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

From: TSS ()
Subject: R-CALF: CDC Says Prevalence Of Canadian BSE 26 Times That Of U.S.
Date: July 11, 2007 at 9:10 am PST

R-CALF: CDC Says Prevalence Of Canadian BSE 26 Times That Of U.S.

Billings, Mont. – The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) will hear oral argument at 9:00 a.m. PDT, this Friday, July 13, in Portland, Ore., in the organization’s litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the agency’s Final Rule on “Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE); Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities,” originally published on Jan. 5, 2005.

On July 3, R-CALF USA requested that the 9th Circuit also take under consideration before Friday’s hearing a recent publication by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that provides CDC’s statistical analysis of BSE testing data for Canada and the United States, concluding that: “The proportion of Canadian-born BSE cases identified by Canadian authorities through the testing of animals in Canada, 2003-April 2007 (10 cases among approximately 160,000 animals tested) is presently statistically significantly higher (26 fold higher) than the proportion of U.S.-born BSE cases identified by U.S. authorities through the testing of animals in the U.S. during the comparable period (2 cases among more than 875,000 animals tested).”

The CDC statistical analysis also concludes that the proportion of known BSE cases in U.S.-born cattle that were at least 10 years of age (100 percent) is statistically significantly different from the portion of the 11 Canadian-born BSE cases known to be at least 10 years of age (one animal, or 9 percent).

“R-CALF believes this analysis of BSE testing data, performed by a federal government agency with responsibility for health protection, is relevant to USDA’s argument that Canadian cattle born long after the 1997 feed ban are ‘extremely unlikely to have been exposed to BSE at all…’,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “The CDC report also demonstrates that USDA’s statement that the agency’s ‘analysis and conclusions with regard to risk had already acknowledged and accounted for the possibility that additional animals with BSE that were born at or near the time the feed ban was implemented would be identified’ misses the point, as most of the recently identified cases in Canada were not born near the time the Canadian feed ban was implemented, as well as flaws with USDA’s assertion that Canada’s feed ban is effective.

“R-CALF is hopeful the 9th Circuit will either immediately reverse the decision not to vacate the Final Rule, or, remand our case back to the District Court of Montana, which would enable full consideration of the scientific evidence we filed in our case,” he continued.

“Since 2005, R-CALF members and supporters have stood firm and faithful in their belief that until Canada has its BSE problem under control, imports of Canadian cattle and beef should be halted,” Bullard commented. “We owe our sincerest gratitude to our members and the U.S. live cattle industry for the overwhelming support and donations that enabled us to continue this fight on their behalf.

“R-CALF argued back in 2005 that USDA should not place the health and welfare of both the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. consumers at risk, and we also pointed out that if USDA relaxed our health and safety import standards by reopening the Canadian border, such a move could threaten U.S. beef exports,” said Bullard. “USDA’s actions have undermined our ability to resume previous levels of beef exports, particularly exports to markets in Asia.

“Litigation has always been our last resort, but we are thankful for the system of checks and balances in this country that will afford us the opportunity to challenge our government when we believe government action is harming our industry,” he added.

“Our nation’s import standards should be based on preventing the introduction of foreign animal diseases instead of the management of such diseases once they’re here,” Bullard emphasized. “Our import standards should not be relaxed simply because USDA wants to create a North American cattle herd instead of placing value on the distinct and unique characteristics of the U.S. cattle herd.”

this reeks.

you cannot compare apples to oranges, if the oranges were tainted.

the usda june 2004 enhanced bse surveillance program was a sham start to finish.

it was set up to fail, i.e. testing protocol, surveillance, and erradication.

if any of you think the rosy picture that bullard et al makes about the non-existence of bse in the usa is true, well, god help us all. it just aint so, and science shows this, not the political junk science and math that is fallaciously put forth by the industries that are behind this administration. real science shows that BSE and other TSEs have been in the USA for years and years. usda et al have covered-up mad cow cases. saying canada has a worse BSE problem than the USA by the evidence r-calf has, is like the pot calling the kettle black. i agree with the few that want to stop pointing fingers, and take the madbull by the horns and solve the problem, instead of continuing to cover it up. you'll sell more product that way in the long run. everytime some of these bozos' that are in office go to cover something up, the BSe comes back ten fold. wake up!

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:37:57 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."



United States District Court, District of Arizona

USA v Roland Emerson Farabee
2: 07-wi-0001-01-EHC

Proceeding Type: Waiver/Plea

Judge: Honorable Earl H Carroll
Courtroom: Phoenix Courtroom #501, 5th Floor

Date: 01/17/2007 Court Reporter: Candy Potter
Time: 01:30 PM Courtroom Deputy: Bobbi Hightower

(may not reflect
all counts) 18:641 and 2 (Theft of Government Money and Adiding and Abetting) 1
18: 1341 and 2 (Mail Fruad and Aiding and Abetting) 2
18:1343 and 2 (Wire Fraud and Aiding and Abetting) - 3

U.S. Attorney: Long, Robert

Defense Attorney(s): Attorney Phone: Attorney Designation:
McDonald, Jr., A. Melvin retained

if my siphering is correct, that would be about another 2600 potential mad cows that went into the food chain. add that to these ;

>It should be noted that since the enhanced surveillance program began, USDA has also conducted approximately 9,200 routine

> IHC tests on samples that did not first undergo rapid testing.

AND we know IHC is the least likely to find TSE.

and not to forget that one little old mad cow in TEXAS they rendered without any test at ALL.


IN TEXAS, cattle on feed for decades, fda says 5.5 grams ruminant protein,
if tainted with TSE, is not enough to kill a cow. actually, it's enough to
kill 100+ cows ;-)

and add these in ;

UPI previously reported that from 2001 to 2003 the USDA collected the wrong part of the brain in more than 200 cows that were being screened as part of its BSE surveillance program.

The USDA documents also indicate the agency never was able to identify or test 52 cows that came into the United States in 2001 along with the Washington cow that tested positive in 2003. Of these, 11 were considered to be "high risk" because they were born within a year and on the same premises as the infected cow.

These cows may have gone into the food supply and been consumed by people. The concern is humans can contract a fatal brain disease from eating beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen.

NOT to forget what Paul Brown TSE expert at CDC said ;



The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier
this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to
them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest
case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at
least a decade.

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA
officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a
picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is
thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they
consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal,
incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated
with the mad cow pathogen.

"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the
National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System
Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press
International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer

Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before
one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow
that initially tested positive.

USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven
months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.

"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005
suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end

CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ...
Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central
Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room
4A-05, ...


Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM

"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow issue for some years,
and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed critiques and recommendations to both the
USDA and the Canadian Food Agency."

OR, what the Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG found ;

Audit Report

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program – Phase II


Food Safety and Inspection Service

Controls Over BSE Sampling, Specified Risk Materials, and Advanced Meat Recovery Products - Phase III

Report No. 50601-10-KC January 2006

Finding 2 Inherent Challenges in Identifying and Testing High-Risk Cattle Still Remain

Greetings list members,

IF you remember correctly, i posted this ;

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:27:06 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr.



> OH, i did ask Bio-Rad about this with NO reply to date;
> -------- Original Message --------
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:28 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Hello Susan and Bio-Rad,
> Happy Holidays!
> I wish to ask a question about Bio-Rad and USDA BSE/TSE testing
> and there inconclusive. IS the Bio-Rad test for BSE/TSE that complicated,
> or is there most likely some human error we are seeing here?
> HOW can Japan have 2 positive cows with
> No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP- ,
> BUT in the USA, these cows are considered 'negative'?
> IS there more politics working here than science in the USA?
> What am I missing?
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: USDA: More mad cow testing will demonstrate beef's safety
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:26:19 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> snip...end
> Experts doubt USDA's mad cow results


WELL, someone did call me from Bio-Rad about this,
however it was not Susan Berg.
but i had to just about take a blood oath not to reveal
there name. IN fact they did not want me to even mention
this, but i feel it is much much to important. I have omitted
any I.D. of this person, but thought I must document this ;

Bio-Rad, TSS phone conversation 12/28/04

Finally spoke with ;

Bio-Rad Laboratories
2000 Alfred Nobel Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Ph: 510-741-6720
Fax: 510-741-5630

at approx. 14:00 hours 12/28/04, I had a very pleasant
phone conversation with XXXX XXXXX about the USDA
and the inconclusive BSE testing problems they seem
to keep having. X was very very cautious as to speak
directly about USDA and it's policy of not using WB.
X was very concerned as a Bio-Rad official of retaliation
of some sort. X would only speak of what other countries
do, and that i should take that as an answer. I told X
I understood that it was a very loaded question and X
agreed several times over and even said a political one.

my question;

Does Bio-Rad believe USDA's final determination of False positive,
without WB, and considering the new
atypical TSEs not showing positive with -IHC and -HP ???

ask if i was a reporter. i said no, i was with CJD Watch
and that i had lost my mother to hvCJD. X did not
want any of this recorded or repeated.

again, very nervous, will not answer directly about USDA for fear of
retaliation, but again said X tell
me what other countries are doing and finding, and that
i should take it from there.
"very difficult to answer"

"very political"

"very loaded question"

outside USA and Canada, they use many different confirmatory tech. in
house WB, SAF, along with
IHC, HP, several times etc. you should see at several
talks meetings (TSE) of late Paris Dec 2, that IHC- DOES NOT MEAN IT IS
NEGATIVE. again, look what
the rest of the world is doing.
said something about Dr. Houston stating;
any screening assay, always a chance for human
error. but with so many errors (i am assuming
X meant inconclusive), why are there no investigations, just false
said something about ''just look at the sheep that tested IHC- but were
positive''. ...


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Your questions
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:11 -0800
From: To: [log in to unmask]

Hi Terry:

............................................snip Let me know your phone
number so I can talk to you about the Bio-Rad BSE test.
Thank you


Bio-Rad Laboratories
2000 Alfred Nobel Drive
Hercules, CA 94547
Ph: 510-741-6720
Fax: 510-741-5630
Email: =================================


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

full text ;

Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:50:36 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

meanwhile, back at the ranch with larry, curly, and mo at USDA ET AL ON BSE ALABAMA STYLE


3. Prof. A. Robertson gave a brief account of BSE. The US approach
was to accord it a _very low profile indeed_. Dr. A Thiermann showed
the picture in the ''Independent'' with cattle being incinerated and thought
this was a fanatical incident to be _avoided_ in the US _at all costs_...


To be published in the Proceedings of the
Fourth International Scientific Congress in
Fur Animal Production. Toronto, Canada,
August 21-28, 1988

Evidence That Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy
Results from Feeding Infected Cattle

R.F. Marsh* and G.R. Hartsough

•Department of Veterinary Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,
Wisconsin 53706; and ^Emba/Creat Lakes Ranch Service, Thiensville, Wisconsin 53092

Epidemiologic investigation of a new incidence of
transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME) in Stetsonville, Wisconsin
suggests that the disease may have resulted from feeding infected
cattle to mink. This observation is supported by the transmission of
a TME-like disease to experimentally inoculated cattle, and by the
recent report of a new bovine spongiform encephalopathy in



Since previous incidences of TME were associated with common or shared feeding
practices, we obtained a careful history of feed ingredients used over the past 12-18
months. The rancher was a "dead stock" feeder using mostly (>95%) downer or dead dairy
cattle and a few horses. Sheep had never been fed.

Experimental Transmission. The clinical diagnosis of TME was confirmed by
histopaihologic examination and by experimental transmission to mink after incubation
periods of four months. To investigate the possible involvement of cattle in this disease
cycle, two six-week old castrated Holstein bull calves were inoculated intracerebrally
with a brain suspension from affected mink. Each developed a fatal spongiform
encephalopathy after incubation periods of 18 and 19 months.

These findings suggest that TME may result from feeding mink infected cattle and
we have alerted bovine practitioners that there may exist an as yet unrecognized
scrapie-like disease of cattle in the United States (Marsh and Hartsough, 1986). A new
bovine spongiform encephalopathy has recently been reported in England (Wells et al.,
1987), and investigators are presently studying its transmissibility and possible
relationship to scrapie. Because this new bovine disease in England is characterized by
behavioral changes, hyperexcitability, and agressiveness, it is very likely it would be
confused with rabies in the United Stales and not be diagnosed. Presently, brains from
cattle in the United States which are suspected of rabies infection are only tested with
anti-rabies virus antibody and are not examined histopathologically for lesions of
spongiform encephalopathy.


WHEN a country looks to find BSE, they find it, when a country does everything in it's power not to find BSE, they conveniently dont find it. thus the agent amplifies and spreads silently due to incubation and on the farm burial. and then with the infamous BSE MRR policy, the agent spreads further across the globe, all strains, legally, all the while sitting back and pointing fingers at countries that are truly trying to locate and eradicate BSE/TSE, and these are the countries that take the biggest hit financially. it's like there punished by doing the right thing, so it would pay to do as the usa does, lie, cheat, and cover-up, and claim bse free. and export your tainted product across the globe too. be happy $$$

FACT IS, neither canada or the usa should be allowed to export, and the BSE MRR policy should be repealed. THE BSE GBR RISK ASSESSMENTS should be strictly enforced, and enhanced to include all TSE in all species, until science tells us otherwise, not politics. ...


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: