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

From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. (
Subject: Re: ''INCONCLUSIVE'' IS NEGATIVE or so they claim...OFFICIAL REPORT more BSeee
Date: February 1, 2005 at 3:18 pm PST

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: ''INCONCLUSIVE'' IS NEGATIVE or so they claim...OFFICIAL REPORT
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:59:27 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
References: <> <>

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

INTERESTING comments in this old newspaper article i ran
across ;

Nov 22 2004 07:09 PM MST CBC News

USDA approves live cattle, border reopening could take months


Also on Monday, the USDA said test results on a suspected case of mad
cow are inconclusive, which means further tests will be done. Canadian
authorities have been told that the cow, from Texas, didn't have the
metal ID tag that cows born here are given.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:07:51 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla Everett
References: <>

ok, thank you Carla.
i hate rumors and 'inconclusive' announcements.

kind regards,

Carla Everett wrote:

> our computer department was working on a place holder we could post
> USDA's announcement of any results. There are no results to be
> announced tonight
> by NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA
> announcement
> when we hear something.
> 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.

I still want my Texas mad cows confirmed BY WB!


Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:

> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
> Greetings list members,
> I find this very very disturbing. IN fact i will say that if the
> do not get a second opinion from the experts overseas, I would say
> that there is a cover-up. WE now know that they are willing to do
> anything to cover-up BSE in the USA by what they did with the other
> stumbling and staggering cow they refused to TSE test and sent to the
> render in TEXAS. IN fact I am hearing from International experts on
> TSE that they do NOT buy the latest USDAs test result. why should they?
> Seems they did not even do a western blot from what i was told. They run
> two rapid test that turn up positive, but the USDA finds that to be
> inconclusive.
> They also said they would not be telling us of any 'inconclusive', but
> they did.
> SO, why was it announced? I will tell you why, because the likelihood
> of it
> being positive was very high. Even the CEO of BioRAD and Prionics said
> this.
> IN fact, USDA has never said they would run 2 IHC, so again, why did they
> this time? I will tell you why, they wanted a negative so bad, they
> would test
> the samples until they found a portion of the brain/tissue sample that
> would not show a positive. THIS REEKs of industry/political
> manipulation. I cannot believe that our foreign alies/exporting
> countries (if there is any left), continue
> to risk there people through the lies from this administration. why won't
> USDA et al send samples for independent examinations if they are still
> having
> such a hard time with this? what do they have to hide? IF both the
> TSE laboratory in Waybride, England and the University of Bern,
> Switzerland
> (OIE Reference Laboratory) dont get a sample of this tissue from this cow
> to give second opinions, then in my opinion that cow was positive.
> Hell, we get official slides of Japan's infected samples to survey.
> but in the USA, it's all closed doors now and they will test the damn
> animal
> as many times as it takes to get a negative. total bull sh!t
> encephalopathy this
> is, what i call BSeee, politics at it's finest hour. when will it all
> end$
> IF we look at the original U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform
> Encephalopathy Response Plan Summary i posted in 1999,
> it states very clearly;
>> If additional tests do suggest a presumptive diagnosis of BSE, an NVSL
>> pathologist will hand carry the sample to the United Kingdom for
>> confirmation. It is at this critical point, when NVSL suggests a
>> diagnosis of BSE and is preparing to send the sample to the United
>> Kingdom, that this BSE Response Plan is initiated. The Plan begins the
>> preliminary notification from NVSL to APHIS...
> snip...end
> BUT this administration has clearly shown they have no rules and
> regulations, they change them with the wind to suit there needs$
> for full text,
> Subject: U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan
> Summary
> Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 18:25:12 -0500
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> Reply-To: BSE-L
> To: BSE-L
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:
>> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
>> #####################
>> Release No. 0508.04
>> Statement by John Clifford, Deputy Administrator- Animal & Plant
>> Health Inspection Service
>> November 23, 2004
>> "The USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames,
>> Iowa, has determined that the inconclusive screening test sample
>> reported on Nov. 18 has tested negative for BSE upon confirmatory
>> testing.
>> "The Nov. 18 sample is the first that has tested inconclusive under
>> an APHIS protocol announced in August that calls for public reporting
>> of screening results only after two reactive screens. NVSL used the
>> immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, an internationally-recognized gold
>> standard test for BSE, and received a negative result on Nov. 22.
>> Because the Nov. 18 screening test results were reactive in both the
>> first and second screens, NVSL scientists made the recommendation to
>> run the IHC test a second time. On Nov. 23 they reported the second
>> IHC test was negative. Negative results from both IHC tests makes us
>> confident that the animal in question is indeed negative for BSE.
>> "APHIS began an enhanced surveillance program on June 1 and to date
>> has tested over 121,000 samples for BSE. Screening tests are
>> designed to be extremely sensitive and false positives are not
>> unexpected. APHIS has reported three inconclusives including the
>> Nov. 18 sample and all have tested negative on confirmatory testing."
>> #
>> USDA News
>> 202 720-4623
>> TSS
>> ##############
>> ##############
> ##############
> ##############

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

Experts doubt USDA's mad cow results

By Steve Mitchell
Medical Correspondent

Published 11/24/2004 4:34 PM

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24 (UPI) -- U.S. Department of Agriculture officials said a cow that initially tested positive for mad cow disease was found to be negative on follow-up tests, but both domestic and international experts told United Press International the way the agency handled the situation leaves them skeptical about the validity of the results.

"The testing process does indeed make experts scratch their heads," said Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and chief executive officer of the Swiss firm Prionics, which manufactures tests for detecting mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

"I think some, but not all, BSE people internationally have some degree of cynical de facto doubt about everything the United States does or doesn't do, mostly as a result of seeing so many similar situations where countries at risk deny and deny and deny and then end up having big problems," said Elizabeth Mumford, a veterinarian and BSE expert at Safe Food Solutions in Bern, Switzerland, a company that provides advice on reducing mad cow risk to industry and governments.
Several countries, including Germany and Austria, that had been thought to be free of the disease, found out it was circulating in their herds after they initiated large-scale testing.
The U.S. cow in question tested positive last week on two so-called rapid tests manufactured by Bio-Rad Laboratories in Hercules, Calif. The USDA said Tuesday the animal had tested negative on more sophisticated confirmatory tests called immunohistochemistry or IHC tests.

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."

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.
Moser said a Western blot test would make sense for the United States, where the prevalence of mad cow is thought to be low. Other countries -- including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Mexico -- that are either free of the disease or have low rates, have elected to use the Western blot as part of their surveillance programs, he said.

The veterinarian said concerns also have emerged because the USDA has not made a sample from the cow in question available for examination by outside experts. She added that the USDA did not notify state officials, as officials previously said they would about positive results on rapid tests.
Knowledgeable people are saying "wait a minute, this doesn't add up here," the veterinarian said.
At stake is the $70 billion U.S. beef industry, including a $3.3 billion export market. More than 60 countries, including Japan, closed their borders to U.S. beef last December after the first -- and so far only -- U.S. case of mad cow was detected.

Asked whether state officials were notified, USDA spokesman Ed Loyd told UPI the agency had not released any information about the cow in question. Loyd also said the false positives on the rapid test were not unexpected. Since June, the USDA has reported three false positives out of more than 121,000 cows tested.

Bio-Rad spokeswoman Sam Kennedy told UPI the company was unfamiliar with the details of this incident and thus could not comment.

Mumford said experts were surprised the USDA did not send samples from the cow in question for independent analysis by one of the three worldwide labs recognized as the foremost authorities on mad cow testing by the World Animal Health Organization. One of these facilities is located in Weybridge, England, where the USDA had sent the first U.S. case of mad cow disease for confirmation in December 2003.

Loyd said USDA officials who would know whether USDA planned to release a sample for verification by an outside party could not be reached Wednesday.

"Full transparency and cooperation would certainly promote the idea internationally that the U.S. is doing everything it can do," Mumford said. "But somehow the U.S. consumer doesn't seem to think that way, or has been appeasable at least up until now, so there seems to be no impetus to do anything more."

The concern is humans can contract a fatal brain illness known as variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease from eating beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen.

Moser said despite USDA's reliance on the IHC test results, repeated negatives on that test does not necessarily rule out the cow being infected.

"The reason for this is that the IHC test ... is done on a different piece of tissue" than that used for the rapid test, he said. Prions, the pathogen thought to cause mad cow disease, tend to concentrate in a region of the brain called the obex, so the different outcomes of the different tests could be due to sampling a brain region that contains little or no prions.
This could be made worse if the animal had lay dead for several days before its brain was collected. The brain might be so degraded that it would be difficult to locate the obex region for confirmatory testing and a sample might mistakenly be taken from a region that contains no prions.
"So with these samples, the confirmatory testing would be even less reliable, not because of the confirmatory test itself, but because of the sampling," he said.


Copyright √ā¬© 2001-2004 United Press International

Get Copyright Clearance Want to use this article? Click here for options! Copyright 2004 United Press International

see threads ;





Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

E-mail: (optional)


Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: