate data for an 18-year period.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Echinococcosis-associated deaths from 1990 through 2007 were identified from multiple-cause-coded death records and were combined with US census data to calculate mortality rates. A total of 41 echinococcosis-associated deaths occurred over the 18-year study period. Mortality rates were highest in males, Native Americans, Asians/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics and persons 75 years of age and older. Almost a quarter of fatal echinococcosis-related cases occurred in residents of California. Foreign-born persons accounted for the majority of echinococcosis-related deaths; however, both of the fatalities in Native Americans and almost half of the deaths in whites were among US-born individuals.

Conclusions/Significance

Although uncommon, echinococcosis-related deaths occur in the US. Clinicians should be aware of the diagnosis, particularly in foreign-born patients from Echinococcus endemic areas, and should consider tropical infectious disease consultation early.

Author Summary

Human echinococcosis is a parasitic disease that affects an estimated 2–3 million people and results in an annual monetary loss of over $750,000,000 worldwide. It results in the development of life threatening tissue cysts, primarily in the liver and lung, following accidental ingestion of eggs in infected dog, fox or wild canine feces. Echinococcus parasites have a complex, two-host lifecycle (such as in dogs and sheep) in which humans are an aberrant, dead-end host. The vast majority of cases of human echinococcosis occur outside of the United States (US); however, cases within the US do occur. In this study, the authors examined death certificate data of US residents from 1990–2007 in which echinococcosis was listed as one of the diagnoses at death. The analysis demonstrated 41 echinococcosis-related deaths over the 18-year study period with foreign-born persons accounting for the majority of the deaths. This study helps quantify echinococcosis deaths among US residents and adds further support to the importance of funding echinococcosis prevention research.

<<<Read the Complete Study at National Library of Medicine>>>

In addition, another study involving the presence of cystic echinococcosis in humans was undertaken in Turkey. You can find that information at Research Gate. (Note: You can access the entire study for free but requires a membership form.)

Share

UK’s “Environment” Issues Seem to Mirror Those of US

Or maybe it’s the other way around. Perhaps the environmental industry, combined with efforts by the animal rights brainwashed, useful idiots of both the United Kingdom and the United States are crafted by the same people/persons/entity.

Read what’s going on in the UK over too many badgers, the spreading of disease and any efforts to do something about it. Appears to be a matter of animals over humans. Now where have we seen this before?

Share

Yellowstone Wolves Hit by Disease: Upsetting Myth of Self Regulating Nirvana

This is a great report that was sent to me by a valuable resource because it reveals, what clear thinking people have known for a long time.

Researchers from Penn State University have discovered that gray wolves in Yellowstone National Park have dropped from a peak of 170, after wolf introduction, to around 100, and they blame it on disease. It’s not clear from this article in Live Science, if the mission of the researchers was to discover why the population of wolves in Yellowstone had dropped to 100 or whether they were there just to study the wolf diseases. I’m led to believe they were there to help find out what was shrinking the wolf population.

If that is the case, then have they ruled out all other causes of population reduction? Like, having not enough food to eat. Of course we’ll never know that will we. That’s one of those things that doesn’t get studied too hard nor reported on.

But, as a firm believer that Mother Nature doesn’t “balance” itself, in the human perception of “balance”, this comment by one of the researchers is a real gem.

“We’re down to extremely low levels of wolves right now,” researcher Emily S. Almberg, a graduate student in ecology, said in a statement. “We’re down to [similar numbers as] the early years of reintroduction. So it doesn’t look like it’s going to be as large and as a stable a population as was maybe initially thought.”

I suggest many of you might want to jot that one down or copy and paste it some place to save for future reference. This statement may be as close as we are ever going to get to anybody admitting that nature doesn’t balance.

She and others may have thought that but those scientists with experience said any populations driven by predators would never be stable, nor would ecosystems leave to their own devices. People’s perverted notions of what and how nature takes care of itself is far from reality and this is an example of that.

Yellowstone is perhaps as close as you can come to a self-regulated ecosystem, although it isn’t because of all the manipulating that is done with species of flora and fauna. About all that is absent is hunting and trapping to stabilize populations.

Other issues that are brought out in the article should make anyone with a brain giggle; as if this information is something newly discovered. Here’s another example. The article states, “The Penn State researchers found that distance made a difference in the spread of the disease.” I’m mean, seriously! Who didn’t know that? I was taught that I think in third grade. Isn’t it for this reason animal rights and agriculture officials frown on packing too many animals into a small space? Or, without sounding like a broken record, back during the process of developing an Environmental Impact Statement prior to the introduction of wolves, they were warned that too many wolves would bring and breed disease, many of which are harmful and deadly to humans. I think the words here are, it fell on purposely deaf ears.

And a continuation of that thought process and epiphany of the Penn State researchers, the article further states, “Thus the high wolf densities afforded by protection within Yellowstone may come at the cost of some population stability.” Well, by golly. I wonder if these same researchers are able to also conclude that if high wolf densities because of predator protection might cost the wolf population some stability, that it also causes lack of stability of other species?

This is extremely important as the fully brainwashed and educational institution indoctrination of wildlife biologists and other scientists, have taught most everyone that if man would just go kill themselves and leave Mother Nature to herself, there would be balance. And to support this myth, they lie and say that the wolf and coyote are the only species that can bring “balance” to our ecosystems.

Busted!

But fear not all you wolf lovers. It wasn’t the wolves’ fault:

“Many invasive species flourish because they lack their native predators and pathogens, but in Yellowstone we restored a native predator to an ecosystem that had other canids (animals in the dog family) present that were capable of sustaining a lot of infections in their absence,” said Almberg.

I thought “mighty dog”, once introduced, would clean up any existing disease, kill off all the sick and weekly of the prey species and urinate on any plants in order to rid the forests of invasive species.

Share

Another Tick-Borne Disease to Guard Against

Unlike Lyme disease, which quickly leapfrogged across the country, babesiosis is spreading slowly through the Northeast and Upper Midwest, where it is increasingly recognized as the cause of a flulike summer ailment. It has been said that Lyme disease moves on the wings of birds, which some experts believe carry the bacteria causing the condition. Babesiosis, however, moves on the backs of mice and deer. Birds do not spread it.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Coyote Now Blamed For Increased Levels of Lyme Disease

I would suppose the findings in a recent study should add another nail in the coffin of the coyote, a resilient, perpetuating varmint that spreads disease, kills far too many prey species and in many cases interrupts the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness of people.

This new study suggests that the increased presence of coyotes, reduces the populations of red fox, a smaller varmint that more readily feasts on the small mice that are the major culprits of carrying and spreading the Lyme tick.

Share

Scientists find fungus that kills Lyme disease-carrying ticks

BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — Local scientists have found a way to control the ticks responsible for passing Lyme disease on to humans. A new natural pesticide, derived from a strain of fungus that is deadly to the black-legged tick could help keep tick populations under control.

Unlike some synthetic pesticides that can be dangerous for more than just ticks, the fungus does not harm honeybees, earthworms or other beneficial insects.<<<Read the entire article>>>

Share

Managing Wildlife In “An Environmentally Responsible Way”

For every one of the thousands of “environmentally responsible” bits of propaganda that get printed to thousands of media sources nationwide, at least 10 rebuttals with factual information need to be made in hopes of stemming the tide of inaccurate and regurgitated bad information about wildlife management, and moving those discussions forward with scientifically substantiated facts. It is a relentless battle, but alas, the war rages on.

A rightfully placed “opinion piece” in the Bangor Daily News, from Heather Bolint“Heather Bolint of Damariscotta is a 2009 graduate of Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Fl., where she earned a BA in environmental studies” – is a rerun of the same old unproven theories that have for years been bandied around by environmentalists and animal activists as fact. While attempting to cherry pick a few theories dressed up like “studies” to substantiate her own agitprop, Ms. Bolint tells readers there exists no other studies but hers and all other information is inaccurate. Or, perhaps she just didn’t go look.

One of the greatest threats today to our wildlife management programs in this country comes from environmentalist, much like the author of this piece. Environmentalists tend to perpetuate theories and ideologies, such as “balance of nature”, “self-regulation”, bolstered by the absurd delusion that man is not part of the equation. This perspective is one from an environmentalist and certainly not one from real wildlife science and as such, the agenda-driven environmentalists use phraseology for wildlife management as, “An Environmentally Responsible Way”.

Actual wildlife biology took a back seat in recent years to demands from social activists, i.e. animal rights; placing animals at or above a plane with humans; a want to “view” wildlife; skewed moral and ethics issues, etc. This is not actual responsibility to care for the wild animals but is, in fact, a labeled “environmentally responsible way”. The author references her misconception by stating, “Maine’s coyote control is needless and unregulated and merely serves the purpose of providing financial stability to the IF&W rather than an environmentally responsible way to manage wildlife.”

Isn’t it a bit on an oxymoron to link together “environment” and “responsible”?

It is first important to point out to readers that Maine essentially does NOT have a coyote control program. Through extensive research recently, I learned that in 2004 the Maine Legislature repealed any remains of the Coyote Control Program. The only coyote “control” that exists amounts to ample hunting opportunities, limited trapping opportunities and a sparse, at best, animal damage control program of targeting winter deer yards to kill coyotes that are extirpating our deer herd.

The author chooses to utilize information written on the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) website and present it as fact, when in fact most of the information she references pertains to Maine’s Coyote Control Program which has been repealed. She grabs this quote:

By continuing the coyote control program, the public may perceive the Department [of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife] implicitly believes the control program has a strong biological basis, when in fact, the biological benefits of coyote control are unknown.”

And this:

“It is not known whether the current snaring program, or other forms of coyote control, has any effect on increasing local or regional deer numbers.”

As well as this one:

“The possibility exists that the removal of territorial coyotes may allow nonterritorial coyotes into an area, and exacerbate the deer predation problem.”

It is no secret that the MDIFW has an aversion for predator control. After all, predator control is one of those nasty things that are learned in indoctrination camps these days. Our biologists are taught unproven theories; that predators like coyotes and wolves are “healthy for our ecosystems” and that nature “self regulates”. This is all junk science and intellectual rubbish.

Environmentalists created the use of “ecosystem” to term our forests and fields; “eco”, of course relating to the environment and “system” as it might refer to orderliness, or organization of working parts that yield a desired result. The only thing that might resemble a “system” in wildlife management comes from man’s effort to work to keep it at some sort of socially acceptable “balance”, i.e. not allowing one species to dominate and kill off another, etc. This is why we developed wildlife management and devised the Northern America Model for wildlife Conservation. It has been all part of the environmentalists’ plan to use social tolerance in wildlife management programs while giving biological science a back seat.

To those people who perpetuate the myth of nature balancing itself, I merely demand that they prove it. They can’t.

But back to the opinion piece, using worn out, and unproven theories about coyotes and predators as a whole from the MDIFW website of outdated information in order to bolster claims that it is “environmentally irresponsible” to control coyotes doesn’t make the grade.

For decades environmentalists and animal rights organization, who know nothing of predator/prey relationships or wildlife management in general, and pay their “scientists” well to give them the theories they wish to perpetuate, have regurgitated the theories about alpha males and females and reactive population growth from implementation of predator control. These have NEVER been proven and contrary to what Heather Bolint says, there does exist studies and data to indicate otherwise.

Dr. L. David Mech, around 1970 published in a book he wrote about how important it was to preserve the “alpha male” in a pack and the disruption it would cause by removing that alpha male. In other words, he was the author, the founder, the creator of the alpha male myth. But on Dr. Mech’s own website, he tells people that he has since that time learned that this simply is not true. He writes:

One of the outdated pieces of information is the concept of the alpha wolf. “Alpha” implies competing with others and becoming top dog by winning a contest or battle. However, most wolves who lead packs achieved their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then became their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today, the “breeding male,” “breeding female,” or “male parent,” “female parent,” or the “adult male” or “adult female.”

However, the discovery of this information is not allowed to stand in the way of the agendas of environmentalist whose goals include the ending of hunting, fishing and trapping. The argument has always been that in random killing of coyotes, if the alpha male and/or alpha female are killed, the pack will be sent into disarray resulting in increased predation of livestock and family pets, etc. We know this now to be false.

What else are we finding is false?

For the MDIFW biologists to include on their website a statement about how removing “territorial” coyotes in one area might allow for “nonterritorial” coyotes to move in, is actually a reflection of their own lack of more modern understanding of predator and prey relationships and the behaviors of predators such as coyotes. Coyotes essentially have two functions. Kill and eat and reproduce. If targeted coyotes in one territory are removed and hungry dispersing coyotes are looking for a place to go, they might go there or they might not. They are opportunistic animals. If they do fill that void as might be believed, an ongoing coyote control program would solve that problem too. This is not complicated.

When anyone carries with them the unproven theory that if you kill a certain number of coyotes, they will produce more to replace those, will, more than likely, also possess the misinformation that targeting coyotes only allows more to take their place. To state this information as fact, as I have said earlier, is intellectual rubbish and dishonesty.

The entire opinion piece is a fabrication of unproven theories, exceptionally poor information and in some cases, actual myths. Readers should beware that this creation of anti-hunting decretum belongs in the opinion section.

The author reveals her anti-hunting agenda when she says:

Coyote control in Maine is facilitated through shooting, trapping, baiting and running down coyotes with dogs. These can be inhumane methods and are not regulated…..

Humaneness belongs to the eyes of the beholder. While Bolint tries to convince readers that shooting, trapping, baiting and hunting coyotes with dogs, is inhumane treatment, she falls flat on her face failing to discuss the realities of uncontrolled and unmanaged wildlife as a comparison. Of course, anyone who has an aversion or detestation to hunting and trapping of wild animals, would think it inhumane. The “natural” means of death to these animals can be about as inhumane, by human standards, as it can get. What is humane about protecting predators like coyotes to the point they become disease ridden? Coyotes can be carriers of up to thirty known diseases, parasites, etc. Common diseases are mange, parvovirus, distemper and rabies. What is humane about watching a coyote wither away and die from these diseases? Early in grade-school science we learned that too many animals in too small a space, breeds and spreads disease.

We control rats and other disease-spreading, undesirable creatures but somehow, while one may turn a blind eye to mice and rats being killed in a trap, quickly dispatching a coyote through hunting and trapping is somehow considered inhumane? I question if the author has any knowledge at all about hunting and trapping.

What is humane about having so many coyotes in some locations that they are extirpating deer herds? What’s humane about the realization of how hungry coyotes, being forced to kill more deer to survive, go about ripping a fetus from a female deer they are carrying in the middle of a deer wintering yard? What is humane about having a coyote eat a deer alive?

What is humane about so many coyotes eating the same prey that is food for other wildlife causing starvation and serious reduction of those species. An example might well by the Canada lynx. Its main prey for sustenance is the hare. If too many coyotes eat up all the hare, what chance does the lynx have? Is that humane? Is this even rational thinking?

The author of this piece is ignorant of the nonexistent coyote control program. She’s uneducated in the facts of coyote behavior as well as predator/prey relationships and provides readers with nothing more than blather, dressed up with a new skirt and bright lipstick and presented as factual information.

Ms. Bolint is an educated environmentalist. She has no idea that the MDIFW and many of the scientists there are her allies. Many there perpetuate the same environmental junk science and share the same theories and myths.

If people actually would like to see well-controlled and healthy populations of many and diverse species, the first thing that is needed is to get rid of environmentalism. It is not a science. It’s a religion given too much power and recognition and it is destroying our forest and fields by doing everything they can to get man out of the woods resulting in widespread predator pits absent of any kind of diverse and healthy wildlife populations.

Tom Remington

Share

Are There Now Rabid Wolves in Idaho?

*Scroll Down for Updates*

Nearly six years ago, we learned that two-thirds of all wild wolf carcasses examined in Idaho were infected with tapeworms of the echinococcus granulosus variety that, if contracted by humans can cause hydatid cysts on major body organs, such as lungs, liver, brain, etc. There also exists now human cases of hydatid disease in Idaho; extremely difficult to diagnose, more difficult to treat, surgery being the only option, and potentially deadly.

Now, it appears the possibility exists that wolves are being found in Idaho that have rabies.

During the drafting of the Environmental Impact Statement of 1994, before the reintroduction of wolves into the Greater Yellowstone area, some scientists shared their concerns over the impact of disease that wolves are known to carry; many of which are harmful to humans and livestock, and in some cases, potentially deadly. Echinococcus granulosis and rabies, only two of the approximate 30 diseases these canines carry. Those concerns were essentially ignored.

Now, citizens of Idaho, appear to have another canine disease to concern themselves with. Indications are that some wolves in portions of Idaho may have rabies.

I was included in an email exchange over the weekend of one person’s account of unusual wolf behavior and the role being played out by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Below is a copy of the email. I have decided to omit certain personal information about the author of the email, not because they requested it but because I believe it is a responsible thing to do considering the sick and mentally twisted freaks who dot our landscape. Enough said.

Will Graves, author of “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages” and the person to whom the email below was first sent to, sought permission from “Jennifer” to share the letter and information below. Graves made the following comment:

“In my opinion it is very strange under the circumstances you explained in this email that the Idaho FWP has not released the lab results on these two wolves. The public must be informed on what these two wolves died from. In my opinion it is grossly irresponsible not to release these pertinent lab reports to the general public.

It takes from one to three days to determine if an animal with rabid like symptoms was infected with rabies or not. There could possibly be some extenuating circumstances. Of course, if the animal were shot in the head to kill it, then rabies could probably not be confirmed.”

Graves was able to later confirm that the wolf had not been shot in the head.

“The wolf died on its own, no one shot it in the head ( it took 3 days for it to die ). The man told me they called Idaho F& G approximately 2 hours after the wolf died. He would not tell me the address of the house where it happened.He was really afraid.”

Here is the email letter.

~~~~~

We were awoken at 3:35 am on Saturday the 11th Feb. 2012, with wolves harassing our Akbash / Pyrenees cross guard dogs. We could hear one of the wolves growing from our bedroom window, it was on the other side of the fence along the road that goes by our home and barn. The two guard dogs were up against the front door of the house completely frightened and trying to hide. Kevin my husband went out and was growled at in the dark by one of the wolves from behind him on the road. He was trying to see them with a million watt hand held light. But they were ducked down in a snow filled ditch with water flowing from *** Creek across the road. They ran off.

In the morning at first light I went out to see were the tracks went and to try to figure out how many wolves there were as its very difficult to see tracks in the dark. The tracks were clear to see and the size of my hand 6″ X 3″ stride length of about 60″. They exited on the main road east towards Hailey.

A truck pulled into a turnout above our home. I was tracking in on the movement of the two wolves by our field and fence line. The man had his window down and asked if I had seen any wolves, I told him we had them at our place last night harassing the two guard dogs that were out in the fenced yard. We talked for about 30 minutes about wolves in the area. After that he mentioned to me that his friend that lives in Starweather subdivision had a really skinny wolf show up next to his drive way convoluting and drooling. He said his friend was hoping it would go away as he did not want the controversy from certain wolf defenders and people in town. He said It took three days for the wolf to die . The last night he thought it would perish because it was extremely cold, but when he went out in the morning it was still in convolutions but lying down and foaming on the muzzle and drooling from its mouth. A short time later he said it died. They decided to call Fish and Game. Local Lee Garwood of Fish and Game with another officer arrived and took the dead wolf carcus away. The man told me that they were told NOT to tell anyone and that they had picked up another wolf from the Fairfield pack in Fairfield that had the same symptoms months ago. The man told me they had been frightened to tell anyone and the following week his friend called Lee Garwood the Fish and Game Officer and asked him what the wolf died of. Lee Garwood told him they did not know and it would take weeks before they knew anything on why it died. The two men thought it was strange. When the man told me all of this he was really scared and did not want me to tell anyone about it. He drove away.

I went back to our house and called Will Graves immediately because I thought it could be rabies. Two years ago I sent Will graves and Steve Alder, Wildlife For Idaho the news paper articles on the fly fisher man that had a rabid bat stuck on his fishing vest on the Wood River in Green horn Gulch area.. Three other people had to have a rabies shot series because of rabid bats in that area too. There is a bad bat colony somewhere in that vicinity. Then I called Lee Garwood next and he told me that he did not want me scaring people right now and he had two wolf hunters out working on it, killing the wolves in Green horn and not to be worried or alarmed. I told Lee we had an very aggressive wolf growling by our fence early that morning. We thought it was unusual behavior. Then I called Steve Alder to report it and get his expert help as I was really concerned that it could be rabies not distemper or parvo. Distemper did not fit the convolutions and the length of time it took to die. Will Graves talked it over with Val Giest in Canada and both thought it sounded like stage three rabies. The last wolf that growled and charged me and my dog in my yard had an imbedded leather tracking collar with a dead battery. The collar was rotting in its neck and it was desperately trying to eat and it was starving. So we thought something must be really wrong with the growling wolf at the fence. Lee Garwood told me he would come by in person at 12:00 the next day to talk to us in person. He did come on Saturday and Lee informed my husband Kevin that it was a 60 pound very skinny looking and light in weight female wolf. He personally seemed very surprised that Fish and Game had not released the discovery on what killed the female wolf or the other one in Fairfield yet. He told Kevin my husband to not scare people and keep it quite as they did not need mass hysteria going around town. He said maybe an Elk kicked it in the head or it had a bone splinter in its guts.

Steve we are sending this to you in hopes that maybe you can get the Governor to get the report released from Fish and Game ASAP on what killed the wolf in Starweather subdivision Hailey, ID and what killed the wolf in Fairfield, ID months ago that they took away to be examined. Being extremely concerned and knowing information in other states on rabies it usually only takes 24 hours to find out if an animal is rabid, why are they waiting this long to release a report? And why is the Fish and Game officer having two hunters try and kill wolves in Greenhorn Gulch area. If it is rabies we have to inform the public now!! And take action. I thought that’s why we have Idaho Fish and Game to manage the wildlife, keeping hazardous heath information from the citizens of the United States Of America is not their job. I hope the wolves that died got kicked in the head by the elk, or bone fragments in the guts and that’s all. But the more time that goes by, the more guilty and withholding this appears. What say you!

Jennifer ********

*Update: February 14, 2012 – 8:30 a.m.*

Through inquiry by the Idaho for Wildlife, a response was received from Jerome Hansen, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, concerning testing results and/or information about the two wolves referred to above. I’ll paste the entire comment from Hansen:

“Hi Steve,

Thanks for the email. I have received feedback from Lee Garwood (Conservation Officer in Hailey, Dr. Mark Drew (our Veterinarian), and Steve Roberts, (Conservation Officer in Fairfield).

On January 22, 2012, Officers Garwood and Morris responded to a call about a sick or injured wolf in a driveway in the Starweather subdivision (North of Hailey). The wolf was collected and sent to our Veterinarian in Boise for necropsy. Dr. Drew told us today that he had necropsied the wolf about a week after receiving it. It was negative for rabies. The rest of the lab work is still outstanding, as to the actual cause of being so thin.

We don’t know what wolf north of Fairfield Jennifer is referring to. We did find 6 wolves dead north of Fairfield in the summer of 09, but after lab work, the most likely cause of death was determined to be Parvo. If we can provide any more info, don’t hesitate to ask.
Take care,
Jerome”

Share