Follow Ups | Post Followup | Back to Discussion Board | VegSource
See spam or
inappropriate posts?
Please let us know.

From: TSS ()
Date: March 21, 2006 at 2:17 pm PST

In Reply to: Re: CENSORS TSS ON BSE AKA MAD COW posted by TSS on March 21, 2006 at 2:16 pm:

----- Original Message -----
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
To: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 5:55 PM

This was not simply another farmer but the third farmer......

suspect case of CJD in a farmer who has had a case of BSE in his beef suckler herd.

cover-up of 4th farm worker ???


now story changes from;

SEAC concluded that, if the fourth case were confirmed, it would be
worrying, especially as all four farmers with CJD would have had BSE
cases on their farms.


This is not unexpected...

was another farmer expected?

4th farmer, and 1st teenager

2. snip...
Over a 5 year period, which is the time period on which the advice
from Professor Smith and Dr. Gore was based, and assuming a
population of 120,000 dairy farm workers, and an annual incidence
of 1 per million cases of CJD in the general population, a
an individual in the general population to develop CJD. Using the
actual current annual incidence of CJD in the UK of 0.7 per
million, this figure becomes 7.5 TIMES.

3. You will recall that the advice provided by Professor Smith in
1993 and by Dr. Gore this month used the sub-population of dairy
farm workers who had had a case of BSE on their farms -
63,000, which is approximately half the number of dairy farm
workers - as a denominator. If the above sums are repeated using
this denominator population, taking an annual incidence in the general
population of 1 per million the observed rate in this sub-population
is 10 TIMES, and taking an annual incidence of 0.7 per million,
that in the general population...


20 year old died from sCJD in USA in 1980 and a 16 year
old in 1981. A 19 year old died from sCJD in
France in 1985. There is no evidence of an iatrogenic
cause for those cases....

CJD in Farmers

12. The third case of CJD in a dairy farmer had been considered by SEAC in January

1995 [YB95/1.13/1.1-1.4]. At that time SEAC had recommended that, as a matter

of priority, further statistical analysis should be undertaken comparing the relative

risks of developing CJD between farmers and other workers who had contact with

cattle with other occupational groups who did not. The Committee also noted that

cases of CJD in dairy farmers occurred in other European countries where BSE

was very rare and that it was therefore important that the incidence of CJD in

farmers in the UK was compared with those cases before conclusions were

drawn. The Committee did not consider that there was any need to revise the

measures already taken to safeguard the public health. (Annex A to minute from

Charles Lister dated 11th August 1995. [YB95/8.11/3.1-3.19 at 3.4])


13. By 11th August 1995, it was apparent that the incidence of CJD in dairy farmers in

France, Germany and the UK was “remarkably similar.” Dr Will had also followed

up SEAC’s recommendations for a statistical analysis. Although Dr Will’s work

was not complete, it appeared that some “low risk” occupational groups, such as

clerics, had a higher incidence of CJD than farmers. (Minute from Mr Lister dated

11th August 1995 [YB95/8.11/3.1-3.19]).

14. Dr Will’s work in relation to CJD and occupation was set out in the CJDSU fourth

annual report [IBD23 (vol IBD2 tab 12)], a draft of which was sent to me under

cover of a minute dated 19th September 1995 from Mr Lister [YB95/9.19/1.1-1.2].

Part of the conclusions of that report in the section headed “Case Control Study”

(pages 26 and 27) read as follows:

“Analysis of occupational histories has revealed no evidence that any of the occupations

considered on biological grounds as theoretically carrying a risk of CJD were actually

associated with an increased risk of CJD. The occurrence of CJD in 3 dairy farmers with

potential exposure to BSE is clearly a matter of concern. It is of note that occupations with

no apparent increased biological risk in relation to CJD have a higher incidence than

farmers in the United Kingdom and that the incidence of CJD in farmers in continental

Europe is similar to the United Kingdom. This does not suggest that there is any

additional risk factor for CJD to farmers in the United Kingdom in relation to other


15. On 28th September 1995, Dr Wight minuted me about a probable fourth case of

CJD in a dairy farmer [YB95/9.28/3.1]. I met staff at the Department of Health the

next day to discuss the latest findings in research and any further safety

measures which should be taken (paragraph 92 of my witness statement


16. SEAC held an emergency meeting on 4th October 1995 to discuss this case

[YB95/4.10/1.1-1.8]. As is evident from the minutes, at the conclusion of the

meeting of 4th October 1995, SEAC was requested and agreed to draw up a

statement on how it viewed the significance of a fourth case. The Committee was


also invited to consider whether it was satisfied that nothing else needed to be

done in terms of practical measures at that time. SEAC’s statement was finalised

by late October 1995 [YB95/10.19/2.1]. That statement read as follows:

“The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) have reviewed the

reported suspect case of CJD in a farmer who has had a case of BSE in his beef suckler

herd. Three previous CJD cases have been confirmed in dairy farmers whose herds had

had cases of BSE.

The Committee concluded that it was difficult to explain this as simply a chance

phenomenon. There is a statistical excess of cases in cattle farmers compared with the

general population but the absolute risk, even for farmers, is extremely low at about 2

cases per million per year. There may be other explanations for such an association

besides infection with BSE, and the Committee noted that there are no reported cases in

other occupational groups such as veterinarians who might be expected to be similarly

exposed. They also noted that surveillance of CJD elsewhere in Europe has shown a

similar incidence of CJD in farmers, including dairy farmers, in countries with no or very

few cases of BSE. They therefore felt that it was important to undertake further

epidemiological studies to detect any particular risk factors which might be involved, and

reiterated their advice that the UK cases of CJD in cattle farmers and the strain of the

agent recovered from them should be studied in detail.

The Committee have asked for further work to be done, but have not altered their advice

to Government on the precautions necessary to protect either the public health, including

farmers, or animal health.”

17. It will be remembered that the diagnosis of CJD in the fourth farmer was not

confirmed at this time. ...snip...full text;



To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed

To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse publicity.

To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by
maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw
material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any
changes which may be required.




MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at
handling potentially explosive issues.

5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which
contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive
test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly
supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible.

6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed
compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct
linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases,
the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ...

SEE full text ;


######### ##########

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: