By Helena Dore Chronicle Staff Writerhttps://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/park-service-forest-service-agree-to-supplement-bison-management-plan/article_1f96e6f0-9820-59cf-a5da-c368195d91cb.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=bozchron
“The National Park Service and other federal agencies behind an ongoing bison management plan have agreed to supplement the plan’s environmental analysis.”
The Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP)(2000) is an abomination allegedly to prevent transmission of brucellosis from buffalo to cattle. Brucellosis is an infectious disease that has never been transmitted from buffalo to livestock in the wild. In fact, the IBMP is a maze of federal rules and regulations requiring state wildlife agencies to cede their legal wildlife management authority to the USDA-APHIS (Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service) under the constant threat of losing their “brucellosis-free” status.
In 2018, the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center in Bozeman, Montana filed a suit against the signatories of IBMP. The plan was originally adopted in 2000 to prevent transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. John Meyer, attorney for Cottonwood, said: “This is huge,” Meyer said. “This is absolutely a great win for wildlife.”
According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control), brucellosis can be transmitted to humans through under-cooked meat or unpasteurized dairy products. The risk is minuscule.
“According to the court notice, the Park Service decided to prepare a new NEPA analysis considering “significant changed circumstances since the IBMP’s adoption in 2000.” The new analysis would also consider “a range of alternative options for bison management in Yellowstone National Park.””
A trial in district court has been scheduled for July 14. Plaintiffs will petition the court to allow bison to roam freely, like all other wildlife, outside Yellowstone National Park roam while the new environmental analysis is being conducted by the multi-agency management cooperative.
Piece of Mindful 
The whole concept of infectious and transmissible diseases is an abomination.
LikeLike
You assert this over and over. Please supply some links for the rest of us to read and assess your position.
LikeLike
Just curious, should I quit washing my hands before eating then? Should surgeons “scrub in” before hip replacement, or any other, surgery? Please, enlighten me.
LikeLike
Wash your hands whenever you think you should. Surgeons scrub their hands to get rid of dirt, to me microbes are not relevant.
LikeLike
Yeah, over and over again, I cannot be stopped. I have given links in the past, they are quickly put aside.
The assertion above is the result of 20 years of research, communication with others and thinking. You won’t agree overnight.
One link, you never know….
https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/i_gnm_therapy.html
LikeLike
You have only given one other disease link at POM: http://www.newmedicine.ca/
So, no, you owe us a little more explanation and less bald assertion.
I will look for more links from you.
LikeLike
You find the links all by yourselve once you are really interested. Until that moment no link I can provide will set you on your way. The flame comes from within.
LikeLike
Hey, and the link you gave above talks only about cancer treatment. There is no exposition of why the concept of communicable disease is an abomination. So please get back to that issue, which sparked my curiosity in your medical paradigm.
LikeLike
It not about cancer treatment, it’s about how disease works and what the role is of microorganisms.
LikeLike
Well, whatever….. maybe there is some interesting information for the “truthseeker” on the next pages. But once more, you won’t grab the implications overnight….
https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/infectious_diseases.html
LikeLike
Thanks, JAN SPREEN. I am not looking for proof of anything, so appreciate the info in the link above. Nature (Creator) provides what we need regardless of our ego’s insistence that it is in need of hu-man modification and “improvement.” Will read the documents you provided with an open mind.
LikeLike
….. nature provides …..
You got it!
LikeLike
Maybe an example would be useful… personal experience… not to prove anything, but for a better understanding.
When I was around 20 years of age, I have suffered flu-like symptoms, several years in a row, around Christmas. With the understanding of the GNM, I know now the reason why. To me Xmas equaled suffering because among my sisters and brother, we were five kids, I was the only one without a sweetheart. There were couples all around me, I was single. Made me feel terrible.
LikeLike
Nice anecdote. Not a paradigm with scientific rigor, mind you.
When raccoons get rabies, is it because they couldn’t find a date for the prom? Holiday stress? Job dissatisfaction? Or because one raccoon passed a transmissible pathogen on to another?
A robust disease theory should account for illness in all species.
LikeLike
“Scientific rigor” doesn’t exist as science as we know it is just a big pile of shit, embrace it Maarten.
And just because you do not understand the power of the mind and where diseases really come from, that doesn’t mean anyone is obliged to convince you providing you with links. You’d never change your mind anyway, as thinking that viruses and diseases really exist probably gives you peace of mind and no sense of responsibility whatsoever over your health.
To paraphrase Jan, either you know it or you don’t.
And when you know from within and you’ve experienced healing with no chemotherapy or meds of any kind, you need no link and no scientific bullshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The GNM accounts for all diseases in all species. Physical AND psychological.
I started my anecdote by stating that it was just meant for some better understanding and not as some kind of scientific prove. Your reaction Is exactly why I get so tired of trying to spread some information about the GNM. After having said one or two phrases, people jump into my mouth to trample my tongue.
It’s strange, recently this site is all about the stupidity of the current medical paradigm. So why is it that another way to put it is so easily put aside? Once you’ve thrown the virologists away, and with them the whole corrupt system backs them up, where do you go to find a medical approach that makes sense? I tell you, GNM may not be the final all encompassing wisdom, but boy, does it get us way ahead.
LikeLike
If you review my past postings on health matters, you will see that (i) I have an open mind to fresh perspectives; and (ii) I have no love for the medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex. If you are looking for a choir to preach to, I am your man.
But when you refuse to provide more links for your assertions;
And when the links you already provided do not support the assertions you make;
And when I research on my own (as you directed) and find that the anti-Jewish roots of GNM have been swept under the rug;
… then, meneer, I want to see a lot more rigorous exposition than you have provided.
That’s not so much to ask. Just asserting things shouldn’t persuade anyone.
LikeLike
@maarten
“When raccoons get rabies, is it because they couldn’t find a date for the prom? Holiday stress? Job dissatisfaction? Or because one raccoon passed a transmissible pathogen on to another?”
Questions dripping with sarcasm deserve a like answer. None of the above, Maarten. “Holiday stress” is most likely of the ones you’ve proferred, but I’ll suggest that evidence for it being the causal element won’t demonstrate the “scientific rigor” that you have requested.
Like the other choices, a “transmissible pathogen” also falls flat. Why? Just like the current popular (covid) ‘virus’, so-called rabies and/or distemper virus turns out to be just as fictitious, as is born out by the apparent impossibility of virology to demonstrate their actual existence. Just like sars-cov-2, and like every other virus that has been postulated to date. Much more could and should be said on that subject, but let’s move on to the more likely answer, that was not even offered as a choice.
Toxicity. Raccoons do not ‘catch’ or transmit a mythical virus. Raccoons, and all other predatory mammals, are constantly exposed to killer man-made herbicides and pesticides, and other poisons, and are therefore subject to profound nervous system damage from them. What happens to a raccoon that eats some rat poison? Or one that dines on baby mice living in a fence row that has just been sprayed with roundup? Or that partakes of corn or fruit that has recently been insecticided Or, or or? Foaming at the mouth a little, or erratic behaviour (not to mention death, depending on the dose) might be the expected response from such an insult to the raccoons’ health. And, raccoons are the most likely of wild predators to display these signs of poisoning, as they are prevalent in suburban areas, and subsequently encounter toxins routinely in their search for food. In the same way, dogs would also tend to be exposed due to their exploring, aggressive nature.
Every viral paradigm for every ‘viral’ disease conveniently omits discussion of toxicity. I was born during the polio epidemic of the mid-twentieth century. DDT was the new magic powder, and everyone was using it. Housewives sprayed it in every room of the house, and sprinkled it on lunch sandwiches. We fogged it into the air over our dairy cows while they were in the milking parlor. Children frolicking in the municipal swimming pool were given the same treatment, sprayed from a
DDT tank truck. What happens when the entire animal and human population, and the food supply, is doused with a nervous system toxin? Nervous system damage, aka polio, is the unavoidable result. There is no need to look for a virus.
http://harvoa.org/polio/overview.htm
Polio exemplifies the pattern of hiding industrial poisoning with a viral cover story. It is more than that, though. The viral narrative, in each of its many iterations, has served as a means of control.
Spread fear, control the narrative of disease. Manufacture the only products that can ‘cure’ us or spare us from the disease, and eliminate any competing health measures….and, as right now, wield that weapon (the fictitious virus) to destroy our way of life and eliminate our freedom.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Brucellosis is supposedly caused by a bacteria. Virologists long ago gave up on Koch’s Postulates, which is why that science jumped the rails and is now being used to scam us. But bacteria are a horse of a different color, visible under normal microscopes. They ought to be able to isolate the germ, see that it is present in diseased animals and not in healthy ones, transmit it to a healthy animal and make it sick, and then isolate it again from that animal, proving that the bacteria is the cause of the disease.
Of course they’ve done none of this. The whole of brucellosis is a fear campaign, with ranchers suffering huge losses on the mere perception of public danger. Those losses are real, but the science is not. Public perceptions need to change, that’s all.
But that is difficult. The science IQ of the American public lies somewhere between that of an amoeba and a rainbow trout. That’s why the white lab coat crowd runs roughshod over us.
LikeLike
Mark and Jan Spreen, I welcome you to offer answers to my questions below about OregonMatt’s theory of rabies-as-toxicity, since you Liked his comment.
LikeLike
Thank you, OregonMatt, for an answer. Do I correctly summarize your response as follows? What has been called rabies is actually the effects of toxic materials left in the environment by humans.
I have two follow-up questions, if you are willing.
Unlike raccoons, opossums almost never display the illness that some call rabies. Yet they are exposed in urban environments to all the same toxins that raccoons are. Why then do opossums, unlike most other mammals, not show the effects that some call rabies?
These are sincere questions, asked in a non-sarcastic way by an inquisitive mind. I hope you will receive them as such.
And by the way, I am fully cognizant of the effects of stress on health. A book that I readily recommend is calledWhen the Body Says No by Dr. Gabor Maté. he gives evidence-based findings for the seriousness of stress as a cause for cancer and many other diseases. I would be grateful if you could recommend a title giving an equally thorough and rigorous exposition of German New Medicine.
LikeLike
If you will pardon an additional question …
3. If rabies is toxicity caused by exposure to human activity, then your theory would predict that the highest incidence of hydrophobia will be found in the population of mammals most directly in contact with humans, namely, household pets. And yet the incidence of rabies among household pets is very low, and only in those not vaccinated. What is the explanation for this paradox in your theory?
LikeLike
Hydrophobia is said to be a viral infection, but during Pasteur’s time, very few people were ever infected. The dogs in question more likely suffered other maladies, malnutrition among them, which leads to white foaming. Pasteur’s vaccine was not allowed in Germany, and death from rabies was unknown there. The vaccine was thought to be itself deadly. Again, as with all viral diseases, we lack enough information to say that it is caused by a virus, but have enough information to know that the vaccine industry is very powerful.
LikeLike
Actually, I was hoping you would answer the questions I asked. If rabies is simply a toxic overload, then …
Please, one of you, answer these questions.
LikeLike
When you answer mine: Have Koch’s Postulates been satisfied regarding the rabies virus? Rivers? Has the virus been isolated, and a gold standard drawn therefrom? By what means exactly does the virus infect the victim, and then cause organ and tissue destruction?
Dr. Andrew Kaufman makes the bold statement that no virus has ever been scientifically proven to cause a disease. He’s not the final word, as I know that virologists everywhere will take him to task. But we do have the Stefan Lanka example, where even RKI could not step forward and provide proof that measles is caused by a virus. I think we need to go to basement level here, first providing evidence that rabies is caused by a virus.
LikeLike
I don’t know, is my answer to your questions. I do know that Koch’s Postulates have evolved in the course of microbiology … as one would expect for any idea more than a few years old. You seem to want to apply his original postulates, but scientists admit that they cannot be applied as originally formulated. You make it sound like you have a big Aha! on everyone, when it’s really just a Ho-hum.
Why do you keep playing this game, Mark, where you refuse to answer simple questions about your science beliefs? You are all in with this GNM stuff, but you and the other proponents cannot answer basic questions. So instead of admitting that you can’t, you turn around and derail the thread. At this point you are trolling your own blog.
What happened to you?
LikeLike
I merely did a turnaround, as your method of argumentation is to reduce everything to two or three things you want answered, a way of cornering someone. I did not want to be cornered. All three of your questions involved “rabies,” the presupposition being that such a disease exists, and that it is viral.
Koch’s Postulates were designed to work with bacteria, and even there have rarely been satisfied. The problem is asymptomatic carriers, and Koch knew that if there were such carriers, that the bacteria were not the cause of the disease.
With viruses, Thomas Rivers had to reconfigure KPs, and the asymptomatic carrier was taken as a given, there never being a case where a virus did not turn up in both healthy and sick people. Rather than contemplate the obvious, that viruses do not cause disease, he simply incorporated the asymptomatic carrier into his revised postulates. This is why I said virology jumped the tracks. That was when.
LikeLike
@maarten
first, I am not a proponent (nor a basher) of GNM. However, I am an obvious basher of the empire that has created the ‘virus’ as a weapon.
I like the questions you’ve posted. Due to circumstances, i’ll have to go at them in bite-size chunks.
Why don’t household pets, who are most exposed to our chemicals, come down with rabies constantly?
Let’s reword the question. Why don’t household pets, who are most exposed to our chemicals, get sick constantly? If we postulate toxicity as the cause of most diseases, then the environmental exposure difference (on average) between my cat and the local raccoon is that my cat lives on the food I give it, while the raccoon must cull from a wide variety of sources, some of which might be heavily laced with dangerous chemicals. An example from my own experience several years ago: I stopped to eat a couple of handfuls of sour cherries I spotted in a roadside fence row. Excellent, and as I left finally noticed that all of the vegetation just below the tree was withering and drying. Roundup, or something similar. Five minutes later, as I settled down in front of my computer at home, I experienced the most intense bout of sneezing (an even dozen) of my life.
If I did use chemicals, then my cat would be exposed to them, but not usually by ingesting them. The raccoon, on the other hand, will often eat contaminated food, and the raccoon will also traverse a very wide area, literally rubbing itself against sprayed vegetation, etc., throughout its extensive journeys, and then spend some time licking itself clean.
LikeLike
This is a sincere Thank You for a coherent answer. While it is not complete (which is too much to expect anyway), it is not a dodge, either. The whole “Neither will I answer you” tactic is something you can get away with only if you are the son of God, but not a bean-counter from greater Denver.
I do agree with you that the poisons in the world around us account for a great deal of the sickness we endure. Also, that nutritional deficiencies were the root of many pre-modern illnesses.
But the question of transmissible disease still persists. I chose rabies because it is a curious kind of illness. It affects only mammals (bats, but not birds), and not even all mammals (not opossums, because their mean body temperature is too low—we are told—for the virus to be activated). Yet, all species, including humans, are subject to the toxic poisons that humans have put into the environment. So toxicity alone does not explain all the data.
But I detect in you a good will to think these things through with seriousness. So, again, thank you. I await your thoughtful responses on the other issues.
LikeLike
Ooh! Ooh! Forget all the other questions, if only one of you will answer THIS one:
Please, please, please give me the GNM answer to that one!
LikeLike
Don’t feed the troll guys…
LikeLike
Maarten, did your granny ever catch a chill from cool night air? Is air a pathogen? Is coolness a pathogen? What about water? How many times were we told as children to dry off before we catch a cold?
Is pollen a pathogen? Dust? Why should a so called “virus” be any different?
We break the stream of perceptions we experience into “objects” and then project “causality” onto those objects in the same way we break apart the audible frequencies we encounter into words and associate them with “things.”
Useful and even necessary in our human condition, but hardly sufficient to understand the depth of what’s hidden and lost in this process.
We all inherit this state unawares just as that of our place as persons in legal hell.
Trying to force a Spaniard to make his explanations in English because that’s what we speak is not holding him to a higher standard of scientific rigor.
LikeLike