Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Meldrum Requests Bigfoot Hairs For Testing; Will Todd Standing Submit Samples?

Following the recent release of the DNA results of the Bryan Sykes study into the phenomenon of bigfoot, Dr. Jeff Meldrum has put out a request for the submission of possible bigfoot hairs to be tested. So far the bigfoot world is 0 for 2 when it comes to scientific inquiries into bigfoot DNA. The absolute circus of the Ketchum study, and the well publicized Sykes study where the media was more interested in pointing out the lack of bigfoot DNA results than they were that a major discovery had possibly occurred.

From Don Jeffrey Meldrum
"I HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC REQUEST TO MAKE AT THIS TIME. An opportunity has arisen to conduct morphological and DNA analysis of SELECTED hair samples attributed to sasquatch. I am looking for reliable samples, by that I mean with a known chain of custody, having been collected in association with a visual encounter or documented footprints. Respond only if you have such a sample in your possession, stored in paper envelope, having been collected under reasonably sterile conditions, i.e. minimal or no direct handling. RESPOND TO MY EMAIL ADDRESS ONLY: ALL OTHER POSTS OR RESPONSES REGARDING THIS REQUEST WILL BE PROMPTLY DELETED FROM MY TIMELINE. Thanks for your assistance."

At this point it is too early to try and guess at what Meldrum is up to, or who is behind the upcoming study. Meldrum is well respected in the community and among his peers, so this may be the study we've been waiting for. Meldrum is taking part in the 2015 World Conference on Relict Hominoids in South Africa next year, so this may have something to do with that. Which of course is nothing more than speculation on my part.

But I have a different question...

Is Todd Standing going to submit samples to this inquiry? Dr. Meldrum took a lot of heat for partnering with and supporting Standing this year, and in the past Standing has claimed to be in possession of various physical bigfoot evidence for DNA testing, including hair. One would only conclude that if Todd were on the up and up as he claims, that he would most certainly be submitting some samples to Dr. Meldrum since it is obvious he has nothing but the utmost respect and trust in the good doctor.

This may be just the opportunity for Todd Standing to once and for all quiet the naysayers and obtain that "protection" for the sasquatch species he claims to be so desperately wanting. Standing has made the claims, now it's time to support them with facts. Put up or shut up Todd.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Sykes Yeti DNA Findings Result in Media Insults, Ignorance, and Disinformation

The newly published, but already known, DNA results from inquiry by geneticist Bryan Sykes into the "yeti" and "bigfoot" phenomenon has produced more than just DNA results. It has also resulted in numerous headlines and articles being written that are misleading, condescending, ignorant, false, and overall insulting.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Bigfoot Belief and Skepticism

In our latest episode of Bigfoot Revolution, Phil and I discuss the subjects of belief and skepticism in the bigfoot community. While most see these two items as opposing forces, I see them as mutually needed in bigfoot research. Skepticism offers that checks and balances system. A way to weed through the debris and find the true factual evidence, and shed light upon the misleading and  falsehoods that exist within the field. But belief is not the ugly cousin you once thought it was. Belief is the subtle force that leads us forward. The push we need to get out there and look for the evidence. Without it, you will not find the evidence that does or could exist.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Bigfoot Research Needs a Reboot

Bigfoot is Broken

The field of bigfoot research is broken. Stuck in a single, repetitive loop like a scratched record. The debates, the evidence, the theories, all re-hashed and regurgitated from a bygone era of pioneers in the field. Individuals who started to blaze a trail that ultimately led nowhere. But why did that trail come to a halt? How did bigfoot research find its way onto this never ending loop, passing the same tree over and over again? Is there anything that can be done to end the cycle?

Recently I've found myself focused on this problem, or at least a problem as I see it. Why are these debates repeated time and time again? The simple answer is because they were never put to rest in the first place. They were never solved. Evidence of these creatures existence has not progressed. At all. Sighting reports, audio recordings, track castings, limb formations, indiscernible photos and video, repeat. After all these years, where's the advancement? What have we truly learned? Not much.

Do you know why we do calls in the field? Obvious answer, to illicit a response. But really, why do we do them? Because on rare occasions something (we're not sure what) makes one back. We don't know if it is a bigfoot or not really, but since we can't always readily identify it we are willing to say it probably is. But let's go just a bit deeper into the origin. Why do people do calls in the field? Because they saw or heard about someone else doing it.

Now let's look at tree knocks. Why do we go around whacking sticks against tree trunks? Because on rare occasions we hear something that sounds like a stick whacking a tree trunk. On even rarer occasions when we do it something does it back. We don't really know if it is a bigfoot or not, but since we don't know what it is, we are willing to say it probably is. Once again going deeper, but why do we really do it? Because we saw or heard someone else doing it. Notice the cycle forming here?

Another popular tool in bigfooting is the game tracker camera. A camera system designed to detect motion and capture a photo or video of whatever it was that triggered the camera. The debate rages on as to why these things have not been successful in capturing that perfect image of a bigfoot. The bigfoot can smell them, they can hear them, they can see the ir light, they saw you put the camera up, they are psychic and know they are there, etc. etc. Yet regardless of what the position of the individual is, there is never a "fix" to the problem discussed or attempted. Just the debate. Furthermore, why are people still wasting their time with them if they aren't working in the manner they are being used? If your car stops running, do you spend the rest of your life debating as to why it isn't running, and spend the rest of your days sitting there trying to start it over and over again? Or do you try to fix it, or find another means of travel if necessary to keep moving forward? The answer seems obvious enough, but in the bigfoot world it eludes us as much as the bigfoot do.

I understand though. It's easy to get caught up in the debates. We tend to focus our attention more on the debating than the puzzle. We spend more time talking about one another and how our beliefs do not align with one another than we do discussing the mystery we're trying to solve. I'm going to blame that endless loop we're stuck on for that one. If we're not discovering anything new, or we're not making any progress, what is there really left to talk about?

How about we discuss how to break the cycle? Let's face it, the forefathers of this field had no idea what they were getting into. I'm sure most of them thought for sure it would be settled by now. They believed these things were out there, so if you spend enough time tracking them down eventually you would be able to bring one in. Don't let this ruffle your feathers, but most of the original bigfooters out there carried guns and had every intention of shooting one to prove they existed. How's that for your no kill/pro-kill debate? Why wouldn't they think this way? How long did it take Roger and Bob to film one in their quest? A lot less time than it's taken since then to duplicate it. Time advanced, and things got more desperate. People started coming up with new theories. They started coming up with explanations to things they were finding. These theories became accepted by their peers, at least most of them, and so it was. Those items got recorded in books and journals, talked about, passed around, so on and so forth. All the way to modern day where those same ideas and theories are accepted by the majority of researchers. Meanwhile the skeptical community can sit back and just rip those items to shreds. There's nothing to support them. There's no data. There's no true documentation.

I believe we need to start over. A reboot. Instead of following the lead of those that have come before us, allow the evidence we find (or don't find) lead our research. Throw everything you think you know or have accomplished out the window and start over from scratch. This time, doing it the right way. Documenting not only your evidence findings, but your research as well. Break out your fine-toothed comb. Document where your research area is, why you are choosing that location, and then document your search in that area for evidence. Is there anything there? Be honest, not hopeful or defensive.

People are going to be critical of any evidence you bring to the table. They are going to scrutinize it. You know this going into it, so be prepared. The fact of the matter is the evidence you collect should stand on its own, and it will if you have documented and collected it properly. For instance, you know if you see a ground impression that vaguely resembles the outline of a large foot, and you make a plaster cast of that impression, people are going to tear it apart. You know yourself you don't know for a fact a bigfoot was responsible for it, so why would you bring a glob of plaster back and call it evidence? What was the point in even casting it? You could have instead made note of it, taken the measurements as closely as possible, take a photo of it, and then follow it either forward or backward to see where it came from or where it was going. This sort of action can not only lead you to evidence worth collecting, but can also help you discern if it was really a track or not. There's no such thing as "one track". There are however people not properly educated on tracking.

It's time to start fresh. Time to take baby steps, and time to do things correctly. Quit blaming the skeptics, scientists, and cynics for not believing the way we do. Learn the standards needed for acceptance, and then adhere to those standards in our research. Otherwise we will be forever stuck on this perpetual merry-go-round, chasing our own tails.


Friday, May 23, 2014

The Unethical and Potential Dangers of Bigfoot Baiting - Part 3

The Unethical and Potential Dangers of Bigfoot Baiting
by Cindy Bowers

Part 3-Food

Another unethical practice is the gifting of food, especially food placed in plastic containers or with high sugar content. Animals that live in the wild who become habituated, lose their natural fear of man, and become dependent on the food provided. Not only are these animals becoming dependent on the food sources, but they are eating unnatural foods such as cookies, donuts and peanut butter. These foods are high in sugar and will cause health problems for the animals, such as tooth decay and potentially diabetes. If that isn't bad enough, they are chewing through the plastic lids and containers, inadvertently consuming the plastic.

Studies on wildlife have shown that plastic kills animals as it builds up in their digestive tracts. The California Coastal Commission in their article “The Problem With Marine Debris,” had this to say about the plastic debris: “Birds, fish and mammals can mistake the plastic for food. Debris may cause choking and injuries, and with plastic filling their stomachs, animals may have a false feeling of being full and may die of starvation.” Researchers may be inadvertently killing off native wildlife while in pursuit of an unknown creature. There are videos of researchers leaving these food gifts, only to later return to a littered forest floor, plastic strewn about. It is appalling. Animals, Bigfoot or otherwise, having gnawed at the plastic peanut butter jars have no doubt ingested the plastic. The high sugar content, with no dental hygiene, will cause the animals teeth to decay. No teeth, means, no eating. The animals again face starvation, and no teeth, also means, no defense from predators.

Littering is also a crime, and these researchers face potential tickets as well. The researcher must also remember that when leaving these foodstuffs he or she is attracting small animals such as mice and raccoon, which then ingest this plastic or sugar and then are consumed by predators. The plastic has now made its way up the food chain to other animals, such as owls or hawks, which now face death as well. The animals having become dependent on the food gifts will then began to wonder into areas they previously avoided, such as suburban housing in search of the food. This creates a danger to domestic animals through the spread of disease and attack from larger species. This practice can also potentially dangerous humans as well, as animals become more aggressive over things like garbage.

Food sources should be limited if not removed altogether, ensure the safety of all wild life. If a researcher feels the need to gift food sources, then limit the amount of food so the animals do not become dependent on it. By removing all plastics containers and their potential dangers, the researcher will make the environment safer for the animals. As an alternative the researcher could place non-sugar foods in cut melons, the rind will decompose and the forest will be litter free.

The Humane Society of the United States in their article titled “Four Reasons Not To Feed Wildlife” says that, “Human foods aren't nutritious enough for animals and may cause serious health problems.”  The article continues by acknowledging the fact that people may still choose to feed wild animals, and suggests a healthier alternative by saying, “healthy foods include seedless grapes cut in half, shredded kale, Swiss chard or romaine lettuce, and grains, including wheat, barley and oats.”  Since feeding wildlife is not recommended and ethical researcher would refrain from the practice, or at least provide healthy alternatives in a limited fashion.

The Bigfoot phenomena certainly warrants further investigation, as there are far too many witness sightings to ignore it. However, there needs to be some ethical changes made: no end justifies the means. It is the researcher’s responsibility to look after their teammates whether they are men, women or children, while taking care of the environment as well. By making these ethical changes in research practices, the researcher will be insuring the safety of all of his or her teammates, while at the same time looking out for the native wildlife, making the forest safer for all. This will also allow for mutual respect between parties, men, women, and children. Women will feel valued as teammates. The potential dangers from predators will be reduced. Children will be happier and safer while still exploring the topic, and grow up to be potentially valuable researchers themselves. The native wildlife will be healthier by removing the plastic and sugar from their diet, and the forest will become a prettier place for all to enjoy. By making these changes and becoming more ethical, researchers will be modeling correct behavior for future generations and setting a positive example for the current generation. Be safe out there, and happy hunting.

Works Cited
British Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. “Bears and Cougars.”  Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, 2002. BC Parks. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.
 Crowser, Vivaca. “Be Prepared (for Wildlife Encounters).” Montana Outdoors. Montana Outdoors. Aug. 2009. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.
 “Fatal Wolf Attack Unnerves Alaska Village.” MSNBC. NBC News, 17 Mar. 2010. Web. 7 Arp. 2014.
“Four Reasons Not To Feed Wildlife.” The Humane Society. Humane, 17 May. 2013. Web. 23 Apr.2014.
Freitas, John and Montra. “Sasquatch Pheromones.” Blue North: Investigations & Expeditions into the Unknown. Blue North Productions. 29 Aug. 2009. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Gunther, Kerry A. “Bears and Menstruating Women.”  Bear Management Office, Yellowstone National Park, 2012. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.
Hughes, Howard C. Sensory Exotica. Cambridge. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999. Print.
“Mountain Lion Kills Boy Hiking in Colorado Park.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company.19 Jul. 1997. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
Muris, Peter, and Andy Field. “The Role Of Verbal Threat Information In The Development Of Childhood Fear: “‘Beware The Jabberwock!’” Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review 13.2 (2010): 129-150. Academic Search Complete. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
“Pheromone Chips.” A Guide to Bigfoot Hunting. Bigfoot, 2001. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.
 “The Problem with Marine Debris.” California Coastal Commission.  State of California, 2014.Web. 15 Apr. 2014
Rogers, Lynn L, Gregory A. Wilker, Sally S. Scott. “Reactions of Black Bears to Human
Menstrual Odors.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 55.4: 632-634. 27 Mar. 1991. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.
“Report # 1090 (Class A).”  Bigfoot Research Organization (BFRO). 4 Jan. 2001. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.
Tipton, Florence J. “What Are the Different Types of Female Pheromones?” Wise Geek: Clear Answers for Common Questions. Conjecture Corporation. 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

The Unethical and Potential Dangers of Bigfoot Baiting - Part 2

The Unethical and Potential Dangers of Bigfoot Baiting
by Cindy Bowers

Part 2-Children

A second area of unethical behavior involves the use of children in the field as a potential attractant through their laughter or through crying. This practice poses a risk to their safety, both physically and mentally. A crying child might attract Bigfoot, but also might attract the previously mentioned predators, and the fear they feel while out in the field may cause physiological damage to the child. Twenty years of therapy for a chance at a photograph simply is not right, and it borders on child abuse. Peter Muris and Andy Field, specialists in children’s psychology, had this to say regarding children’s fears: “Evidence from the literature on adult phobias also shows that fears during childhood should be taken seriously...and noted that specific phobias tend to begin at a fairly young age: animal phobias had an onset age as early as 7 years” ( 130). Children who are watching TV shows or movies that feature roaring, teeth barring Bigfoot may develop fears before ever entering the forest. Muris and Field continue with “The media represent a notable way through which children might be exposed to threat information” (131). Add to this the stories recounted by parents or their friends, and the child may potentially develop a phobia or extreme fear. Muris and Field also conclude that: “Factors that contribute to the origins of extreme fears in children generally fall in two categories, namely genetics and environmental influences” (131). It is the parent’s duty to ensure their child’s safety not only predators, but also their psychological well-being. Children should be taught to respect nature and be made aware of the dangers, but at an appropriate age. Children should not be used to lure in Bigfoot, children should come first, Bigfoot later.

Young children should be removed from the field as a precautionary measure, for their physical safety as well as their mental well-being. At least until the child understands the inherent dangers, armed with the knowledge of known animals and how to react in any given situation. Here education is key, parents should teach the children about the environment, the known animals and what to do in cases of emergency.  Parents should allow children to explore the topic, but in a healthy and limited way as to avoid any fears. The Boy and Girl Scouts of America have a wonderful educational program called The Wildlife Safety Trail which is designed to teach children how to avoid conflicts with wild animals. Vivica Crowser, a writer for Montana Outdoors, the online magazine for Montana’s Fish, Wildlife & Parks agency, experienced the wildlife trail first hand, and had this to say: “The Scouts stationed along this wildlife safety trail, are teaching me and the 7- to 9- year old students I am with how to avoid conflicts with wildlife.” Crowser explains in her article how the Scouts teach the children not only to avoid dangerous animals but how to identify them as well. The program is age appropriate and matches the psychological timeline for children mentioned by Muris and Field. This is a wonderful program and a safer alternative for the children. An ethical researcher would educate children before taking them into the field.

Click Here for Part 3

The Unethical and Potential Dangers of Bigfoot Baiting - Part 1

The following paper was submitted to me by bigfoot investigator Cindy Bowers. In the following article Cindy discusses some of the negative impacts of baiting practices used by bigfoot researchers on a regular basis, as well as offering a few more positive alternatives. I encourage everyone to take the time to read through the entire paper, which I have broken down into three parts for convenience.

The Unethical and Potential Dangers of Bigfoot Baiting
by Cindy Bowers

Part 1-Scent Attractants

Every year hundreds of enthusiastic researchers head to the woods, gear in tow, carrying cameras, tents, and various baiting strategies. They enter the woods with one goal in mind: that of finding Bigfoot. The goal of discovery in and of itself is a self-sacrificing cause, often costing the researcher time and money. What drives some of these men and women to do what they do? For some it is the possibility of a new species being discovered, studied, cataloged, and written about. For others, it is to find answers to their own personal experiences. This would be the discovery of the century if a researcher could find and prove this creature exists. There are, however, researchers who practice unethical and potentially dangerous practices while using these Bigfoot baiting techniques, such as the use of menstruating women or menstruation pads, children and  gifts of food. The ethical researcher should use environmentally friendly alternatives such as purchased pheromones or cotton shirts, remove children from the field until they are educated, and take a responsible approach to food gifting.

Some Bigfoot researchers believe there is a connection between women’s menstruation and pheromone and that these pheromones will attract Bigfoot. They are taking used pads or tampons into the forest and placing them on the forest floor or hanging them in trees with the hope it will lure in the elusive creature, often they leave them behind. The use of women as bait is unethical, especially in the context that the women themselves may be menstruating. By making comments like “I hope one of the girls is menstruating,” the researcher is reducing them to bait instead of treating them as a fellow researcher. This is demeaning and focuses the attention on the male researchers while devaluing their female counterparts. Many of these women contribute greatly to these teams, such as zoologists, biologists, trackers and photographers. They are wives, mothers, sisters and grandmothers, and they should never be treated as a means to an end.

The general use of menstruation pads or tampons is thought to attract Bigfoot through pheromones released during menstruation. The consensus comes from reports such as those found in the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization database, the largest such organization comprised of scientists and journalists. Report #1090 is one such example, it quotes a woman (name withheld), and her experience as follows: “Around the age of 12 or 13 (I’m 34 now) I went with my parents to Sugerpine Campground in the Sonora/Twain Harte area in California. We were there for two weeks in our 21’ travel trailer, and I was completely bored out of my mind! I also had just started menstruating for the first time while we were in the middle of our trip (mentioning this seems weird, but will make sense later).” She then goes on to explain her encounter with Bigfoot and the fear she felt from the encounter. She concludes her account with “when I mention I started my period for the first time, I believe animals have an uncanny ability to sense and smell those types of things, maybe it caught wind of me and decided to follow and check me out” (BFRO).

From this witness report, one can see how the correlation is drawn between menstruating females and Bigfoot, by these researchers. Human females release more pheromones during the ovulation process than are released during menstruation. Humans have three main glands the sweat, sebaceous and apocrine. The apocrine glands are of particular interest to scientists. Professor of psychology Howard C. Hughs writes in his book Sensory Erotica that “In many mammals, apocrine glands are known to function as pheromone factories” (283). One of the areas these glands are concentrated in is the armpit region.

Wise Geek, which is a team of researchers, writers and editors, recently published an article by Florence J. Tipton on human pheromones in which she says, “The need to procreate and protect the human species causes females to emit pheromones that generally will be most noticeable during ovulation.” Since human pheromones are released in higher quantities during ovulation, there is no basis for their use in menstruation baiting, as any pheromones would be present in smaller quantities. The practice of menstrual baiting is becoming more popular, and along with this comes greater concerns for safety.

This is a dangerous practice that may attract predators to the area, putting the entire team at risk. Wild animals such as black bears, grizzly bears, cougars, and wolves may be attracted to the smell of blood, perceiving it as wounded prey.

A study conducted by Lynn L. Rogers of the U.S. Forest Service a Leading Bear biologist stated that, “This concern became wide spread when 2 menstruating women were killed by grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribillis) in Glacier National Park in 1967, prompting government agencies to circulate brochures warning menstruating women against entering bear country.” Rogers’ study concentrated on the American black bear (Ursus americanus) and used habituated well-fed bears who were generally disinterested in the menstruation bait. The results of this study may have presented differently with malnourished bears that were not used to human activity. He further concludes that based on written reports, that there is no direct evidence to correlate grizzly attacks to women (Rogers). However, Kerry A. Gunther, a Bear Management biologist for Yellowstone National Park, says, “The responses of grizzly bears to menstruation odors has not been studied experimentally.”

Therefore, with no field studies on grizzly bears showing how they would respond, there is still a potential risk when using menstruation baiting. Gunther went on to say that the studies included testing on polar bears both captive and free-ranging and found “that free-ranging polar bears detected and consumed food scent samples and used tampons, but ignored non-menstrual human blood and unused tampons. This suggests that polar bears are attracted to odors associated with menstrual blood.” While this may not seem important to some people, at least those in the lower 48 states, it is important to Russian and Alaskan researchers or those in the most Northern areas, and they should most defiantly refrain from the practice.

Bears are not the only wild animals to attack and kill humans. There have been wolf attacks in Alaska. NBC News reports on one such attack: “a pack of wolves killed Kenton Joel, a 22-year-old Ontario engineering student.” There have also been cougar attacks in Colorado.  The New York Times in their article “Mountain Lion Kills Boy Hiking in Colorado Park”: reported that, “Mark Miedema bounded ahead of his parents and sister on a well-traveled trail in rocky Mountain National Park on Thursday before being attacked and killed by an 88-pound mountain lion.” The United States as well as British Columbia has addressed the issue of menstruation by providing pamphlets to hikers and campers warning of the potential danger. Officials urge caution while menstruating and camping or hiking, as seen in the material from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection of British Columbia, who stated in their 2002 bear and cougar pamphlet that “Women should consider using tampons when menstruating.” Gunther notes that the Yellowstone National Park Service issues these guidelines for visitors:

The following precautions are recommended:
1. Use pre-moistened, unscented cleaning towelettes.
2. Use internal tampons instead of external pads.
3. Do not bury tampons, pads and towelettes (pack it in – pack it out). A bear may smell buried tampons or pads and dig them up. By providing bears a small food “reward”, this action may attract bears to other menstruating women.
4. Place all used tampons, pads, and towelettes in double zip-loc baggies and store them unavailable to bears, just as you would store food. This means hung at least 10 feet above the ground and 4 feet from the tree trunk. (Gunther)

 Two separate governments are advising people there is a potential risk. This is not an ethical practice for the conscientious Bigfoot researcher, and there is real danger from predators. Even if women are not used or present, the researcher may be putting themselves or their team members at risk by using menstrual bait such as used pads or tampons.

Menstrual baiting should be avoided, in favor of safer and more ethical alternatives. There is no reason to put others at risk, and there are alternatives. Pheromone chips are available online at:

An online blog called Guide to Bigfoot Hunting has this to say about their product:

"Pheromone chips are a method used to attract Bigfoot by creating an impregnated scent. The chip is attached to a tree branch, and left for Bigfoot to arrive. They are often accompanied with a trail cam to capture an image. These chips are made up of a mixture of ape and human pheromones. Pheromone chips aren't proven to work for this type of animal, although they are used to attract other wild animals such as deer. Experts say that any primate would be attracted to them. Bigfoot or not."

This product is a small compressed chip soaked in the pheromones, and then hung in a tree by a string. The chip should be removed and return with the researcher after using it, pack it in, pack it out. By using alternatives the researcher will be removing the blood from the equation and therefore the risk from predators. Since more pheromones are released during ovulation through the armpit region, a tee-shirt worn for a couple of days would serve as a safer alternative as well. The shirt can be taken out into the field, used, and return with the researcher when he or she is finished. Both the pheromone chips and the tee-shirt serve as ethical substitutions to menstrual baiting and will help protect the environment (by eliminating abandoned pads),while keeping the researchers and their teammates safe.

Click here for Part 2