Using pseudoscience to control and eradicate meat, eggs and dairy.
Zoonotic scams.
The claim is that mycobacterium bovis is the cause of the symptoms associated with TB in cows. Let’s examine whether this claim is based in strict adherence to the scientific method or whether it is pseudoscience.
Koch’s postulates are the gold standard method to determine whether a micro-organism causes disease and mycobacterium bovis has never satisfied Koch’s postulates.
Koch’s Postulates
The microorganism must be found in abundance in all cases of those suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy subjects.
The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased subject and grown in pure culture.
The cultured microorganism should cause the exact same disease when introduced into a healthy subject.
The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
What is the observable phenomenon in nature?
Do we observe a bacterium crawling onto a cow and then witness the cow suffering from sickness? No! So, the blind assumption is that bacteria finds its way into the cow and makes it sick, somehow. So, based on an unobservable phenomenon, the hypothesis is that mycobacterium bovis causes sickness in cows.
To prove this we would have to do science! This is where the claim falls apart!
So, assuming that the Independent variable (IV) - the presumed cause, is mycobacterium bovis, we would need a study that demonstrates the use of purified mycobacterium bovis with a natural mode of entry to cause sickness in a cow. DEFRA, APHA or any other government institution or university cannot provide this study. Don’t believe me? Ask them for yourself!
The next step in the scientific method is the dependent variable; the observed effect. Since there is no experimentation that demonstrates purified mycobacterium bovis naturally “infecting” a cow, there is no documented effect that has been observed.
Let’s say that a cow has tested positive for the bacterium and has exhibited the symptoms associated with TB, which are weight loss, depression, sluggishness, fever and persistent cough. Note that a cow could exhibit these symptoms for a plethora of many other reasons that are not investigated!!! So, to establish the cause and effect relationship between the bacterium and the symptoms we would need to confirm the claim of causation with controls.
For example, this would require the testing of 100 cows with the bacterium and 100 cows without the bacterium and then examining the cows for symptoms to gain a reliable conclusion.
If a higher percentage of cows with the bacterium exhibit no symptoms then it can be reasonably concluded that there is no cause and effect relationship.
Conversely, if a higher percentage of cows that do not have the bacterium but do exhibit the symptoms associated with TB then the claim will also have been disproven. This is basic science to establish a diagnosis but don’t forget. These controls would be on top of the fact that no experiment has ever been conducted with purified mycobacterium bovis and the scientific method to satisfy Koch’s postulates.
The image below is an AI response to a question of how the Btb test works.
I have been directly involved in helping farmers with the testing of cattle and I have seen the nonsense for myself.
The response says that “a complex mix of proteins extracted from cultures of M. bovis grown in the laboratory” are injected into the “deep layers of the skin”. This is not a representation of what happens in nature. This is not a natural mode of entry. Then also consider that the tuberculin is a concoction of cultured proteins in a glycerine liquid unnaturally injected into an animal. Is it any wonder that lumps appear on some cattle! There are no controls to see whether it is just the glycerine liquid alone that causes the swelling in cattle! There are no controls to test whether it is just the needle alone that causes the swelling! If Btb allegedly effects the cows lungs then why not simply test the breath of the cow or it’s sputum for the bacterium? They do not perform these logical tests because there is no empirical evidence that bacteria causes sickness. It is pure belief that allows this fraud to persist.
There is no evidence of a primary publication that demonstrates the use of a purified bacteria and the scientific method to prove causation of an alleged ‘disease’, when a human or animal is exposed naturally to the purified organism?
If lumps of specific sizes appear on the shaved area of the cows skin then the claim is that the cows ‘immune system’ is reacting to the proteins. What is the alleged ‘immune system?’ It’s anti bodies. No specific antibody has ever been isolated or demonstrated to do what they’re claimed to do. They are simply inferred through surrogate markers.
In layman’s terms, a culture is concocted in a lab and then added to a glycerine extract and injected into a cows skin and the appearance of specific sized lumps is the indirect marker that the cow is “infected” with a bacteria that has never been proven to cause sickness in cows!
But what about badgers?
The same logic applies. An experiment would need to be conducted whereby 100 badgers harbouring the bacterium are exposed naturally to 100 cows and the results recorded. A badger would need to be exposed to the bacterium naturally and then exposed to a cow naturally to mimic the natural phenomenon in nature. This experiment has never been conducted.
It’s rather convenient that badgers are alleged to carry the bacteria and don’t die from it but they allegedly pass it on to cows and cause sickness in cows! So, as long as badgers exist and the belief in the disproven germ hypotheses of disease persists then the bio security state can regulate farmers out of existence at their leisure. How many cows have been killed because of an unscientific test and the autopsy revealed no signs of sickness?
Alpacas are alleged to be “super spreaders” of TB but there are no requirements to test them or restrict their movement. Work that one out! I’ve been on a farm with Alpacas and cows and the entire cow herd was tested but not the Alpacas! That alone should tell you that it’s all bollox! It’s mass scientific fraud that targets cows.
Robert Koch, the fraudster responsible for promulgating the ‘bacteria causes disease’ claim can be researched further in one of my previous articles. It’s time farmers started explaining to veterinarians that they are engaging in pseudoscience which is destroying the food chain.
Here’s some further research.