SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: CONSUMER UNION ASKS FEDS TO RETEST SUSPECT MAD COW AFTER CRUCIAL TEST OMITTED !!!
Date: February 24, 2005 at 2:11 pm PST

In Reply to: CONSUMER UNION ASKS FEDS TO RETEST SUSPECT MAD COW AFTER CRUCIAL TEST OMITTED !!! posted by TSS on February 23, 2005 at 7:07 pm:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Consumers Union asks feds to retest suspect mad cow after crucial test omitted
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:05:18 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@LISTSERV.KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
References: <421D4324.8050405@wt.net>


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

GW SAYS DONT MESS WITH TEXAS OR ITS MAD COWS.
SOME HISTORY ON THOSE TEXAS MAD COWS.

United Press International: USDA vet: Texas mad cow breach not unique...
Published 5/4/2004 5:01 PM WASHINGTON

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040504-012834-2365r


United Press International: USDA orders silence on mad cow in ...
Published 5/11/2004 10:16 PM WASHINGTON

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040511-015527-4917r


Feds reviewing Texas mad cow breach - (United Press International)
By Steve Mitchell United Press International.
Washington, DC, May. 5 (UPI) -- The US Department ...

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040505-064316-1509r.htm

No mad cow tests at Texas firm in 2004

By Steve Mitchell
United Press International
Published 5/14/2004 11:06 AM

WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture did not
test any cows for mad cow disease in the past seven months at the same
Texas facility where federal testing policies for the deadly disorder
were violated last month, United Press International has learned.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040513-065401-5285r

USDA Ordered that Suspected Mad Cow in Texas Not Be Tested.
USDA's San Angelo vets and techs ordered not to test suspect cow.
by Daniel ...

USDA Ordered that Suspected Mad Cow in Texas Not Be Tested

USDA's San Angelo vets and techs ordered not to test suspect cow

by Daniel Yovich on 5/5/04 for Meatingplace.com

It was a trio of Agriculture Department staff < two veterinarians and one
technician < who were supposed to follow agency protocol by testing what
they determined was an older cow that likely had a central nervous system
disorder when it arrived April 27 at the Lone Star Beef plant in San Angelo,
Texas.

One government source and another within the industry, both of whom say they
have firsthand knowledge of events that day, said the final call on not to
test the animal was made by an APHIS supervisor in Austin, Texas, after an
APHIS technician at the plant advised her supervisor she was preparing to
take a tissue sample from the culled animal for BSE testing. Both sources
spoke to Meatingplace.com on condition of anonymity, and USDA officials did
not return telephone calls Tuesday seeking comment and confirmation of the
allegations.

What USDA has confirmed is that the agency's standard operating procedures
call for animals condemned due to a possible CNS disorder be kept until
APHIS officials can collect samples for testing. That clearly was done in
this case. The animal sat for more than 90 minutes and less than two hours
after it was condemned, stunned and killed before the APHIS tech told Lone
Star Beef management to dispose of the animal "in a routine manner."

As a condemned cow, there was never any chance that the meat from the animal
would enter the food chain. What is less clear is what went wrong at USDA
and why.

USDA spokesman Ed Loyd said the agency was conducting an investigation into
the issue < attempting to establish a timeline and chronology of who was
involved and who made the decisions last week in San Angelo.

What is clear, in the mind of the two sources who spoke to Meatingplace.com
, is that all three of USDA's key decision makers on the ground at the San
Angelo plant were overruled by a staffer with more authority in Austin.

"Everybody expected a test, and then the word came that there wasn't going
to be any test," one source said. "I'm not sure why that decision was made,
and I'm not going to speculate about the reasons for it. But I think what
USDA is going to find is that the final decision was made up the food chain,
and I think a lot of people will be interested in why that decision was
made."


http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/notest050704.cfm


Forums - Congressman Waxman's Letter and Texas Mad Cow
June 12th, 2004, 01:59 PM, #1. Terry. Registered User. Join Date: Oct
2002. Location:
Bacliff, Texas. Posts: 408. Congressman Waxman's Letter and Texas Mad
Cow. ...

http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4292&goto=nextnewest

MORE on that OTHER LITTLE OLD MAD COW FROM TEXAS (real player)

Assigned vet wanted it tested.

Gov. insp. over rided and decided not to test.

SYSTEM broken around the Country.

PROBLEMS NATION WIDE!

APHIS inspectors do not follow through.

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ME&showDate=07-May2004&segNum=8&mediaPref=RM

FDA LAME EXCUSE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Statement
May 4, 2004

Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA


Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms

On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a
cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to
a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.

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.


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html

OOPS...


Letter and Texas Mad Cow
Forums > Books by PR Watch Staff > Mad Cow USA > Congressman Waxman's
Letter
and Texas Mad Cow. View Full Version : Congressman Waxman's ...

http://www.prwatch.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-4359.html


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: MAD COW CONFIRMED TEXAS COW (rumor)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:16:23 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: BSE-L


http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/93583.html


Re: MAD COW CONFIRMED TEXAS COW (rumor)

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/93584.html


BSE ( test results ;-) Texas Animal Health Commission News Release ...

Counting that one and the other positive, positive, inconclusive, and
finally
declared and documented as negative cows (NO WB), the USA in my ...

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/93884.html

Re: ''INCONCLUSIVE'' IS NEGATIVE or so they claim...OFFICIAL ...

would not be telling us of any 'inconclusive', but > they ... because
the likelihood >
of it > being positive was very ... tell you why, they wanted a negative
so bad ...

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/93990.html


Forums - Mad Cow USA
... 2nd Positive Inconclusive Negative For Bse Usa; 1st Positive
Inconclusive Is Negative; ...
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON USDA’S DOWNED ANIMAL BAN: [Docket No. ...

http://www.prwatch.org/forum/archive/index.php/f-11.html


Forums - Dr. Ron DeHaven DOING THE MAD COW TEXAS TWO-STEP AGAIN
... Dec 2, that IHC- DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NEGATIVE. ... so many
errors (i am assuming X meant
inconclusive), why are ... at the sheep that tested IHC- but were
positive''. ...

http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5264


CJD WATCH... positive and histopathology and immunohistochemistry
negative) with the ... 2005 positive
The case was confirmed on ... Origin of infection: unknown or
inconclusive. ...

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=167318;article=1927;title=CJD%20WATCH

Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' IN USA, FROM TEXAS ???

... Date: February 1, 2005 at 3:08 pm PST. In Reply to: Re: BSE
'INCONCLUSIVE' IN USA,
FROM TEXAS ??? posted by TSS on November 19, 2004 at 9:41 am: ...

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/93989.html


BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' IN USA, FROM TEXAS ???

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/93563.html


Forums - View Single Post - Re: MAD COW CONFIRMED TEXAS COW (rumor ......
Harrison >> November 22, 2004 >> >> Test results for the BSE
inconclusive are not ...
was just this...damn, >> i will not sleep tonight/// >> TSS >> >>

http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showpost.php?p=12049&postcount=3


Forums - Bse Usa 'inconclusive' Test Reported Nov. 18, 2004
... Because this test is only an inconclusive test result, we ...
animal presented for slaughter is sampled for BSE, holding the ...
tss USDA News oc.news@usda.gov

http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5160


Nebraska Outdoor Forum: Study of Atypical Bse Project Number: 3625
.. ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/dec04/ TSS Terry S ... mice from the
experimental cow brain
had been inconclusive. ... clinical signs of brain lesions
characteristic of BSE. ...

http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000385


CJD WATCH

... that the USA is now facing, an epidemic of > ''INCONCLUSIVE''
TSEs...TSS > > Terry
S ... 5:15 this evening, we were notified that an >> inconclusive BSE
test result ...


http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=167318;article=1490;title=CJD%20WATCH


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:12:06 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: BSE-L


US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED

The US plans to measure the incidence
of mad cow disease in its cattle with a
test that its own officials have said gives
too many false positives. Some experts
fear the choice reflects an official desire
to downplay the impact of the first
positive BSE tests that emerge, when
they turn out not to be confirmed.

Last week the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) approved two tests,
including one made by the Californian
firm BioRad, for screening up to 300,000
cattle for BSE, starting in July. No more
tests will be licensed for months.
Announcing the testing plan, chief
veterinary officer Ron DeHaven cautioned
that "there will be positive results",
many of them false.

BioRad's antibody-based test for the
prion protein that causes BSE has given
numerous false positives in Belgium and
Germany. And in Japan only 8 of 113 cattle
that repeatedly tested positive with
BioRad were confirmed by slower tests
that do not give false positives.

The USDA even wrote last May that
"it is well known" that tests like
BioRad's give false positives. It states
that other kinds of quick tests are more
suitable for testing for very low levels of
BSE, which are expected in the US.

The second quick test approved by
the USDA, made by Maine-based IDEXX,
could also in theory give false positives.
It remains unclear how reliable it is,
because there has been little practical
experience with the test so far. It is not
yet approved for use in Europe, where
the vast majority of BSE tests are done.


Debora MacKenzie,
Brussels correspondent,
New Scientist.
tel +32-2-245-0412
fax +32-2-245-0552
mobile +32-49-754-0444

http://www.newscientist.com/
=======================

Greetings,

odd that the USDA et al approves two US-OWNED tests that are
_known_ to give false positives, when they know other rapid
TSE test are much more reliable. IT's like they purposely do
not want to find any TSE in the USA bovine, so they pick the
worst test available. The USDA own experts think BioRad is
not suitable for supposedly BSE/TSE free and low incidence
areas, so why did they choose this test and or the IDEXX,
which i dont think has even been submitted to the EU for evaluation
and has no commercial experiance to my knowledge. You could
almost get the feeling they are deliberately skipping over
Prionics for the least supperior TSE rapid test. I believe
the Canadians finally did choose prionics. maybe paul or marcus
might comment? seems if North America is going to be a
consolidated BEEF trading market amongst themselves and expect
to export there tainted products everywhere, they could at least
come up with the same TSE rapid Test. how can one use a less
reliable test and the other use a more reliable test, and it
all be the same? i know there is a word Dehaven used, but it
slips my mind now, (consolidated markets) that's not it,
but you get the just of my thoughts, i think;-)...TSS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: BSE-L
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [BSE-L] FIRE UP THE PIT, THE FIRST BSE POSITIVE
INCONCLUSIVE IS NEGATIVE


> greetings list members,
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: ANOTHER POSSIBLE MAD COW CASE IN THE USA
> > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:55:42 -0500
> > From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> > Reply-To: BSE-L
> > To: BSE-L
> > References:
> >
> >
> snip...
>
> > on the other, i wonder if this is another faked incident like the feed
> > bag
> > event in texas a couple of years back ("the system worked!"). surprise
> > surprise this one won't be confirmed. in essence, a drill to train
> > trading
> > partners not to respond to a positive test kit result. dull the
> > response of
> > media and public. a steady drumbeat of "inconclusive" positives and
> > anticlimatic followups 4-7 days later (say friday pm before 4th of
july
> > weekend) of which occasionally one will be positive as "expected" so
> > as not
> > to be newsworthy.
> >
> > the lack of detail makes it impossible for the press to follow up,
> > "refused
> > to identify if the
> > suspect animal was a cow or a steer, its age, location or any other
> > information. not going to be any tv crews swarming around a
> > slaughterhouse
> > or interviewing another dave lothan. total control. just a statistic.
> >
> > problem solved...
> >
> > REFERENCE PURINA MILL INCIDENCE RIGHT AFTER THE INFAMOUS
> > 50 STATE USA BSE EMERGENCY CONFERENCE CALL OF JAN. 9, 2001
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> TOM's TAKE TODAY;
>
> >i don't share your view (patty hearst syndrome?) that usda has been
> >transparent or honest. how could they be unaware, during the long
selection
> >process leading to BioRad, of the very low false positive rates
observed in
> >Europe, yet the chief guy at usda has repeatedly turned the rates
> >completely upside down, from 1 in 1000 to 999 in a 1000 for a biorad
> >positive being confirmed positive.
> >
> >while i don't know how many false positive or total tests japan has
done,
> >the rates you cite from japan are not consistent with europe or
usda. even
> >at face value, you are quoting a 1 in 5 chance of confirmation. with 2
> >cows, that is 16/25 of both being negative or 9/25 of one or more true
> >positives, that's 36%, making a liar out of the usda guy (who is not
a pr
> >person but way up in the professional staff).
> >
> >for a $20 rapid test kit it makes sense to run a presumptive positive
> >another couple of times the same day. this lowers the rate to 1 in
100,000
> >without the ridiculous 4-7 day delay which in my opinion is solely
intended
> >to make yet another Friday pm announcement on the biggest meat buying
> >weekend of the year (since they can't stall until christmas eve this
time)
> >plus give them 3-6 days to ramp up their pr engine plus tip off
friends in
> >the commodities pit again.
> >
> >i think it is a little manipulative not to disclose the ages of the
cow and
> >whether they are from the same test lab. like the market is not making
> >speculation now?
> >
> >it is very very clear to me that they do not want to test large
numbers of
> >cows in the manner of japan and europe. this is not because of kit
> >economics but because every last country that has done so, has found
higher
> >numbers than their ag agencies had ever indicated possible.
> >
> >while we can wait for their next announcement, the truth is we have
no idea
> >whether a non-confirmation will be the truth because testing is a
totally
> >closed agency shop, eg Creekstone.
> >
> > they would never never never allow a university lab like prusiner's
to get
> >their hands on this sample. why don't you throw your weight behind
getting
> >some sample retested in europe with biorad and prionics and by
prusiner,
> >just to restore confidence in usda?
> >
> >i do feel it is possible for there to be glitches in start-up with
so new
> >many labs getting going, though i am not aware of anything technically
> >groudnbreaking, quite the contrary, about the biorad tests
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> NOW, why are we using the BIO-RAD _if_ PRIONICS is better?
>
> OR maybe PRIONICS is not as complicated as BIO-RAD?
>
> either way, we have some 8,585 (BSE-expanded) test so far and the
> 1st of 2 positive ''inconclusives'' in the 1st month is negative. OH,
don't
> forget about the mad cow in TEXAS, that don't count though?
> something seems terribly wrong here.
>
> TSS
>
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Release No. 0272.04
> >
> > Contact:
> > USDA Press Office (202) 720-4623
> >
> >
> >
> > Statement By Deputy Administrator Dr. John Clifford For The Animal And
> > Plant Health Inspection Service
> >
> > June 30, 2004
> >
> > At approximately, 3:45 p.m. today, we were notified by the USDA
> > National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa that
the
> > inconclusive screening test sample reported on June 25, tested
negative
> > for BSE upon confirmatory testing.
> >
> > NVSL used the world-recognized gold-standard test for BSE, the
> > immunohistochemistry test to confirm this finding.
> >
> >
> > http://www.usda.gov/Newsroom/0272.04.html
> >
> >

simply amazing that countries are willing to expose there people to all
this TSE...


TSS





Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: