Let’s speak truth about Pesticide PZP! Insight to how propaganda/disinformation campaign works.

This morning I read a long, disturbing article, titled “FERTILITY CONTROL”. It is an AWHC propaganda piece about Pesticide PZP. What an excellent example of Propaganda or Disinformation, and not surprised, packed with False-Narratives and misinformation exclusively, throughout the article.

First, keep in mind we have 7 years of letters, from FDA correspondence (who rejected the Pesticide PZP due to its obvious nature of being a Pesticide) to and from the HSUS.  Then we go to more letters to and from the EPA – basically the HSUS attempts to convince the EPA it is not a Pesticide – the EPA states consistently, “clearly” (the EPA’s terminology not mine, in the letters) it is a Pesticide, and agreed with the FDA, that it is a Pesticide.

We also observe a lot of physical evidence as well as the mental-stress forced upon the Wild Horses and family bands on the range — quite obvious the narratives by those who make money off Darting Wild Horses with this Pesticide, remains prejudicial throughout their Disinformation Campaigns, and some state, “. . . very arrogantly ignorant, and their information forced upon people, just as they force-darts into a Wild Horse to kill it, then refer to it as “Saving Them.”

AWHC says:  Is PZP a pesticide? The PZP vaccine is not a pesticide. It is an extremely well-vetted immunocontraceptive vaccine that has been used for 40 years in many wildlife species including wild horses. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) turned registration of the vaccine over to the EPA, since it was developed for use in the environment on a wildlife species (wild horses). Since the EPA has no category for “wildlife contraception,” it processed PZP under the “pesticide” category as the only available process for registering the vaccine for use. The label is purely bureaucratic; it has no scientific or practical meaning. The PZP vaccine is produced by the non-profit Science and Conservation Center, which pioneered its use in wildlife and provides it to the BLM and other entities at a financial loss.

We call bullshit nothing more than bullshit!

1. An Immunocontraceptive is a situation that works along-side the inner-workings of a species, not in competition nor destructively within it. So we discover the term itself, very questionable in how they write about it to the Public, who really do not know the difference.  In reality, Horse coats become dull, with an awareness of something “wrong” with the wild horse just by looking at its physical disruptive appearance. Then we get into the mental state, Horse Family Band decay, then breakup, and family bands weakened to the point of non-existent. Their “survival-skills” in wilderness areas compromised.

2. The article covers a general and passive outlook for this experimental situation (quite costly to taxpayers as well), after 40 years of still being experimental (yes, something is wrong here and they know, yet still keep selling it under False-Narratives $$$$), but the money, taxpayer money, good, so who cares?  They sure as hell don’t!

3. We look at the DOI/BLM numbers of Wild Horse Populations in the 11 Western States, and we see, basically, the Pesticide PZP does not work at all.  Roundups have increased (which stopping roundups was the supposed resolution, and reasoning for using the Pesticide PZP, but does not do so)! Then we look at the REALITY — THERE IS NO TRUTHFUL OVERPOPULATION OF WILD HORSES ON PUBLIC LANDS, AND CANNOT BE CREDIBLY PROVEN, OR SHOWN, THAT AN OVERPOPULATION EXISTS WHAT SO EVER. So one has got to ask the obvious question, why even use Pesticide PZP? Then we start to uncover the Corruption, that is evident within the Grazing Permit Programs, and we find the Pesticide PZP nothing more than a distraction, a coverup.

4. Skipping over all the non-sense of their article, which is vast and a “Read” that pisses even the most least knowledgeable person off, due to the vast amount of misinformation (from a Disinformation Campaign precisely), and terms that flow into Disinformation (i.e. propaganda structured and false narratives abound), and we find distraction, confusion, and outright lies about the Pesticide PZP.

Myself and others could write books upon how misinformation and disinformation is allocated manipulatively, within context of written matter, but we are experiencing it first-hand in the field right now, today, as they write this type of gibberish which is in this article by AWHC.  We find none of the information really helpful, and all of it pretty much lies, that support previous lies.  Then they attempt to make it appear as science – which it is not – It is a Pesticide, and rated a Pesticide within a proper context – because it interacts in the Wild Horses as a Pesticide. 

Their evidence, is not available in real-time research form, as the originator of the Pesticide PZP, his statement, was that, he has a lot of conclusive research data in his head, that did not make it to paper-drafts explaining the research.  There is no conclusive-data available as evidence in his research, of anything mentioned in this article by AWHC.

The Scientific Peer Reviews were done by those who are also making a lot of money on the sales of Pesticide PZP . . . ; which, truly benefits them all, from the “lack of” scientific-data they are so fond of exploiting – and why not, it is unavailable for perusal, to deduct whether their experimentation even worked. This sets up a situation of catastrophe entirely; which, also opens the door for them to make the science up as they go, or whatever needed at the time, because no base-science, nor research, exists to refer to, as far as authenticity and whether it works or not.

We have seen this type of delusional information previously, from the cigarette industry propaganda, oil industry propaganda, the disinformation campaigns that promoted Agent Orange as a defoliant and safe to use, and the disinformation campaigns that also promote beef today.

So the AWHC then asks, Is PZP Effective? Yes, the NAS stated that PZP is the most promising method for managing wild horse populations. Numerous studies have also demonstrated the effectiveness of PZP. The efficacy rate is 95-97%, and research has found that a mare who has been treated for 5-7 years will self-boost and no longer require additional treatments. Observations on the range shows evidence that some mares even self-boost after only the first year. Like in humans, each mare’s physiology is different.

We state clearly, again, we find none of the research nor data they mention above, available for perusal, in written form.  In another words, what they write and refer to as statistical research data, simply does not exist within research nor data gathered formats. . .

But, we do find a lot of this supposed data in sales brochures, or formatted to appear as research data origination (does not exist truthfully), but is not.  As a matter of fact, and over time, our position in opposition to the use of Pesticide PZP has become enhanced, due to no truthful research data available – but we have articles, such as the aforementioned by AWHC, to make it appear good science involved –

“The only thing we can deduct from so much narrative-only circumstances about the Pesticide PZP, is the issue remains profound.  It is not of science, but of someone’s imagination, and an experimental compound at that, that simply has not been developed thoroughly, by scientific means.  Frankly, it would have been rejected years ago, as dysfunctional entirely, if not for the money-rich HSUS and others making up their own information, to cover their costs of ownership of a Pesticide PZP compound. . .  I remain quite surprised that lawsuits have not developed, due to the dangers it may pose of its use on Public Lands, or in wilderness areas.”  — James Cavanaugh, PhD Biologist, NSA-Retired