Iowa

Direct from DNR Court Case Testimony:


 


After feeding three deer "repeated 90 daily oral doses of urine and feces from CWD positive source deer" the deer did not test positive after 12 months!


 


By Dr. Miller: (Blood)


A. This particular piece of work showed that

1 infectivity was present both in salivary secretions

2 from the infected deer. In this case they were

3 using whitetail deer and also infectivity was

4 present in blood.

5 Q. Were you a co-author of this paper as

6 well?

7 A. I was. I had more of a minor goal on

8 this particular paper than I did in the paper that

9 we just discussed, the Tamguney paper.

By Dr. Miller: Crows


21 Q. I've seen some reference in the case to

22 transmission from crows who have ingested feces

23 from deer and that being a possible vector of

24 transmission. Are you familiar with any of that

25 research?


1 A. Unless there has been one that I have

2 missed, there was a paper that came out maybe a

3 year or so ago, plus one I believe, and it was

4 actually crows that were fed brain tissue from

5 mice, I think, mouse-adapted scrapie, which is,

6 again, another model and I believe they were

7 looking at the feces from the crows is what you are

8 thinking about in terms of transmission.

9 So it's kind of a pass-through

10 transmission. I don't believe in that paper that

11 there was any suggestion that the crows would

12 propagate infectivity but they could serve as kind

13 of a feathered vehicle for maybe physically moving

14 it around during the period of time that the

15 material was ingested.


them.

Dr. Waldrup - Feces and Urine Study


25 Q. If you look at his article a little bit

662

1 further down, he concludes that CWD is not highly

2 contagious, is that true?

3 A. In the context that he is using it, yes,

4 it would be true.

5 Q. What do you mean by that?

6 A. When -- just a second. Oftentimes when

7 we talk about a highly contagious disease this is a

8 disease which a large part of the population

9 becomes either antibody reactive or actually become

10 sick and any human influenza is a good example of

11 this. If only 10 percent of the population becomes

12 infected that's not really a highly contagious

13 disease. It is contagious.

14 And that's been shown. CWD is contagious

15 but I guess it comes down to a matter of

16 perspective when you say highly contagious and to

17 me the numbers compared to other diseases of deer

18 for CWD transmission is not highly contagious.

19 Q. Now, could you please turn to Exhibit

20 MMM. You've heard some testimony about the

21 transmission of CWD through the discharge of fecal

22 material. What does this study indicate about

23 that?

24 A. Well, if you will look at the figure on

25 page 6 of the article, when the researchers in this

663

1 tried to lead to urine and feces, PO.

2 JUDGE PALMER: PO?

3 A. And that stands for P-E-R-O-S, PEROS,

4 that's an oral administration. You can see very

5 clearly they could not transmit it at all.

6 Q. How long of a period of time had they

7 been trying to transmit it?

8 A. Well, back in the methods and materials

9 here. For urine and feces each of the three deer

10 received repeated 90 daily oral doses of urine and

11 feces from CWD positive source deer.

12 Q. How long were they measuring to see

13 whether or not the deer --

14 A. Up to 12 months, as I understand it.

15 Q. If you turn to Exhibit TT.

16 MR. GALLAGHER: Move for the admission of

17 Exhibit MMM at this point.

18 JUDGE PALMER: Any objection? MMM is

19 admitted.

20 Q. How does this study, Exhibit TT?

21 A. Yes, I have it.

22 MS. BROMMEL: Just TT, not TTT.

23 JUDGE PALMER: All right.

24 Q. And this study is by Tamguney, correct?

25 A. Yes.


Q. And how does this study's finding compare

2 with Exhibit MMM?

3 A. It has already been pointed out the

4 recipient animals in this study were transgenic

5 mice. The recipient animals in the Mathiason

6 article before were actually whitetail deer.

7 Q. Why was that significant?

8 A. We are concerned about this in deer.

9 Again, Dr. Miller stated very, very, well by the

10 use of transgenic mice is convenient but a

11 transgenic mouse is not a deer.

12 Q. So in the study that actually focused on

13 deer they couldn't transmit it or they found out it

14 was not transmitted over the course of 12 months?

15 A. Correct.

Dr. Miller:


 
Q. And didn't you testify in the prior
9 proceeding that, quote, over a large scale
10 population it's been difficult to demonstrate any
11 effect from CWD?
12 A. I did. ( Dr. Miller)
13 Q. And you also testified that we have not
14 seen any clear indications of dramatic declines in
15 deer or elk numbers on a large geographic scale as
16 a result of chronic wasting disease, didn't you?

17 A. That's correct, that is what I testified
18 to. ( Dr. Miller)
 

Q. Now, could you please turn to Exhibit
9 FFF. Now, is this a research article entitled
10 "Demographic Patterns and Harvest Vulnerability of
11 Chronic Wasting Disease Infected Whitetailed Deer
12 in Wisconsin?"
13 A. Yes. ( Miller)
14 Q. Again, if you look at the abstract, the
15 third sentence in, does it state, quote, We found
16 no difference in harvest rates between CWD infected
17 and noninfected deer?
18 A. That's what it says, yes. (Dr. Miller)
19 Q. And do you have any reason to disagree
20 with me that that's the finding of that study?
21 A. No. (Miller)
22 Q. If you could turn to GGG, please. (Attorney)
23 A. Yes. (Miller)
24 Q. And is this a journal article entitled,
25 "Estimating Chronic Wasting Disease Effects on


Mule Deer Recruitment and Population Growth?"
2 A. Correct. (Miller)
3 Q. Again, if you look at the abstract, the
4 final sentence just above the term "key words,"
5 does it state "We conclude that although CWD may
6 affect mule deer recruitment, these effects seem to
7 be sufficiently small that they can be omitted in
8 estimating the influences of CWD on population
9 growth rate?"
10 A. That's what it says. (Miller)
 
Dr. Waldrup:

11 Q. Now, in Wisconsin what is the prevalence
12 rate for that state? (Attorney)
13 A. Again, looking on the -- if I may, too,
14 just to point out the numbers that I used in my
15 report, this was done last summer. Wisconsin has
16 since updated their information that is on their
17 website and the update as of yesterday they
18 reported approximately 160,000 animals tested
19 statewide and it was over 1300 were founded.
20 So, again, divide the 1300 by the
21 168,000. That's a point -- 0.8 percent prevalence
22 and I would consider that low. (Waldrup)
23 JUDGE PALMER: That was from what day?
24 When was this information pulled?
25 THE WITNESS: I saw it yesterday, the
1   20th.
2 JUDGE PALMER: What period of time was
3 that 180,000 testing sample?

4 THE WITNESS (Waldrup): That was since 2002.
5 Q. JUDGE:  So it's been in excess of 10 years?
6 A. Yes. (Waldrup)
 
(Directly from Colorado Division of Wildlife Website)  CWD exposed game management units showed 24% reduction in population .... Non CWD game units showed 22% reduction .... with 10% margin of error . . . . . No difference in population for CWD units and non CWD units - WOW!
 
Dr. Waldrup:

20 A. The first five pages came directly off
21 the Colorado Wildlife and Parks website and these
22 are population estimates of deer and it simply says
23 deer. It does not differentiate between whitetail
24 and mule deer for the data analysis units. Each
25 of the data analysis units contain different game
1 management units.
2 Dr. Miller spoke about those this
3 morning.
4 Q. And if you turn to the 6th and 7th page,
5 have you separated the game management units
6 between those that have been found to have CWD and
7 those that have not?
8 A. According to information, again, given on
9 the Colorado Wildlife and Parks website, yes, I
10 did.
11 Q. (Attorney):  What was the population change between
12 2007 and 2011 for herds that were not exposed but
13 did not have findings of CWD?
14 A. (Waldrup): Well, from the population, total
15 population estimates from 2007 to the total
16 population estimates of 2011 and, again, when I
17 prepared this this summer that was the last data,
18 most recent data, on the website. 22 percent
19 reduction on the population.
20 Q. If you can turn to the next page, what
21 does this page describe?
22 A. This, again, is exactly the same thing on
23 a previous page except these were data analysis
24 units that had game management units within them
25 that were CWD positive.
654
1 Q. What was the percentage of reduction?
2 A. 24 percent reduction in population from
3 2007 to 2011.
4 Q. What is the significance or do you find
5 any significance in the difference between 22 and
6 24 percent reduction?
7 A. If you had been able to line up each and
8 every deer from each of those data analysis units 2
9 percent might be significant. However, you have
10 to -- and if it says on there these are population
11 estimates, I'm very familiar with different
12 techniques for population estimates and it's very
13 acceptable within wildlife management to accept a 5
14 to 10 percent error in those estimates.
15 Given that there could be a 5 to 10
16 percent error in the population estimates, a 2
17 percent difference in that is not significant.
18 Q. So with respect to Colorado then these
19 game units, there was no aggregate impact of CWD?
20 A. There did not appear to be.





 


We have the exhibits showing the Colorado Website Game Management units if anyone is interested.  

16 Q. (Attorney) Can you generally describe what was
17 released at Wind Cave?
18 A. (Dr. Waldrup) Again, the situation at Wind Cave was
19 there was an enclosed herd. They were high fenced.
20 These were elk that had been previously found
21 infected with CWD. Again, the prevalence that was
22 listed in this particular article was 1 percent.
23 I've seen other resources that say it could be up
24 to 3 percent.
25 There is no doubt that this herd had CWD
1 and what happened because it was in an enclosed
2 area. The herd had reproduced to such an extent
3 that it could no longer be supported within that
4 enclosed area.
5 Q. (Attorney) So what happened to those deer then?
6 A. (Waldrup) They released them. (Five weeks after we depopulated our animals at our preserve)
7 Q. (Attorney) So even with CWD their population
8 increased?
9 A. (Waldrup) Yes.
10 Q. (Attorney) And there was no aggregate negative
11 impact of CWD on the herd?
12 A. (Waldrup) There does not appear to be, no.
 

21 Q. Do you believe that a five-year
22 quarantine of the Brakke property is excessive?
23 A. Yes. (Waldrup)
24 Q. Why?
25 A. Number one, again, there were very few
1 infected animals. According to information that I
2 have been told and read these animals were not late
3 stage clinical. Now, again, we could belabor the
4 point were they clinical at all and Dr. Miller said
5 some of the earlier signs are so subtle you might
6 not be able to see it.
7 They certainly were not end-stage
8 clinical. So the amount of environmental
9 contamination is not very much.
10 Q. (Attorney) What is the longest period? Now,
11 assuming that we were even rationale to impose a
12 quarantine to control the spread of CWD and such a
13 quarantine would be effective, what -- how long
14 should the quarantine run?
15 A. (Waldrup) Again, the only evidence we have is
16 Dr. Miller's and his article here of 2.2 years.
17 Q. (Attorney) Just going back to Dr. Miller's article
18 not all the deer were found to be infected at the
19 end of 2.2 years?
20 A. (Miller) That's according to the report that's
21 true.
22 Q. (Attorney) How many were?
23 A. (Waldrup) Bear with me. 0000cd For those exposed to the
24 0000cdinfected carcass according to the article itself it
25 0000cdwas 3 of 12 (became infected) 0000cd and those with residual excreta it was

0000cd    1 of 9 (became infected). 0000cd 
2 Q. (Attorney) What do these rates indicate concerning
3 the ability of the environment to transmit CWD over
4 time?
5 A. (Waldrup) Well, it was defective in that
6 transmission occurred but it wasn't highly
7 effective.
8 Q. (Attorney) Do you believe that it declines over time
9 then?
10 A. (Waldrup) I do believe it would decline over time.
18 MR. GALLAGHERAttorney) What, if any, quarantine would be issued

20 or how long should any quarantine remain on the
21 piece of property that had no CWD findings on it?
22 A. That would be up to the regulatory
23 agencies involved. What I can tell you is if this
24 occurred in Texas and I were involved in that the
25 property that had no infected deer I would be very
1 hard pressed to issue a quarantine for that
2 property.
3 Q. Why is that?
4 A. Again, there is no evidence it was
5 contaminated. (The preserve is divided by an 8 ft fence, as documented all three positives were on the north side of the property, all animals on the south 150 acres tested negative, but both pieces are quarantined!)

Interesting

 Federal experts at Wind Cave, South Dakota, indicated that the release of the CWD exposed animals into the wild was not likely to cause a significant increase in CWD.  This statement would be in agreement with USDA’s recent conclusion that “CWD is not highly infectiousâ€�.  

DNR admits the following: (1) there is no evidence CWD has an aggregate effect on deer populations despite over fifty years of monitoring; (2) the statewide “prevalence rates in wild deer populations that have had CWD are about 1 percentâ€� despite the existence of the disease for so many years in these areas; and (3) there is simply no evidence to suggest that CWD poses any threat to humans despite intensive scrutiny on the issue. 

Millions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on this disease all in an attempt to destroy this industry. It was never about the possible spread of disease. It was about eliminating the competition. Shame on you government agencies!

While we might be the first to fight the government for taking our property without compensation while being forced to test 100% of our animals,  I wonder if we will be the last?  A CWD Program and Standards without compensation makes me believe this will happen again.  


 


You have two choices: 


 


1)  fight the government


2)  sign a herd plan to kill your animals, agree to 5 year land quarantine, and pay for testing, disposal and clean-up


 

Rhonda,


It's the people that take choice #1 that will solve this CWD problem if it gets solved. As the program is now, no one should agree to choice #2.


 


As long as producers agree to be mistreated, there is no hope for them and it further complicates the problem for everyone else. Refuse to take it anymore and stand up and fight for what you think is right!


 


Too many producers are waiting for a organization to solve this problem and it won't happen in time. Some organizations sees this problem as a way to make money. Some buyers of meat and antler see this depressed industry as an opportunity to make money as they attempt to keep market prices low and yet they still sell high to the consumer.


 


Some industry leaders have gained enough trust and power that they are controlling the prices paid for meat, antler and other industry products. On another web-site, they have managed to delete ads and conversation where higher prices were offered for meat and antler.


 


Have you not noticed that the the prices the consumers pay for restaurant meat and antler capsules have not changed much since the price the producer receives has drastically dropped? Most antler capsules are still being sold for about the same price as it was when antler was bringing $60.00 to $80.00 per pound. Who's making all the profit? It is certainly not the producer.

Reducing Prion Infectivity
 
November 21, 2013, testimony on behalf of the state by Dr. Joel Pederson, a professor at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.  Cross Examination by Brakke attorney.
 
"Broadly speaking, my area of expertise is in environmental organic chemistry, so behavior of organic contaminants in the environment, which include biomolecules such as proteins like prion."
 
 Question. And your finding in this article, which is entitled "Pathogenic prion protein is degraded by a manganese oxide mineral found in soils."
 Answer: Yes.

Question:. And it was published in 2009, correct?
Answer:. That is correct.

Question: Your finding was that you can use the mineral manganese oxide to break down prion protein, correct?
Answer: It was a specific manganese oxide. There is more than one type.
Question: Your finding was you can use the type that you used in this study of manganese oxide to break down prion protein?
Answer: Yes, that's correct.
Question: And that's what that means?
Answer: Under specific conditions.
Question: And what that means is that this mineral could be used as a means for decontaminating prion?
Answer: The mineral has that potential.
Question:. Would you agree with me that you recognize in the general area of your article that manganese oxide, it's a mineral that can occur naturally in the soil, correct?
Answer:. Yes.
Question: You were not provided -- we've established you were not provided any soil from the Davis County property to test, correct?
Answer: No.
 
Maganese Oxide and Rainfall:
 
Question: So just to confirm, it's higher in areas where there are waterlogged or poorly drained areas but it can also occur in areas where there's been previously wet conditions that are now well-drained soil?

Answer: Yes.
 
Question: You then indicate that Under the experimental conditions you employed that degradation by manganese oxide occurs over relatively short periods and reduces prion converting activity by at least a factor by 10?
 Answer: Yes, the experimental conditions we referred to, yes.



 
Question: Would you have any reason to disagree with a report from Iowa State University which provides that the area of the state in which the Brakkes' property is located as of November 13th of this year has had over double the amount of annual average precipitation?
Answer: I'm not aware of the report. If that report is true I have no reason to dispute precipitation records.
 
UV Exposure:
 
Question: Dr. Pedersen, I think we were just getting ready to take a look at Exhibit AAA, and that is an article that you were one of the authors or researchers on published in 2009, correct?
Answer:. That is correct.
Question:. And it is entitled "Ultraviolet-ozone treatment reduces levels of disease-associated prion protein and prion infectivity," correct?
Answer:. Correct.
Question:. This is not an article that you cited in your expert report in this matter, is it?
Answer:. No, I did not.
 

Question:. And your finding in this research was that the procedure of ultraviolet-ozone treatment did dramatically reduce the amount of prion infectivity, is that correct?
Answer:. In the apparatus that we used for the -- under the conditions that we used, yes, that is correct.
 
Question: That sentence reads "After one week of ashing, prion protein immunoreactivity was reduced to nearly indetectable levels by immunoblotting and after two weeks, levels were below the limits of immunoblotting detection," is that correct?
Anwer:. You have read that correctly.
Question:. Then it goes on to say that your -- "Our previous work has shown that similar reductions in immunoreactivity correspond to at least a 200-fold loss of PrPTSE1 ," is that correct?
Answer:. Yes. To clarify, all of these statements are about protein, not infectivity.
Question:. "As expected," it goes on to the next sentence, "prion protein levels remained below the limit of detection in samples exposed to either four or eight weeks of UV-ozone," is that correct?
Answer: Yes.
Question:. We are on page 4 now of Exhibit AAA. If you go to the second column, the first full paragraph that starts "Our results indicate." Do you see that paragraph?
 Answer:. Yes.
Question:. That says "Our results indicate that, in a controlled setting, that UV-ozone treatment degrades PrPTSE16 and inactivates prions," correct?
Answer:. Yes.
Question:. And then a couple of paragraphs down the first sentence says "In the present study, we employed a gentle UV-ozonation."
Answer:. Where?
Question:. Two paragraphs below where I just read. "In the present study, we employed a gentle UV-ozonation approach," is that correct?
Answer:. That's correct.
Question:. And that approach, that gentleUV-ozonation approach, showed a dramatic reduction of prion infectivity, correct?
Answer:. Over the time period we exposed prions to, yes.
JUDGE: The question was prion inactivity? Infectivity?
MS. BROMMEL: Infectivity.
JUDGE: "Infectivity."



 

http://transmissiblespongiformencephalopathy.blogspot.com/2013/06/atypical-bse-cwd-scrapie-captive-farmed.html

In  FY2012 approximately $1.925 million of ECSR funding was allocated for CWD program activities to provide Federal oversight of the national CWD herd certification program (HCP).


 


background-(245,245,255)We filed our appeal to district court for the Iowa CWD Ag Case.  Still wishing for a miracle in all this madness.  

As usual, the government waste most of the money. They have not been held accountable.