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

From: TSS (
Date: December 31, 2004 at 8:55 am PST

In Reply to: Re: Dr. Ron DeHaven DOING THE MAD COW TEXAS TWO-STEP AGAIN posted by TSS on December 30, 2004 at 3:01 pm:

-------- Original Message --------
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:41:56 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
References: <> <>

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################

> * Dec. 30: CFIA begins definitive laboratory immunohistochemistry test
> on sample in Winnipeg lab with results expects as early as Saturday
> but more likely on Monday...

are they this stupid or do they just not know about the
atypical cases and the fact that immunohistochemistry
misses some of them ???

WHY no OIE WB done $$$

> Diagnosis:
> - The brain sample from the bullock tested positive to the ELISA-based
> bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) screening test, and was sent to
> the National Institute of Infectious Disease for confirmation and was
> subjected to Western blot analysis, histopathological examination and
> immunohistochemical examination. Based on these results, this case was
> concluded as an atypical BSE on 6 October 2003.
> - Result of Western blot analysis: PrPsc (scrapie-associated prion
> protein) was detected, the pattern of glycoform and relative protease
> resistance of PrPsc were different from what is known for BSE. Results
> of histopathological examination and immunohistochemical examination
> were negative.

IF we look at # 8 and # 9 cows, they seem to be very similar to the USA
positives that turn out to be negative all the time;

>8. 6/10/2003 Holstein Steer 13/10/2001 23 mths
> No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP-

>9. 4/11/2003 Holstein Steer 13/1/2002
>21 mths No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP-

NOW, what does the USDA say about negative IHC ;

> John Clifford of the USDA said in a statement that the negative IHC
> results "makes us confident that the animal in question is indeed
> negative."

SURE it does, i suppose this is why they refused to do a WB$


> A U.S. veterinarian knowledgeable about mad cow tests told UPI that
> experts she has spoken with are "very, very skeptical about" the
> USDA's negative test result.
> The veterinarian, who requested anonymity because she feared
> repercussions for speaking out against the USDA, said the skepticism
> arose because the agency did not run another kind of mad cow test
> called a Western blot. The test sometimes can pick up positive cases
> that IHC misses and the agency has used it in the past to rule out
> suspect cases.

THUS, the infamous 'USA June 2004 ENHANCED BSE COVER-UP' continues, and
the agent continues to spread, expose and kill.

Neuropathology: Confirmatory diagnosis of transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in cattle and sheep


TSE EU Community Reference Laboratory June 2004
Inconclusive (histopathology):
Insufficient vacuolation of neuropil for unequivocal confirmation by
above criteria.
Inconclusive (immunohistochemistry):
Presence of equivocal immunostaining confined to the TSE neuropil target
Unsuitable (histopathology):
Inadequate submission due to either poor (or no) representation of
target sites, or
the presence of severe confounding autolytic (or other artefactual) changes.
Lesions indicative of an alternative neuropathological diagnosis which
assessment of TSE target sites for the presence or absence of specific
Unsuitable (immunohistochemistry):
Absence of appropriate target sites. Technical failures. Failure of
positive run
Negative (histopathology):
Absence of characteristic neuropil vacuolation in sections where the
target areas
can be confidently identified and assessed.
Lesions indicative of an alternative neuropathological diagnosis which
still allow
adequate assessment of target areas.
Negative (immunohistochemistry):
Absence of immunostaining in target areas. Must be able to identify
target sites.
Appropriate positive control.
TSE EU Community Reference Laboratory June 2004



4. The VLA have applied several different methods to the sample to
compare it to a wide range of previously detected scrapie cases,
experimental BSE in sheep and an experimental strain of scrapie, termed
CH1461. Two main methods have been used in this analysis:-

a. Western blot (WB)

This involves taking a sample of the brain and treating it with an
enzyme proteinase k to destroy the normal prion protein (PrPC). The
diseased form of the protein (PrPSc) is able to withstand this treatment
and is then separated from other cellular material on a gel. A blot is
taken of the gel and the PrPSc is visualised using specific antibodies.

b. Immunohistochemistry (IHC)

This involves taking thin slices of the brain, and by using special
(antibody) markers to detect the PrPSc it is possible to see disease
specific patterns of PrPSc distribution in the brain under a microscope.

The Western blot method found that the sample did not appear to resemble
previously recognised cases of scrapie and, although there were some
differences, some characteristics were similar to experimental BSE in
sheep and also the experimental strain of sheep scrapie, CH1461. IHC
found that it neither resembled previously recognised types of scrapie
or experimental BSE in sheep

5. The tissue sample has now been analysed using a total of 5 different
diagnostic methods claiming to be able to differentiate between scrapie
and experimental BSE in sheep. Two were performed at the VLA and three
were performed in other European laboratories.


>Dear Terry,
>>"If the USDA is going to exclude from testing the animals
>>most likely to have the disease, that would seem to have a
>>very negative impact on the reliability of their conclusion,"
>>said Nestor, who has closely monitored the USDA's mad
>>cow surveillance program for several years.
>many people among farmers and authorities are not at all
>interested in getting BSE cases, because BSE cases tend
>to be economically harmful. Of course they will do what they
>can in order to hide mad cows. Therefore you will always
>run into such manipulations as long as not all cattle have
>to become tested. In addition it needs a system for the
>identification and tracing each single cow in order to make
>sure that symptomatic cattle do not become excluded
>from testing.
>In Germany we had exactly the same systematic problems
>until 2000. The legislation offered the chance to hide
>putative BSE cases and so farmers and authorities used
>this chance to stay "BSE-free".
>>However, the state labs did not use the immunohistochemistry
>>test, which the USDA has called the "gold standard" for
>>diagnosing mad cow disease. Instead, the labs used a
>>different test called histopathology, which the USDA itself
>>does not use to confirm a case, opting instead for the more
>>sensitive IHC test.
>Even immunohistochemistry (IHC) often fails to identify TSE
>cases which are easily detected by more sensitive and reliable
>methods like OIE western blot and BioRad rapid test. This
>is not only because sample preparation is not very easy
>and because you have to examine many different tissue
>samples. Even extremely experienced labs repeatedly failed
>to identify BSE and scrapie cases with this method. You
>can find several examples for that in my chronicle of the
>German BSE cases mainly in 2001.
> or:
>Especially with very young BSE cattle in Germany and Japan
>IHC failed to produce positive results.
>In Germany 38 scrapie cases were identified with the
>BioRad rapid test and within our national reference lab
>24 of them could not become confirmed with both Prionics
>tests. In addition the very experienced specialists in this
>lab were unable to verify 6 of this 38 cases with ICH even
>when they tried several different antibodies. They needed
>the OIE western blot in order to confirm this cases.
> or:
>>The histopathology test, unlike the IHC test, does not detect
>>prions -- misfolded proteins that serve as a marker for
>>infection and can be spotted early on in the course of the
>>illness. Rather, it screens for the microscopic holes in the
>>brain that are characteristic of advanced mad cow disease.
>The real problem is not that BSE not always results in
>spongiform degeneration of the brain. Much more serious
>is the problem that there are so many possible reasons
>for vacuolation. I saw protocols of using histopathology
>for BSE testing. In this protocols a German Professor
>wrote that indeed he found holes in the brains, but could
>not decide if this holes were from BSE or autolysis or
>other diseases. He therefore did not confirm that this
>animals had BSE. This is the real reason why this
>method is so comfortable for authorities who are not
>interested to get BSE cases. In Germany this method
>work perfectly well and we had only a few imported BSE
>cases until a few companies introduced voluntary
>Prionics checks. Now you can see in my chronicle of
>the Germans BSE cases that with this strategy we
>just missed the peak of the German BSE epididemic.
>We had the maximum of our registered cases during
>the first months of testing and declining numbers since
>>According to the USDA's Web site, histopathology proves
>>reliable only if the brain sample is removed soon after the
>>death of the animal. If there is too much of a delay, the Web
>>site states, it can be "very difficult to confirm a diagnosis
>>by histopathology" because the brain structures may have
>>begun to disintegrate.
>>That is one reason the agency began using the IHC test -- it
>>can confirm a diagnosis if the brain has begun disintegrating
>>or been frozen for shipping.
>Histopathology and ICH both are methods that are expensive
>and need a lot of time. It is therefore impossible to test
>slaughtered cattle without serious economical problems
>using this methods. This raises the question why authorities
>prefer this methods instead of using cheap, reliable, fast and
>sensitive rapid tests. The only reason that I can imagine is
>that they simply don't want to find BSE in their country.
>>Linda Detwiler, a former USDA veterinarian who oversaw the
>>agency's mad cow testing program, told UPI the histopathology
>>test probably is adequate for screening CNS cows. If they
>>have mad cow disease, she said, it would likely be an
>>advanced stage that should be obvious.
>This is the sort of statements with which some "scientists"
>damage peoples trust in independant science. This may be
>good for her career, but not for the scientific community.
>>Other mad cow disease experts, however, said having a back-up
>>test such as IHC would be advisable, because histopathology
>>tests sometimes can miss evidence of infection.
>>The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
>>offers similar recommendations in its protocol for conducing
>>a histopathology test. The protocol states that even if
>>histopathology is negative, "further sampling should be
>>undertaken" in cases "where clinical signs have strongly
>>suggested BSE" -- a criteria that includes all of the cows
>>tested at the state labs.
>Recent research resulted in the understanding that there are
>several different presentations and strains of scrapie and BSE
>that make it very difficult to detect them with some of our
>normal methods. Benestad et al. were the first who saw
>the problem of protease K sensitive PrpSc in some cases
>of scrapie (
>Teams in Japan, Italy and France found atypical cases of
>BSE in which there were extremely low levels of PrpSc
>within the obex, which is the part of the brain from which
>the probes for BSE tests are taken.
>And specialists of the French and German reference labs
>demonstrated how difficult it can be to identify scrapie
>cases: or:
>It is therefore necessary to take TSE testing somewhat
>more seriously. Histopathology is no useful method if
>you want to get reliable TSE diagnoses. IHC is clearly
>no method which can disproof positive results from
>BioRad ELISA. In fact it needs a combination of all
>available methods to do that. In addition recent results
>clearly demonstrated that we urgently need new methods
>for TSE testing. We especially need methods that do
>not need protease digestion in order to remove the
>normal prion protein PrpC, because there are TSE
>strains with protease sensitive PrpSc. IR-spectroscopy
>is one such method and there are several other new
>methods in the pipeline. But until such new methods are
>available, scrapie testing should be done with BioRad
>ELISA only and BSE screening should be done with
>one of the available rapid tests - not with histopathology
>or IHC.
>kind regards

Current BSE diagnosis procedure

When BSE suspects are slaughtered, the primary test for diagnosis is

>that is unless the USA finds a positive with the histopathology. then
check again, and it's positive,
then finally they get a negative on the third try and call that
confirmatory without doing OIE WB $$$<

This is the gold standard against which all the other tests have to be
validated, and continues to be used to ensure that any variations in the
pathology of BSE during the epidemic are detected. This is also a
requirement of the agreed European Union Diagnostic Manual and of the
World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).


Defra’s position

Currently in the UK, in addition to Western Blots and
Immunohistochemistry, the Bio-Rad TeSeE test is used for the routine
diagnosis of scrapie cases and suspect BSE cases born after 1996. Defra
is also supporting the development and validation of the Immuno
Capillary Electrophoresis (ICE) test.

> "We are working closely with Canadian officials as they conduct their
> investigation into this situation."

OH GOD, THIS is my major concern here $$$

PLEASE see full text pdf below and see why this administration
decided to not test mad cows that are stumbling and staggering in

- Letter to USDA


still disgusted in Bacliff, Texas ...TSS

Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:

> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
> Canada gives test timeline for suspect mad cow
> WINNIPEG, Manitoba, Dec 30 (Reuters) - Canada's suspect mad cow was
> first sampled by a veterinarian on an Alberta farm on Dec. 17, the
> Canadian Food Inspection Agency said on Thursday.
> Following is a chronology of the case, as detailed by the CFIA during
> a news conference on Thursday:
> * Dec. 17: Private veterinarian takes sample from 10-year-old cow on
> an Alberta farm identified as a "downer" or nonambulatory animal --
> one of the groups considered at a higher risk for carrying mad cow
> disease.
> * Dec. 23: Sample arrives at provincial laboratory in Edmonton,
> Alberta, for testing.
> * Dec. 28: Lab runs duplicate tests from Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc.
> > on sample. Results are "non-negative."
> * Dec. 29: Lab repeats duplicate Bio-Rad tests, with same results.
> * Dec. 29: Lab forwards results to Canadian Food Inspection Agency
> laboratory in Winnipeg, which runs duplicate rapid tests using kit
> from Prionics AG. Tests are again positive.
> * Dec. 29: CFIA advises U.S. Department of Agriculture of preliminary
> results before the USDA announces plans to relax a ban on imports of
> young, live Canadian cattle.
> * Dec. 30: CFIA issues news release on preliminary results.
> * Dec. 30: CFIA begins definitive laboratory immunohistochemistry test
> on sample in Winnipeg lab with results expects as early as Saturday
> but more likely on Monday.
> 12/30/04 14:11 ET
> THIS is what we call protecting our borders?
> and citizens?
> just more BSeee $$$...TSS
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:


Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: