Infested DOXing Guide.pdf ((FREE))
Ehrlichia canis was first identified in 1935 in Algeria; dogs infested with ticks showed fever and anemia . Later, during the Vietnam War, many military working dogs brought to Vietnam by the US army exhibited a severe disease called Tropical Canine Pancytopenia . Later, it was renamed canine monocytic ehrlichiosis (CME).
Infested DOXing Guide.pdf
The prevention of ehrlichiosis and/or anaplasmosis infections in dogs must be focused on tick control. Ticks of the R. sanguineus complex are mainly found indoors, but other populations of the tick may be common in gardens, pastures, and fields in the Mediterranean basin. Therefore, dogs may become infected with the most common tick present in infested private gardens or kennels, but also, whenever they are engaged in an activity that involves contact with natural green areas. Nevertheless, to prevent transmission, actions must focus mainly on:
preventing dogs from becoming infested in the field, which is the source of peridomestic parasitism. This infestation can introduce ticks to indoor habitats (kennels, etc.), which will result in a large population, due to their high reproductive capacity.
preventing dogs from becoming infested with ticks, even when they live in a peridomestic environment with abundant ticks. This objective is more difficult to achieve than the former, due to the high parasitism pressure that can arise from those populations of ticks .
In the case of I. ricinus, the activation temperature for the ticks may be around 6C. Therefore, adequate measures of control should be strictly followed to limit contact of dogs with ticks in infested areas .
Six different racks with a cage of mice infested with M. musculi were tested; 5 of the 6 racks were PCR-positive within 1 wk. The remaining rack was mite-positive by the second week (6 positive, 0 equivocal). For the mice infested with R. affinis, we tested 11 different racks by using 4 different cages of mice. All but one rack (10 of 11; 7 positive, 3 equivocal) were PCR-positive for mites within 4 wk of placement, with 9 (7 positive, 2 equivocal) of those 10 racks becoming PCR-positive within either 1 or 2 wk of being placed on the rack. One R. affinis rack did not yield a mite-positive result until week 9.
At the end of the study, all 6 cages of mice (the 5 mite-containing cages and the negative control cage) were swabbed and assayed for fur-mite DNA. All 5 mite-containing cages tested qPCR-positive for their respective mite species, whereas the negative control remained qPCR-negative. Subsequently, all mice were euthanized by CO2 asphyxiation and their pelts examined for the presence of adult mites as previously described. Among the 5 mite-containing cages, 4 remained positive for live mites; we found 1 to 3 live adult mites among all of the mice in each of these 4 cages. We were unable to find live mites in one cage (C5; Table 1), in which the mice were infested with Radfordia affinis.
Because we enrolled mite-positive cages as they became available to us, we did not attempt to standardize each cage (for example, strain, age, sex, mite species, cage population, age at the time of mite infestation). Therefore, 3 cages had 2 mice per cage, and the remaining cages had 3 to 4 mice per cage (Table 1). We did not attempt to quantify the mite burden in each cage. Our criteria for enrollment were both a positive qPCR assay and visualization of at least one adult mite from that cage's mice. We had 2 strains of mice that were presented to us for study and 2 different species of mites. The CD1 mice were infested with M. musculi, and the other 4 mite-positive cages contained HD5Cre mice that were infested with R. affinis.
The 2 racks exposed to an adult pair of HD5Cre mice infested with R. affinis (cage C4) did not return qPCR positive results until weeks 4 and 9 of the study. Although the mice in this cage remained qPCR-positive throughout the study and yielded at least one adult mite on direct examination prior to and at the conclusion of the study, these colony-raised mice were 7 mo old at the time of study enrollment and likely had been infested for most of their life. Because mite populations are known to increase during new infestations and then decrease to equilibrium during weeks 8 to 10 of infestation, we suspect this cage likely had a low-level infestation, leading to less mite DNA present and thus requiring more time until detection.4,5 Cage C4 was not the same cage in which no adult mites were found at the terminal pelt examination.
We presume that similar sampling methods would also be effective for other IVC rack makes or models as long as the air exhausted from the cages is not filtered before reaching the sampling site. One should also consider the distance of infested cages from the sample site (in other rack styles), in light of our prestudy sampling experience in which sampling at the terminal rack exhaust plenum did not reliably detect mite infestations. Obviously, our method would not be applicable to screening animals housed in static microisolation caging. However, in such caging configurations, one could consider obtaining samples from the underside of the rim of the microisolation lid or swabbing both the soiled bedding sentinels and random colony animals on the rack. Regardless, we believe that sampling only soiled bedding sentinels for PCR and traditional direct visualization are not the most reliable ways to detect fur-mite infestations in mouse colonies. Future aspects to consider include evaluation of the sensitivity of each shelf (or row) on the IVC rack as its own individual zone. The results of this assessment might be useful if different mite species were on different rows or for screening or narrowing down an infestation to a specific row of cages, rather than having to sample all of the individual cages on a rack.
The common methods used by doxers to prepare doxing attacks are outlined below. As a preliminary assessment of the level of cybersecurity you might need to protect yourself and your organization, you can use these techniques to search for your personal details.
Fortunately, most data brokers offer anyone the option of opting out of their database. By opting out, you will stop the distribution of your personal pieces of information and minimize doxing opportunities.
If you or someone else you know falls victim to a doxing attack that leads to death threats or threatens personal safety, local law enforcement should be notified immediately. Screenshots of such incidents should be saved as evidence.
Mexican poppy is poisonous to stock, but few deaths occur because the plant is not readily eaten. This is due to the bitter yellow sap which makes it unpalatable to stock. Some stock have died after eating contaminated hay or chaff, and poultry have died after eating seeds. Mexican poppy seeds could be harvested with a wheat crop, thus contaminating the grain. However, the seeds are much smaller than wheat grains and can easily be removed by seed cleaning. Mexican poppy-infested grain is unsuitable for milling or stock feed. 041b061a72