|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: TSS ()
BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA, A REVIEW OF SORTS HOW can they find anymore mad cows when the june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up was just that, the testing and protocol for testing was totally flawed, and proven to be so. they floundered every step of the way. and then when the atypicals started showing up, they just shut the testing down. the two suspect cows that samples sat on the shelf for 7+ months that was later confirmed, and the other suspect that sat on the shelf for 4 months, but later thought to be negative UNDER VERY QUESTIONABLE CONDITIONS, but could not have all the proper testing done on it, due to the sample being set in paraffin, which is a no no. they knew that, and that was the end around johanns and dehaven did after fong did the same to them on the 7 month delayed sample. all this done, while GW et al at the USDA were shoving down everyone throats the BSE MRR policy, the legal trading of all strains of TSE globally. ...tss Subject: USDA BSE inconclusive MRR policy USDA BSE inconclusive MRR policy FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse. FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA. ... By Steve Mitchell WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has The order, sent May 6 by e-mail from the USDA's Dallas district office, The deadly illness also is known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Both the USDA and its Inspector General -- amid allegations that an The order, which was obtained by UPI, was issued by Ijaz Qazi, circuit Although the language might sound innocuous, experienced inspectors The National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals -- the national Inspectors alleged the order also suggests the agency is concerned about "Anytime the government suppresses an individual's freedom of speech, Stanley Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council, said the USDA "It's an intimidation thing," Painter told UPI. Inspectors have the USDA spokesman Steven Cohen said he was not familiar with the notice Asked if employees could speak freely as long as they clarified that Qazi told UPI the notice was not issued in conjunction with the Texas Painter said the USDA's efforts to keep its employees from talking about "To keep federal employees from reporting government waste, misuse of "And believe me there's so many indicators saying that the USDA's mad At least one member of Congress, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, agrees. Harkin, a long-time critic of the USDA, sent a letter to Agriculture The USDA has proposed testing more than 200,000 cows -- or 10 times its "We simply cannot tolerate a BSE testing system that fails to give valid "We look forward to receiving (Harkin's) letter and having the Jim Rogers, a spokesman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection The question is central to the USDA's implementation of its expanded Furthermore, the USDA has not provided any evidence it has worked out Loyd said the agency is "working very hard to get animals on the farm However, he was unable to provide the names or locations of the -- Steve Mitchell is UPI's Medical Correspondent. E-mail sciencemail@upi.com Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040511-015527-4917r Subject: The IHC Test Variables (USA BSE SURVEILLANCE) The IHC Test Variables: • IHC has been the primary confirmatory test for USDA’s BSE surveillance program and is recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health, or OIE. • IHC allows scientists to determine if a sample is positive for BSE in two distinct ways: 1.) A staining technique (presence of abnormal prion protein) that uses antibodies to detect abnormal prion protein in the brain. 2.) A visual examination to determine whether there are lesions (holes or "spongy" appearances) present in the brain. • Several variables could yield conflicting results: o IHC is not a standardized, commercially available test. It involves variables, including several options in types of antibodies and other reactive agents. The sensitivity of any given test is influenced by those variables. o If the level of infectivity in the animal is extremely low, the abnormal prion in the brain will be minimal and therefore more difficult to detect. o Variations in the conditions under which the staining process is performed, such as chemicals and reactive agents used, temperature and length of antibody exposure, can also cause the test to yield different results. Testing History on This Animal: • In November 2004, a sample from this animal returned inconclusive for BSE on a Biorad screening test. • The sample was subjected to an IHC confirmatory test, which returned negative. • USDA scientists also ran an additional, experimental IHC "rapid" tissue fixation test for academic purposes, which can be conducted more quickly than the IHC confirmatory test and is therefore of interest to the scientific community, but it has not been approved internationally. • While some abnormalities were noted in the experimental IHC test results, because the test was not a validated procedure, and because the two approved IHC tests came back negative, the results were not considered to be of regulatory significance and therefore were not reported beyond the laboratory. • A Western blot test conducted the week of June 5, 2005, returned positive for BSE. • An additional IHC confirmatory test conducted the week of June 13, 2005, by USDA scientists utilizing different antibodies from the November 2004 test, confirmed this case as weakly positive for BSE. • The Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, England, conducted a series of diagnostic tests including an IHC, using different antibodies from those used by USDA in November 2004, which returned positive results for BSE. • Experts from the Weybridge lab confirmed the accuracy of the results of USDA’s November confirmatory IHC test, concurring that the case could not have been confirmed on the basis of this sample. • Weybridge experts also examined the November experimental IHC test and interpreted the results to be positive. Potential Causes of Conflicting Results: • USDA scientists are consulting with Weybridge scientists to determine the cause of the conflicting IHC test results. • Several factors could cause or contribute to the discrepancy as follows: o This animal had a very low level of infectivity and therefore the sensitivity of USDA’s routine IHC test might not have been sufficient to detect the disease. o Weybridge experts indicate that deposits of abnormal prion in the brain tissue were not uniformly distributed and were present at low concentration, which means that even adjacent samples of brain tissue might not give identical results. Factsheet Veterinary Services June 2005 APHIS USDA Protocol Review: • USDA will develop a protocol to conduct dual confirmatory tests, the IHC and the Western blot, when the screening test, the Biorad, returns an inconclusive result. • USDA and Weybridge scientists are in agreement that the Biorad test is a very effective and appropriate screening test. • USDA scientists will consult with Weybridge scientists to assess the array of antibodies available for use in IHC confirmatory tests to determine the most appropriate for use in United States confirmatory tests. Those consultations will be repeated periodically. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Safeguarding American Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • United States Department of Agriculture • http://www.usda.gov/documents/vs_bse_ihctestvar.pdf Friday, July 29, 2005 Ames lab to take over testing for mad cow disease By: Associated Press - Associated Press AMES, IA - Scientists at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories here soon will begin conducting their own Western blot tests, eliminating the need to travel to Weybridge, England, when initial rapid testing detects mad cow disease. "I think the change is good because we're more likely to know exactly what we're dealing with on each case," said Dr. Randall Levings, director of the labs. The change is a response to an order from U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns. "We took those as our marching orders," Levings said. Mad cow disease, formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, attacks a cow's nervous system. It is characterized by spongelike holes in the brain, the result of misshapen proteins called prions that kill brain cells. The only way it is known to spread is by cattle eating infected brain and nerve tissue from other cows. That's why the government in 1997 banned the use of cattle feed that contains remnants of other cows. Of the three cases of mad cow confirmed in the United States, all three cows were born before the feed ban, Levings said. Since January 2004, the government has tested more than 400,000 cows for the disease, using a rapid screening test and a test known immunohistochemistry, or IHC. Rapid testing of a sample involves removing normal proteins and adding chemicals that bind to the abnormal proteins, making them visible. The IHC test involves staining paper-thin brain tissue samples to highlight the abnormal protein. The Western blot test, conducted at Weybridge destroys normal proteins in the brain, leaving only the abnormal prions. In June, the nation's Office of Inspector General ordered a review of the Ames lab's testing procedures after a sample last fall tested positive in England, but negative in Ames. A rapid test on the sample in Ames detected the presence of BSE, but the following IHC test was negative. Ames workers also relayed the results of the test, but did not complete formal paperwork. A version of mad cow disease, known as variant Creutzfeld-Jakob, has killed about 150 people worldwide, most of them in Britain, where there was an outbreak in the 1990s. "We're taking all of the right steps," Levings said. "It would not be a risk to human or animal health in this country. It's not high. It's very, very low." IF not for the Honorable Phyllis Fong, that cow would have never been proven postive, well, documented anyway, it was proven postive time and time again... The Fong Syndrome strikes again. GW's BSE/TSE MRR policy a recipe for disaster. USA in dire straights. God help us... TSS Greetings, Susan Combs by no means has public and consumer health at heart while she is protecting the cattle industry. She is oblivious to mad cow disease. Her soul purpose is to protect the cattle industry at all cost, including my mothers life (DOD 12/14/97), or maybe one of your family members from any strain of mad cow disease in TEXAS. SHE helped cover-up mad cow disease in TEXAS both on that inconclusive that was positive so many times it will make your head spin. PLUS, the other mad cow in TEXAS they rendered without testing at all, that came from the top out of Austin. THEY should be tried for murder. corporate homicide is what i call it. they knew for years, but kept on keeping on. IF, that positive, positive, positive, inconclusive, negative, and then 8 months later POSITIVE BY WEYBRIDGE mad cow in TEXAS would not have been made public back in November, people like myself that KNEW that cow was positive and that the USDA/COMBs et al were covering it up due to lack of proper testing, IF that news would not have been brought fourth to the public, that cow would have NEVER tested positive for mad cow disease. it was the fact that the data that was put forth in the public domain, that the public came forth and demanded that the testing be done properly and retested. THIS is what the industry and Susan Combs does not want to happen. They wish to keep it private and to manipulate the markets to there benefit, and not release the mad cow data to the public. I wrote Susan Combs on many occasions about this positive, positive, positive, incl. neg., and finally POSITIVE TEXAS MAD COW and about the one that got away, but the only thing that Susan Combs does is send me back a bought and paid for rubber stamped letter from the USDA/Industry; Thank you for contacting the Texas Department of Agriculture about the isolated case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy found in a Texas cow. I can assure you there has been no cover up by the state’s cattle industry or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has kept the public informed at every step in the process. First and foremost, it is important to remember that the safety procedures worked. This animal was banned from the food or feed supply, and long-standing safeguards have been in place to protect public health. Because the animal was unable to walk, it was removed from the food supply and was processed at a facility that handles animals unsuitable for human consumption. The carcass was incinerated. Texas and American cattle producers are committed to producing and ensuring a safe food product – the same safe product their families are consuming. As far back as the late 1980s, the cattle industry began working with the U.S. government to take precautions and establish firewalls to protect public and animal health from BSE. The United States has had an active surveillance program for BSE since 1990 to test a representative sample of the adult cattle population in the United States. With the discovery of a Canadian cow in Washington state in 2003, USDA expanded the surveillance program to test hundreds of thousands of high risk animals The surveillance program is designed to specifically determine whether BSE exists in the U.S. cattle population and if so, at what level. The number of tests under the surveillance program far exceeds the level recommend by the World Animal Health Organization. With the original goal of testing 268,000 animals in a year, USDA would be able to find the disease if it occurred in as few as 1 in 10 million adult cattle with a 99 percent confidence level. Since the beginning of the program in June 2004, USDA has tested more than 400,000 animals and found only this one case, which confirms estimates that the prevalence of this disease in the U.S. cattle population is extremely low. In regards to this particular animal, the laboratory in Weybridge, England found a very low level of abnormal prion protein in the brain. In addition, the abnormalities were isolated and not consistent throughout the brain – making it possible for one sample to test negative while another sample might test positive, which was the reason for the varying results. Our cattle producers are working hard to produce the safest beef product in the world, and their strong vigilance is a solid commitment to American consumers. Sincerely, Susan Combs Commissioner -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- no cover-up of mad cow disease in Texas ??? if not, then maybe you can explain the 7+ month delay in the announcement of the secret postive test on that postive, positive, inconclusive, negative, postive, cow that WAS going to be slaughtered for human consumption, but OR maybe you can explain to me the mad cow that got away. the one MAD COW TEXAS rendered without testing at all. please explain these things to me if there is no cover up of TEXAS MAD COW disease??? thank you, I am sincerely, Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse. FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA. Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison). FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs. To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle. Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry. FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger. #### http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html .1 gram is lethal; THE TEXAS GONZALES/PURINA INCIDENT SHOWED THAT 5.5 GRAMS OF FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FDA ANNOUNCES TEST RESULTS FROM TEXAS FEED LOT Today the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of tests FDA has determined that each animal could have consumed, at most and in It is important to note that the prohibited material was domestic in According to Dr. Bernard Schwetz, FDA's Acting Principal Deputy Despite this negligible risk, Purina Mills, Inc., is nonetheless FDA believes that Purina Mills has behaved responsibly by first This episode indicates that the multi-layered safeguard system put into FDA will continue working with USDA as well as State and local officials http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2001/NEW00752.html From: TSS (216-119-144-34.ipset24.wt.net) Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in primates Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog, Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salčs, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe Deslys Published online January 27, 2005 USDA did not test possible mad cows By Steve Mitchell WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims it USDA officials said the difference is made up in animals tested at state In addition, the state lab figures were not included in a March 2004 "This is just adding to the demise of USDA's credibility," said Felicia "If the USDA is going to exclude from testing the animals most likely to Nestor, who has monitored the USDA's mad cow surveillance program Concerns about the number of cows in U.S. herds with brain disorder The Texas incident has alarmed the public and members of Congress Dr. Peter Lurie, of the consumer group Public Citizen, said CNS cows "CNS animals are far and away the most important animals to test," said "If there's any category that needs 100 percent testing, that's it, USDA officials said the agency has no estimate on how many CNS cows After failing to respond to repeated requests from UPI for clarification "We also include data reported to us from state veterinary diagnostic "We were not using any other labs during this period, other than (the However, the state labs did not use the immunohistochemistry test, which The histopathology test, unlike the IHC test, does not detect prions -- According to the USDA's Web site, histopathology proves reliable only if That is one reason the agency began using the IHC test -- it can confirm The state labs used histopathology to screen 266 CNS cases in FY 2003, Linda Detwiler, a former USDA veterinarian who oversaw the agency's mad Other mad cow disease experts, however, said having a back-up test such The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations offers The USDA seems to agree on the need for a back-up test. Its expanded "Subtle changes can be missed on histopathology that would probably not "Therefore I believe it is valuable to run (histopathology)," Mumford She noted that in Europe, two tests -- neither one the histopathology Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and chief executive officer of the "There were cases which were (histopathology) negative but still clearly He agreed with Detwiler that histopathology should be suitable for most "It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the subtle changes Loyd asserted the additional CNS cases from the state labs actually According to data the USDA provided to the House Committee on Government The USDA surveillance plan document makes no mention of the number of USDA officials also did not include the state lab figures in response to Loyd did not respond to a request from UPI asking why agency officials The committee has taken note of the CNS issue and plans to delve into it "The committee will explore this and other issues surrounding USDA and -- Steve Mitchell is UPI's Medical Correspondent. E-mail sciencemail@upi.com Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040608-014607-3865r ''USDA gets a D or D minus," said Caroline Smith Dewaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group based in Washington. ''The best thing that came out of this is the work of the inspector general." It was the department's in-house watchdog, Inspector General Phyllis Fong, who skirted the USDA hierarchy by ordering retesting with a different method more than six months after a routine second-round test, known as the immunohistochemistry, or IHC, test proved negative for the disease. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, who assumed office in January, has said he neither knew about nor authorized the retesting by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa. BESIDES the Texas mad cow that sat on the shelf for 7+ months before the Honorable Phyllis Fong of the OIG finally did the end around Johanns et al and finally had Weybridge bring that negative cow back from the dead to finally being a confirmed mad cow (hint, hint, getting MRR implemented first), was this simply another bumbling of BSE protocol, or just same old same old; USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623 Statement by Chief Veterinary Medical Officer John Clifford Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Regarding Non-Definitive BSE Test Results I would note that the sample was taken in April, at which time the protocols allowed for a preservative to be used (protocols changed in June 2005). The sample was not submitted to us until last week, because the veterinarian set aside the sample after preserving it and simply forgot to send it in. On that point, I would like to emphasize that while that time lag is not optimal, it has no implications in terms of the risk to human health. The carcass of this animal was destroyed, therefore there is absolutely no risk to human or animal health from this animal. Subject: Statement by Dr. John Clifford Regarding Non-Definitive BSE Test Results Jim Rogers (202) 690-4755 Statement by Dr. John Clifford Regarding Non-Definitive BSE Test Results Late yesterday, we received non-definitive test results on an animal sampled as part of a voluntary extension of our enhanced BSE surveillance program. USDA is conducting further testing at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa, in consultation with experts from the international reference laboratory in Weybridge, England. We are also sending samples from this animal to the Weybridge laboratory for further testing. It is important to note that this animal poses no threat to our food supply because it did not enter the human food or animal feed chains. The sample was submitted to us by a private veterinarian. As an extension of our enhanced surveillance program, accredited private veterinarians, who often visit farms in remote areas, collect samples when warranted. The sample in question today was taken from a cow that was at least 12 years of age and experienced complications during calving. The veterinarian treated the sample with a preservative, which readies it for testing using the immunohistochemistry (IHC) test - an internationally recognized confirmatory test for BSE. Neither the rapid screening test nor the Western blot confirmatory test can be conducted on a sample that has been preserved. Our laboratory ran the IHC test on the sample and received non-definitive results that suggest the need for further testing. As we have previously experienced, it is possible for an IHC test to yield differing results depending on the â?osliceâ?ť of tissue that is tested. Therefore, scientists at our laboratory and at Weybridge will run the IHC test on additional â?oslicesâ?ť of tissue from this animal to determine whether or not it was infected with BSE. We will announce results as soon as they are compiled, which we expect to occur by next week. Regardless of the outcome of the further testing, I want to emphasize that human and animal health in the United States are protected by a system of interlocking safeguards. The most important of these is the ban on specified risk materials from the food supply and the Food and Drug Administrationâ?Ts feed ban. And by any measure, the incidence of BSE in this country is extremely low. Our enhanced surveillance program is designed to provide information about the level of prevalence of BSE in the United States. We are extremely gratified that to date, all sectors of the cattle industry have cooperated in this program by submitting samples from more than 419,000 animals from the highest risk populations. To date, only one animal has tested positive for the disease as part of the surveillance program. These interlocking safeguards continue to protect our food supply. # Note to Reporters: USDA news releases, program announcements and media advisories are available on the Internet. Go to the APHIS home page at http://www.aphis.usda.gov and click on the â?oNewsâ?ť button. Also, anyone with an e-mail address can sign up to receive APHIS press releases automatically. Send an e-mail message to lyris@mdrdlyriss10.aphis.usda.gov "The sample was submitted to us by a private veterinarian. As an extension of our enhanced surveillance program, accredited private veterinarians who often visit farms in remote areas collect samples when warranted. The sample in question today was taken from a cow that was at least 12 years of age and experienced complications during calving. "The veterinarian treated the sample with a preservative which readies it for testing using the immunohistochemistry test, an internationally recognized confirmatory test for BSE. "Neither the rapid screening test nor the Western blot confirmatory test can be conducted on a sample that has been preserved. Our laboratory ran the IHC test on the sample and received non-definitive results that suggest the need for further testing. "As we have previously experienced, it is possible for an IHC test to yield differing results, depending on the slice of tissue that is tested. Therefore scientists at our laboratory and at Weybridge will run the IHC test on additional slices of tissue from this animal to determine whether or not it was infected with BSE. "We will announce results as soon as they are compiled, which we expect to occur by next week. o.k., let me get this right. i am pondering here;-) all the time this TEXAS positive, positive, (secret) positive, inconclusive, negative, then Weybridge confirmed 2nd BSE documented case (thanks to the Honorable Phyllis Fong), ============================================ IHC tests returned conflicting results on the Texas cow. Use of the preservative means that the other tests commonly done when mad cow is suspected, initial rapid screening and Western blot, can't be performed on this sample, the official said. Mr. Clifford said it's possible to get different results, "depending on the slice of tissue that is tested." The fatal brain-wasting disease is known medically as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. In people, eating tainted meat products has been linked to about 150 deaths from a fatal disorder called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Most of the deaths were in the United Kingdom, where there was an outbreak in the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. banned Canadian cattle in May 2003 following Canada's first case of mad-cow disease. The U.S. was about to lift the ban in March when U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull in Billings, Mont., granted an injunction to a ranchers' group called R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America. The ranchers had sued to keep the border closed to Canadian cattle, saying the disease presented a risk to the U.S. beef industry as well as to American consumers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the injunction earlier this month, allowing cattle shipments from Canada to resume. The lifting of the ban reopens the U.S. to cattle younger than 30 months and expands the list of beef products Canada is allowed to ship to the U.S. Older animals are still banned, because infection levels are believed to increase with age. Copyright © 2005 Associated Press http://online.wsj.com/ I BEG THE OIG and the Honorable Phyllis Fong to investigate this blunder too. there is no way that sample sat on a shelf while the world waited on that Texas mad cow blunder dust to settle, and someone just forgets about it. i just don't believe this either... In Reply to: Statement by Dr. John Clifford Regarding Non-Definitive BSE Test Results posted by TSS on July 27, 2005 at 12:37 pm: snip... Months later, Fong stepped in and ordered more tests. A ''Western blot" test proved positive, as did later tests at a lab in Weybridge, England. Finally in June, two days after the Weybridge lab confirmed the mad cow case, a chastened USDA announced that in addition to the routine IHC test, it was adopting the Western blot procedure whenever an initial ''BioRad" screening test indicates mad cow disease is possible. In addition, backup tests will now be conducted at Britain's national veterinary laboratory in Weybridge when earlier test results conflict or are inconclusive. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/07/faults_in_usda_testing_cited/ NOT to forget ; r i g h t ............ WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- The federal laboratory in Ames, Iowa, that The veterinarians also claim the facility -- part of the USDA and known http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040209-061848-3665r -------- Original Message -------- I respectfully request a full inquiry into the cover-up of TSEs Thank you, In Reply to: Re: Transcript Ag. Secretary Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test Results posted by TSS on June 13, 2005 at 7:33 pm: Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman resigns Nov 15 2004, three days -------- Original Message -------- Texas single beef cow not born in Canada no beef entered the food chain? and i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping up forsomething, I HAVE NO ACTUAL CONFIRMATION YET... can you confirm???terry Carla At 09:44 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote: >Greetings Carla, >>i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is from >TEXAS. can you comment on this either way please? >>thank you, >Terry S. Singeltary Sr.>> At 06:05 PM 11/22/2004, you wrote: >why was the announcement on your TAHC site removed? >>Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: >November 22: Press Release title here >>star image More BSE information >>>>terry >>Carla Everett wrote: >>>no confirmation on the U.S.'inconclusive test... >>no confirmation on location of animal.>>>>>> By Steve Mitchell WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 (UPI) -- Federal agriculture officials did not test The U.S. Department of Agriculture's records of mad cow screenings, In addition, no mad cow tests were conducted during the two-year period In 2002, nearly every test conducted in Washington was on animals from http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040114-041124-1470r USDA 2003 We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't Subject: Canada’s Protocols for BSE Surveillance DOES NOT MANDATE WB CONFIRMATION Canadian Food Inspection Agency Canada’s Protocols for BSE Surveillance BSE testing in Canada is in full accordance with the guidelines recommended by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). The samples collected target the highest risk cattle. This includes animals over 30 months of age that are dead, down, dying or diseased. In addition, any cattle that are exhibiting symptoms consistent with BSE must be reported to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This targeted surveillance program is crucial to defining the level of BSE in Canada and to confirming the effectiveness of the measures in place to protect human and animal health from the disease. A robust surveillance program, with strong producer participation, gives domestic and international consumers confidence that Canada is taking responsible actions to monitor the health of the national herd. In June 2005, Canada exceeded its minimum testing target of 30,000 animals for the year and, as of August 1, more than 36,000 cattle had been tested. The Government of Canada continues to work with provincial governments to support and encourage the participation of Canadian cattle producers in the surveillance program. Preliminary Testing Procedures Evaluations conducted by the CFIA and agencies in other governments have found the tests to be 100% accurate for detecting BSE in cattle in later stages of the incubation period. Due to the high sensitivity of the tests, there are rare instances in which samples not infected with BSE may produce an initial reaction, thus necessitating re-testing. Second Round of Testing If the repeat tests are reactive, the sample is considered “inconclusive” for BSE, and the tissue from the animal is forwarded to the National BSE Reference Laboratory, National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease (NCFAD) in Winnipeg for confirmatory testing. The rapid test on an inconclusive sample is repeated at the National BSE Reference Laboratory and if the test is again reactive, the sample is considered to be a BSE “suspect” and is subject to confirmatory testing. Even if this third rapid test is negative, a confirmatory test (immunohistochemistry or OIE Western Blot) is run for quality assurance purposes. Confirmatory Testing The OIE Western Blot test may be performed on the sample in addition to, or as an alternative to, the IHC test. It is always used on poor quality tissue samples when it may not be possible to conduct the IHC test, or on suspect samples where the IHC is negative. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bseesbsurve.shtml (immunohistochemistry or OIE Western Blot) should read ; (immunohistochemistry AND OIE Western Blot) WHY ASK for the blunders and the risks by not using WB, as been documented by the USDA et al in the USA??? WHY even go there??? IF the WB picks up detection where the IHC does not, then why are we even discussing this, IF they were truly trying to find and eradicate BSE/TSE$$$ IHC AND WB should be used for confirmation of any inconclusive. Subject: Re: Canada’s Protocols for BSE Surveillance DOES NOT MANDATE WB CONFIRMATION In Reply to: Canada’s Protocols for BSE Surveillance DOES NOT MANDATE WB CONFIRMATION posted by TSS on August 4, 2005 at 1:16 pm: indeed i did read the last line, i just think any confusion should be Effect of Tissue Deterioration on Postmortem BSE Diagnosis by Hiroko HAYASHI1), Masuhiro TAKATA1), Yoshifumi IWAMARU1), Yuko USHIKI1)2), 1) Prion Disease Research Center, National Institute of Animal Health ABSTRACT. Surveillance for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in fallen [PDF (96K)] [References] To cite this article: http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jvms/66/5/66_515/_article Another problem in testing fallen stock for BSE may arise from unequal It has been shown that sample autolysis does not affect detection of PrPSc FULL TEXT 6 PAGES; > I would be more worried about the latest USA suspect where no WB can be This birthday you have something to be thankful for (with a picture of GW on SO why should he care, he will not be in office, but the markets will be The CFIA created a National TSE Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory Network in 2001 to ensure consistency of diagnostic testing nationally. The network includes CFIA TSE reference laboratories, CFIA and provincial network laboratories. Standard operating procedures (Appendix 4), control material and panels are provided by the federal laboratories as part of a Quality Assurance Program. Training and research are also provided. Quality assurance and biosafety guidelines were distributed early in 2002. 5.2. Diagnostic Tests All samples are tested by histopathology (H&E) and some are tested by IHC (see Appendix 4 for test standard operating procedures). According to the OIE Manual of Standards (OIE, 2000), surveillance for BSE requires laboratory examination of brain from clinically suspect animals by histopathology and, if necessary, other methods described in the manual (i.e. western blot, scrapie-associated-fibril examination and detection of abnormal PrP by immunohistochemistry). Prior to the opening of the NCFAD laboratory (1997), testing for BSE was performed at the ADRI, Ottawa. At this laboratory, the validation of IHC using a polyclonal antibody on central nervous tissue began in 1994 and was completed in 1995. Validation of the IHC test for BSE using a monoclonal antibody was carried out at the National BSE Reference Laboratory at NCFAD/CFIA in Winnipeg in 2001 (Czub 2002). As of January 2002, the provinces of Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan have introduced IHC testing in their laboratories. The province of Manitoba has the option to send samples to Saskatchewan for IHC, and the province of Quebec is currently acquiring laboratory capability for IHC testing (Greenwood 2002). To ensure consistency of diagnostic testing across all laboratories, the CFIA initiated a National TSE Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory Network in 2001 (see Section 5.1.3 for details). While less than half of Canada’s BSE surveillance samples have historically been tested by IHC (see Table 2), by the end of 2002 more than 90% of all BSE samples will be tested by this method. Confirmatory testing of a BSE suspect sample is carried out at the National BSE Reference Laboratory at NCFAD/CFIA in Winnipeg. Rapid Tests: Rapid tests for BSE diagnosis are not currently used in Canada; however, the CFIA is evaluating certain rapid tests used in Europe. Once the technology has been obtained and standardized in the National BSE Reference Laboratory in Winnipeg, the CFIA will consider application of these tests in the Canadian BSE Surveillance Program. 2In some countries, the terminology “fallen stock” is used for animals described herein as “non-ambulatory” or “animals found dead.” 3Total Cow Population 5,574,000 (dairy cows 1,122,400, beef cows 4,451,600) Source: 1996 Agricultural Census. Date: February 28, 2007 at 7:57 am PST O.I.E. SELLS THERE SOUL TO THE DEVIL AND WILL REPEAT WHAT THE U.K. DID, http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=498 IN A NUT SHELL ; (Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 23 May 2006) 11. Information published by the OIE is derived from appropriate declarations made by the official Veterinary Services of Member Countries. http://www.oie.int/eng/Session2007/RF2006.pdf SO, the OIE BSE MRR status, is based on whatever information and data the given BSE countries give them to go by.
|
