ACC has told them they don’t ‘qualify’ for compensation and botulism is not covered by ACC.
We are not making the statement that this is poisoning from pest control operations, but at the same time we find it interesting that the authorities are determined that they have a case of botulism and do not look elsewhere.
The International Society for Infectious Diseases asked on the 18th November for clarification because this is unlikely to be botulism. A number of medical professionals have contacted us within NZ and stated that this family cannot have contracted botulism because of the timing of the onset of symptoms, the symptom of loss of consciousness, and the fact that botulism is not contracted from fresh meat.
However, this family did not receive a lethal dose of poison.
Pig sensitivity to 1080, for example, is estimated at between 0.4mg/kg and 1mg/kg.
Animals rapidly evolve resistance to 1080, and we have used 1080 poison for more than 60 years.
Exposure to sub lethal 1080 doses can lead to protection against 10x the normal LD50.
Therefore, these boar (and we have no real data on boar) may be able to tolerate 4mg/kg and 10mg/kg minimum, before half of them fall over and die.
Human susceptibility is not known. Estimates are between 1mg/kg and 4mg/kg, although we do know that genetic variations in the human glutathione transferase enzyme change sensitivity, i.e. different halotypes/races of humans will experience variations on that sensitivity.
It is not unlikely that the family ate a significant non-lethal dose of fluoroacetate and fluorocitrate (the lethal metabolite of 1080) from poisoned pork.
The onset time of 1080 poisoning is 30 minutes, the symptoms are identical.
Botulism and Botox (botulinum toxin) poisoning do not fit the symptoms at all, either dynamically or by effect.
Tutin poisoning does not fit the observed toxicological profile either.
Why is 1080 not being considered as the primary likely cause? Are we putting our fingers in our ears and refusing to look?
We are dropping ever increasing amounts of the stuff. Two pellets will kill a child. This kind of sub-lethal secondary poisoning is an ever increasing likelihood. We’ve observed it in raptors catching sub-lethally poisoned mammals already.
The test for 1080 poisoning (and fluorocitrate poisoning, 1080 being the delivery mechanism for fluorocitrate) is simple, yet our government insists it is not. NMR spectroscopy is used worldwide to observe either the fluoridated molecules directly, or to assay the metabolic by-products of fluorocitrate poisoning.
Given the amount of 1080 used in NZ, we should have test facilities in every major population centre.
The fact we do not speaks volumes.
“One of the most detailed descriptions of recovery from 1080 poisoning is McTaggart’s (1970) report of a child who ingested rabbit bait: Ten days after ingesting 1080, the boy began to recover during hospitalisation. He was able to keep his eyes open, and to appreciate some movement, but had marked hypertonicity of all limbs with frequent spasms of his arms and legs. At this time he was incapable of spontaneous movement, and remained unable to feed himself for a full two weeks after regaining consciousness. Twenty-four days after he ingested 1080, the boy had regained some range of movement in his arms and was able to recognise familiar people and objects. Ten years later there was evidence of mental retardation with a verbal IQ of 65, he was still unable to walk without crutches, and suffered from tetraplegia, hypertonicity of all limbs, cogwheel rigidity of the wrists, moderate to severe cortical blindness, divergent squint, and epilepsy. It is likely that the mental retardation was the result of brain damage caused by anoxia during periods of fitting (Pridmore 1978), although there is evidence of brain damage resulting directly from fluoroacetate poisoning (Trabes et al 1983). Other patients have experienced a similar prolonged recovery period (5–6 days) (Gajdusek & Luther 1950; Robinson et al 2002) with complete eventual recovery. Pneumonia is a frequent complication of human 1080 poisoning cases (Williams 1948; Brockman et al 1955; Pridmore 1978; Ramirez 1986). While these infec- tions may reflect hospital intervention, it is also possible that infection is promoted because of the increased respi- ratory secretions typical of 1080 exposure (Chenoweth & Gilman 1946; Quin & Clark 1947; Brockman et al 1955; McIlroy 1981, 1982a, 1983, 1984, 1985).”
We are suggesting the cause could be 1080 as the time frame of the symptoms, the symptoms themselves, the time frame of the recovery and the symptoms of the recovery match 1080 poisoning. Doctors didn’t diagnose botulinum toxin, they thought that it might be, and treated as if it was. As yet, the results for the tests which would confirm botulism have not come back, and without those tests, the unusual time frame, unusual symptoms, unusual time of recovery and unusual recovery symptoms, botulism is unlikely. Recovery from non-lethal 1080 poisoning is time – (I’ve quoted the 10 year old boy case which is a perfect exemplar). They could have had limb massage, prayer circles or irrelevant anti-toxin for botox and they would still have recovered in the same way as observed recovery from non-lethal 1080 is normal, it is only if they had had a lethal dose that they wouldn’t have recovered.
*Serena Maja has a Masters degree in Neuroscience from Cambridge University, UK and a background in Analytic Chemistry and Natural Sciences.
COMMENT FROM ADMIN:
As I sometimes add to controversial posts, part of the purpose of this site is to expose lies and corruption and to publish truth that mainstream media will not. If you happen to be pro any topic posted here, there is little point trying to spark up a debate in the attempt to convince myself or others of your view point. I suggest you head to mainstream media where you will find like minds & your posts will almost certainly be published. It also goes without saying, abusive commenters are blocked instantly. The Neuroscientist cited in this particular post wishes to remain anonymous so has used a pseudonym. This is obviously why you will not find the name in a google search however I can assure you that Neuroscientist Serena Maja is real and is a Cambridge Masters. The wish for anonymity is not unusual, and people do contact me from time to time stating the same … for obvious reasons. Recent history has proven that speaking the truth or challenging the status quo these days can incur very unpleasant repercussions. You can accept or reject the information offered in this article as you wish. Nobody is saying it was 1080 that poisoned the family, we are asking the question everybody should be, why is 1080 not being tested for when clearly no firm diagnosis has yet been reached? I have added one response by Serena who I’ve made aware of some of the questions that have come in. And on that note, the questioners clearly have not read the article properly as most of the queries are answered in the article itself anyway. EnvirowatchRangitikei