“These corporations run our culture, and they riddle it with bullshit.”
― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science
Blog – article: John Cox, The Cascades
Pesticide PZP, the Humane Society’s Inhumane Promotion (they own the pesticide) of a much-disputed Population Control event (although no over-population of wild horses exists on Public Lands – undisputed fact of facts) and pesticide used via Dart into Wild Horses!
Rather than spend this time reading about the debates, let’s take a look at the research, and also another reason to drop the façade of Pesticide PZP saving Wild Horses (it does not plain and simple). Yes, yet another government expense that in reality is nothing more than an excuse to place America’s Wild Horses in compromise in population-survival, and take them to extinction much faster that normal.
Sensationalized and Abstracted Perception
Headlines and articles (i.e. in particular the titles), when the Humane Society, or others, are publishing articles or facts about the Pesticide PZP, we discover blatant simplicity of misinformation. They over-simplify the research, as well as the findings. Obtaining the data is also over-simplified, explained within a context of trivial occurrence, and when thought about really means nothing at all, as well as when researched the actual data is simply unavailable, or what is available, a very small portion to be precise and not a good sampling amount. is then explained in abstract-form and non-definable in definition, thereby, no one can really understand it – and those who do not understand what they read, simply assume everything is okay with the Pesticide PZP. Yes, they thrive on people being uneducated, as well as lack knowledge within reading technical reports or science.
Misinterpreted Result
Sales type of explanation, especially when government contract concerned, apparently, the norm for many research people submitting their Snake-Oil type of product for presentation to government budget committees – and the Pesticide PZP was and remains no different. Distorted and misinterpreted research data prevalent, facts skewed to abnormalities — and truth, well, in truth it was thrown out decades ago and in total, within all of the information on Pesticide PZP – But sounding official, and a few scientific terms thrown in, and they have a sellable commodity – at taxpayers’ expense, so why not, the BLM nor the Dept. of the Interior care; the employees at the BLM could care less, because they are corrupt as well. Birds of a Feather so to speak – Boy, that statement just covered a lot of ground in the Pesticide PZP controversy.
Conflict of Interest
“. . . The pay offs and the rip offs, And the things nobody saw, No matter . . .“ Pesticide PZP, it’s the allure of easy money, the cover-ups, the corruption, and again the money, and somebody has to pay the price, Our Wild Horses – Defenseless from the greed, the corrupt . . .
Scientific research can, and this Pesticide PZP no different, is and remains misrepresented for personal and financial gain. Even though we know, these government employees should analyze the situation with the previous in mind, they do not. As the situation, or pay-off, to keep quiet, or mislead the public, all involved, is first and foremost the priority. To say anything, or deviate from the plan, is too lose money, to lose the contract, to lose the grant, to lose the temporary employment status – yes, everyone has a pay-off price, some more and some less.
Correlation & Causation
Be aware of the confusion between correlation and causation. Correlation between two variables does not automatically mean one causes the other. The fact deer, a minute percentage of a very small portion of them, or sample size, does not correlate to a larger percentage, or introduction, to the Pesticide PZP of entire herds of horses, in the hundred. When research done on the Pesticide PZP references, we found very few, a minute percentage, of samples taken from wildlife – deer for example. And conclusively, a very slight percentage sampled, darted, then correlated with a larger percentage of speculative circumstances. By the way, these circumstances never come to light, and the Pesticide PZP falters in many different ways. . .
Speculative Language
Speculative language from research is just that, speculative. Be on the lookout for such terms as may, which, could, might, perhaps, probable, definable, and others. This means the research has no hard evidence, and conclusion based not on fact, but speculative subjective judgement only. Reference materials also become obvious, and other references made toward obscure, or even asinine science, or good science but remains unrelated (other than suggestion that it is) as if it pertains to the main subject or situation – when perused it becomes obvious it has no link to any hard evidence what so ever to the subject material, in this case Pesticide PZP. A tremendous amount of references in Pesticide PZP reports refers to situations not affiliated, nor have anything to do with Pesticide PZP, within its manufacture process or use, or genetical change created.
Sample Size Too Small 
A book could be written here, on the Sample Size being tremendously too small for any proper research of Pesticide PZP. This should have been explored by the budget committees within the BLM or DOI, but was not. We found very few Sample-Lots, and even fewer Herds of deer, or horse herds on an island along the East Coast, that could even come close to any type of positive research standards of acceptable product, in this case the Pesticide PZP. Ultimately, we found the Sample Sizes mentioned too small for any type of conjecture of the short-term or long-term use of Pesticide PZP.
We found a lot of conjecture, although, with a tremendous amount of speculative reasoning, and with situations for intended use, or sub-standard reasoning to use at all on horses or any other wildlife. Environmental damage, or correlation and causation circumstance within the environment, was not accomplished, nor even mentioned or thought about (defies proper and quality research, and the very reasoning for the research) what so ever, and we see waived in the EPA paperwork – we also feel that such a long time to register and conclude such circumstances, whether safe or not in wilderness or any other environments, was not done, nor even approached within any research format.
We find that Pesticide PZP danger to surrounding wildlife or vegetation did exist, but was hoped to be ignored. We are also suspicious that it may have been researched, but proven negative within the small sample size obviously completed, and yet removed – due to unsafe standards as well as when larger percentages of the Pesticide PZP perhaps used, the dangers become more prominent than the wanted result of population control.
Unrepresentative Samples
In wildlife trials, researchers will attempt to use animals that may be representative of a larger population, of say ungulates. The fact is, when the breed or species of animal different, despite being ungulates, the outcome will be varied, and even much different most often. Suspiciously, the deer results and the wild horse results are different, but left unrecorded. This also means the results from the horses on the east coast, would indeed, scientifically, be much different due to separate types of environment. But we do not see any difference in their research, as it has been, and remains unrecorded in all of the Pesticide PZP research. This remains very suspicious as well as incompetent, in accord with several researchers . . . as some state clearly, the suspicions of incompetent research, when we simply read over much of the technical papers, remain suspicious, and compounded over the long run tremendously.
No Control Group Used
The truth is we found the supposed Control Groups very small, creating subjective reasoning rather than deductive science data and research. We also found the control groups not observed for an appropriate length of time. We also found the speculative approach to data in error most often, and the sterilization and other negative effects ignored in total. The fact is, when we look at the information about the control groups, we see, as usual, a lack of information, a lack of effect on the horses and lack of information pertinent to environmental consequences entirely. All control groups have been approached within speculative reasoning only, as there is no science, or data to back up their information – and never has been over the years, despite its use – as a matter of fact just the opposite continues to develop, and problems continue to arise with the use of Pesticide PZP, but remains ignored – or excuses given to the public, and most often followed by misinformation . . . proven as such but many ignore as well.
No Blind Testing Used
Grouping deer herds (whether deer or horses) together, rather than intermixing, and using the Pesticide PZP on a mixed herd, and even maintaining confidentiality on testing herds – develops a non-biased situation. A non-biased blood testing regime can also take place, when actual data gathering within a research paradigm takes place – resulting in non-biased and non-manipulated blood testing. We cannot depend on the BLM nor the Pesticide PZP advocates to be non-biased, or HSUS for that matter $$$$, as corruption is proven time and time again and misinformation continues to be dispersed to the public, and at taxpayer expense — interesting.
Cherry Picked Results
This results when a researcher selects only the data that supports their subjective conclusion, ignoring or tossing out data that does not support the subjective conclusion. Or, we can say, and see quite obvious at times, that objective perusal of the Pesticide PZP research data not accomplished what so ever. We can see this by the data left out, that should be within the research data, but gone entirely. The best example, is the data or circumstance of environmental effects on the different ecological systems where darting took place – and recorded, but ecological zones left out. Why?
The information not available what so ever, left out or tossed out in many circumstances (we simply do not know because it is not there and should be) within any research, has bothered more than a few Research Scientists who have perused the reference materials (incompetence or bias by the Pesticide PZP researchers?) – and find nothing more than subjective reasoning, with no reference supporting any of the data conclusions given. This is clearly seen with perusal of the technical reports, what does exist anyway. And the discussions center only around the bias, or cherry picked situations, and not the overall – because the overall data is unavailable, and black-holes of information, or unavailable information, quite obvious.
Unreplicable Results
This is a very understandable category. The fact is independent researchers should be able to use the Pesticide PZP, and have consistent results, or conclusive results of a positive nature. This is not happening with Pesticide PZP use on Public Lands . . .
We find, in most cases, consistency does not happen what so ever, and see very obvious within the herds: band disruption, or mare sterile, or other mares presenting more birth situations than normal, or younger mares giving more birth inconsistently and many times throughout the abnormal cycles of birth and presentation, among many other negative situations, most inconsistent at best. . .
The bottom line here is, Replication of Results, if objective rather than subjective data used, should remain consistent – if subjective data used, and erroneously accepted, then inconsistent behaviors exist, as we see quite obvious in today’s Public Lands and the Pesticide PZP used upon the Wild Horses — and reaction – interaction from the horse herds themselves. . .
Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence – This does not exist with Pesticide PZP situations nor references what so ever.
Journals and Citations
There should be a diversity of qualified people who affirm the data and reasoning for deductions given within the research. This should not be simply the acceptance by those involved within the situation, and actually represents a bias nature only, in particular from those who have invested time, effort, or money within the Pesticide PZP situation – this equates only to bias reasoning.
We see bias-reasoning to be quite prevalent within the comments made about the research and the data gathering of Pesticide PZP; although, we also see the lack of information, which many of the bias people do not mention.
Conclusion
Overall, and due to all of the above comments and categorical faults, we can state very clearly that Pesticide PZP was developed by Bad Science. We also recommend that Pesticide PZP is not be used further within the boundaries of the United States, as there is no evidence showing whether it has been, or will be harmful within any of our complex environments or unique ecological systems.
For taxpayers to pay for this situation, remains ridiculous, and Bad Science should never be paid for by the tax paying American public – The budget people at BLM or other government agencies should be held responsible for the non-academic assessments, but approval should be based upon good science, with no questions toward consistency or usage — with good references and data be made available to do so, and examined by those qualified to do so — We can also state, clearly, there is no need for the Pesticide PZP to be used anyway, as there is no Over-Population of America’s Wild Horses or to use any type of Population Control stimulus what so ever.
Photojournalist - Journalist 