SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease Friday, June 10, 2005
Date: June 11, 2005 at 6:31 am PST

In Reply to: Re: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease Friday, June 10, 2005 posted by TSS on June 10, 2005 at 8:04 pm:

Greetings,


JOHANN on TV now live, saying firewalls work,
no threat to human health, and cows can fly too.
He is doing damage control now with more BSeee.
He will not say were cow came from.

WELL, so it took the OIG to force the hand of the USDA/APHIS et al to make
them retest this animal that has already been incinerated. reminds me of the
stumbling and staggering mad cow in TEXAS that they refused to run any test
on. THIS cow should be counted as a documented BSE cow as well. WHY else
would they have gotten rid of all evidence$


> It was processed at a facility that handles only animals unsuitable for
human consumption

SO, it was only for pet foods, which we know these animals are rendered for
feed for human
consumption. no problem right!

HOUND SURVEY: POSSIBLE FURTHER STUDIES

b) Fibrillar material closely similar to SAF, found in BSE/Scrapie, was
observed in 19 (4.3%) cases, all of which were hounds > 7 year of age. 14/19
of these suspected SAF results correlatd with cases in the unresolveable
histopatholigical category...


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/02/09001001.pdf

: Histochem Cell Biol. 2003 May;119(5):415-22. Epub 2003 May 1. Related
Articles, Links


First case of feline spongiform encephalopathy in a captive cheetah born in
France: PrP(sc) analysis in various tissues revealed unexpected targeting of
kidney and adrenal gland.

Lezmi S, Bencsik A, Monks E, Petit T, Baron T.

Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA), Unite de
Virologie - ATNC, 31 avenue Tony Garnier, 69364 Lyon cedex 07, France.
s.lezmi@lyon.afssa.fr

Feline spongiform encephalopathy (FSE), affecting domestic and captive
feline species, is a prion disease considered to be related to bovine
spongiform encephalopathy. Here we report an immunohistological analysis of
the first FSE-affected cheetah born in France. The duration of clinical
signs, of which ataxia was the main one, was about 8 weeks. The distribution
of abnormal prion protein (PrP(sc)) was studied by immunohistochemistry
within 27 different tissues. Different antibodies were used to visualise
abnormal PrP deposits in situ. PrP(sc )accumulation was detected in the
central nervous system (cerebral cortex, cerebellum, brain stem, spinal
cord, retina), in peripheral nerves and in lymphoid organs. PrP(sc) deposits
were not observed within the enteric nervous system nor in several other
organs, such as pancreas, ovary, liver and muscle. More interestingly,
unusual PrP(sc )deposits were observed within the zona
fasciculata/reticularis of the adrenal gland and within some glomeruli of
the kidney raising the question of possible PrP(sc) excretion. The
sympathetic innervation of these two organs was visualised and compared to
the distribution of PrP(sc) deposits. Our results suggest the possibility
that the infectious agent is spread by both haematogenous and nervous
pathways.

Publication Types:
Case Reports

PMID: 12783238 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=12783238&dopt=Abstract


1: Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd. 2002 Oct;144(10):550-7. Related Articles, Links


[Feline spongiform encephalopathy: first clinical case in Switzerland]

[Article in German]

Demierre S, Botteron C, Cizinauskas S, Doherr MG, Fatzer R, Jaggy A.

Abteilung fur klinische Neurologie, Universitat Bern. cvetagy@bluewin.ch

A six-year-old female Birman cat was referred to our clinic because of
chronic progressive changes in behavior. Additionally, generalized
vestibular ataxia and psychomotor seizures were noticed. A multifocal lesion
in the forebrain as well as brainstem was suspected. Ancillary
investigations such as complete blood cell count, serum biochemistry
profile, urinalysis and cerebrospinal fluid examination revealed no
significant abnormalities. Electroencephalography showed diffuse changes in
the cortical activity. Feline spongiform encephalopathy was confirmed by
histological brain examination and positive immunohistochemistry for PrPSc.
This is the first time that a case of feline spongiform encephalopathy is
diagnosed in Switzerland.

Publication Types:
Case Reports

PMID: 12442705 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=12442705&dopt=Abstract


ALL this probably came about due to other countries demands. EITHER way,
seems they got caught again.
THIS seems to be the common practice, cover-up until you get caught.

AND as usual, the news release from the USDA/APHIS et al is on Late Friday
evening after all the news services
have gone for the weekend. AGAIN, standard practice for USDA/APHIS et al.

From today's Washington post:

"The animal had been deemed disease-free last fall, but when a sample was
subjected to a more precise test, the result was a "weak positive," said
USDA Secretary Mike Johanns."

"Weak positive"; is that like being a "little bit pregnant"?


> The beef cow, which was nine years old and could not stand, was first
tested last November and passed three initial tests


SO, TSS TEXAS MAD COW STILL LIVES ;


-------- 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
To: BSE-L@LISTSERV.KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
References: <41A3B789.6080907@wt.net> <41A4ED7C.4090501@wt.net>


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

snip...

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.

snip...

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ed-mad-cow20041122


-------- 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: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.us>
<41A2724F.3000901@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041122174504.02796d38@tahc.state.tx.us>
<41A27EBC.4050700@wt.net>
<6.0.0.22.2.20041122183204.02801d88@tahc.state.tx.us>


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

kind regards,
terry

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!

TSS


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
> USDA/APHIS
> 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,
>
> ORIGINAL POSTING;
>
> 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
>
> IT'S IN THE ARCHIVES at BSE-L...TSS
>
> 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
>> oc.news@usda.gov
>> 202 720-4623
>>
>>
>> TSS
>>
>> ############## BSE-L-subscribe-request@kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de
>> ##############
>>

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' IN USA, FROM TEXAS ???
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:03:55 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE


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

Greetings BSE-L members,

i am getting unsubstantiated claims of this BSE 'inconclusive' cow is from
TEXAS. could any official on this list either confirm or deny this on this
forum or in private (in confidence) to me via flounder@wt.net.......

many thanks,
terry

################# BSE-L-subscribe-request@uni-karlsruhe.de #################

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:38:21 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
References: <419E14E2.5040104@wt.net>


The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all
callers to the USDA web site. We have no information
about the animal being in Texas. 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.
>
>


-------- 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: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de


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

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: >
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [BSE-L] FIRE UP THE PIT, THE FIRST BSE POSITIVE INCONCLUSIVE IS
NEGATIVE

> ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy > #########
>
> 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:
>
> > ######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy >
> > #########
> >
> > 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
> >
> > TSS
> >
> > ######### http://mailhost-alt.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
> > ##########
> >
>
> ######### http://mailhost-alt.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
##########
>

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: USA BIO-RADs INCONCLUSIVEs
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:28 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> To: susan_berg@bio-rad.com
>
>
>
> 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

snip...END

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
Email: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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
positives?
said something about ''just look at the sheep that tested IHC- but were
positive''. ...


TSS

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Your questions
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:11 -0800
From: To: flounder@wt.net

Hi Terry:

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

Regards

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


END...TSS


######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ##########

=====================================================
=====================================================

END....TSS

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To:
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease Friday, June
10, 2005


> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#####################
>
> Release No. 0206.05
> Contact:
> USDA Press Office (202)720-4623
>
> Printable version
>
>
> STATEMENT BY DR. JOHN CLIFFORD REGARDING FURTHER ANALYSIS OF BSE
> INCONCLUSIVE TEST RESULTS
>
> June 10, 2005
>
> "Since the USDA enhanced surveillance program for BSE began in June 2004,
> more than 375,000 animals from the targeted cattle population have been
> tested for BSE using a rapid test. Three of these animals tested
> inconclusive and were subsequently subjected to immunohistochemistry, or
> IHC, testing. The IHC is an internationally recognized confirmatory test
for
> BSE. All three inconclusive samples tested negative using IHC.
>
> "Earlier this week, USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which
has
> been partnering with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the
> Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Research Service
by
> impartially reviewing BSE-related activities and making recommendations
for
> improvement, recommended that all three of these samples be subjected to a
> second internationally recognized confirmatory test, the OIE-recognized
SAF
> immunoblot test, often referred to as the Western blot test. We received
> final results a short time ago. Of the three samples, two were negative,
but
> the third came back reactive.
>
> "Because of the conflicting results on the IHC and Western blot tests, a
> sample from this animal will be sent to the OIE-recognized reference
> laboratory for BSE in Weybridge, England. USDA will also be conducting
> further testing, which will take several days to complete.
>
> "Regardless of the outcome, it is critical to note that USDA has in place
a
> sound system of interlocking safeguards to protect human and animal health
> from BSE-including, most significantly, a ban on specified risk materials
> from the human food supply. In the case of this animal, it was a
> non-ambulatory (downer) animal and as such was banned from the food
supply.
> It was processed at a facility that handles only animals unsuitable for
> human consumption, and the carcass was incinerated.
>
> "USDA's enhanced surveillance program is designed to provide information
> about the level of prevalence of BSE in the United States. Since the
> inception of this program, we have fully anticipated the possibility that
> additional cases of BSE would be found. And, in fact, we are extremely
> gratified that to date, more than 375,000 animals have been tested for the
> disease and, with the exception of the conflicting results we have
received
> on this one animal, all have ultimately proven to be negative for the
> disease.
>
> "USDA is committed to ensuring that our BSE program is the best that it
can
> be, keeping pace with science and international guidelines, and to
> considering recommendations made by OIG and others in this regard. We are
> committed to ensuring that we have the right protocols in place-ones that
> are solidly grounded in science and consistently followed. After we
receive
> additional test results on this animal, we will determine what further
steps
> need to be taken and what changes, if any, are warranted in our
surveillance
> program."
>
>
> Last Modified: 06/10/2005
>
>
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> tentid=2005/06/0206.xml
>
>
>
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/mimedetector?url=http://easylink.ibroadcastsm
>
edia.tv/ripariane/bse061005.wma&text=http://easylink.ibroadcastsmedia.tv/rip
> ariane/bse061005.wma
>
>
>
>
> You are here: Home
>
>
>
>
>
> Statement By Dr. John Clifford Regarding Further Analysis Of BSE
> Inconclusive Test Results
> Earlier this week, USDA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which has
> been partnering with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the
> Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Research Service
by
> impartially reviewing BSE-related activities and making recommendations
for
> improvement, recommended that all three of these samples be subjected to a
> second internationally recognized confirmatory test, the OIE-recognized
SAF
> immunoblot test, often referred to as the Western blot test."
>
> Web Cast Audio: U.S. Agriculture Officials To Provide Update On BSE
> Surveillance Testing - Requires Windows Media Player
>
>
> USDA BSE Roundtable Discussions - University of Minnesota in St. Paul,
> Minnesota
> Listed: Fact Sheets, Remarks and Webcast Video. As more items become
> available they will be posted to this page.
>
> http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB
>
> TSS
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> To:
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 9:59 PM
> Subject: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease Friday, June
10,
> 2005
>
>
> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> #####################
>
>
> U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease
> Friday, June 10, 2005 Posted: 10:44 PM EDT (0244 GMT)
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government is checking a possible case of mad cow
> disease in the United States in an animal previously cleared of being
> infected, the Agriculture Department said Friday.
>
> Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said more tests were needed to confirm
> the disease, but he emphasized that the animal did not enter the food
> supply.
>
> Only one case of mad cow disease has been confirmed in the United States,
in
> a dairy cow in Washington state in December 2003. Since then, preliminary
> tests have indicated the existence of the disease in three cows, but
further
> testing had ruled out mad cow disease.
>
> The department decided this week to perform additional tests, and one of
> those three -- a beef cow -- turned up positive. Johanns said the
> department's inspector general recommended the additional testing but did
> not say why.
>
> "It's going to require additional testing before we can confirm one way or
> another whether this is BSE (mad cow disease)," said Dr. John Clifford,
> chief veterinary officer of the department's Animal and Plant Health
> Inspection Service.
>
> A sample from the animal was being sent to an internationally recognized
> laboratory in Weybridge, England, which provided independent confirmation
of
> the first U.S. case of mad cow disease. The Agriculture Department will
also
> conduct further tests.
>
> Johanns said he received results of the latest testing 10 minutes before
> making the announcement Friday night.
>
> Johanns, former governor beef-producing Nebraska, said that there was no
> health risk and that he intended "to enjoy a good steak."
>
> "Consumer confidence, I am very confident, will remain," he said. "This is
a
> situation where the firewalls worked. We do not have a human health risk.
> This animal did not enter the food chain. This animal never got near the
> food or feed chain."
>
> Cattle must be killed to be tested for the mad cow disease. The government
> has tested more than 375,000 cows for the disease since the Washington
state
> case.
>
> The officials could not say whether the cow was born in the United States.
> The Washington state animal had been imported from Canada, which has had
> three other cases of mad cow disease. Investigators never located all 80
of
> the cattle that crossed the border into the United States with the
infected
> animal.
>
> Commonly called mad cow disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE,
> is a brain-wasting ailment. In humans, it can cause a variant of the
> degenerative, fatal brain disorder known as Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. It
> has killed more than 150 people, mostly in Britain, where there was an
> outbreak in the 1990s.
>
> Johanns said the new test result should not interfere with efforts to
> convince foreign beef customers to reopen their markets. Dozens of
countries
> banned U.S. beef imports after the Washington state case. Japan, once the
> biggest customer of U.S. beef, has not yet lifted its ban despite agreeing
> to do so last fall.
>
> "I don't anticipate problems with our trading partners," Johanns said.
> "They'll want to know what the issues are and what we have done. We want
to
> assure them, and to assure the public, that what we are doing her is
> transparent."
>
> The department has been trying to lift a U.S. ban on Canadian cattle that
> was imposed after Canada's first BSE case in May 2003. The border was
> scheduled to reopen in March, but a federal judge in Billings, Mont.,
> ordered it be kept closed at the request of ranchers suing to block
Canadian
> cattle imports.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
> Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may
> not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/10/mad.cow.ap/index.html
>
>
>
>
>
> PLEASE note, the june 2004 BSE enhanced surveillance
> was meaningless and ''NOT SCIENTIFIC'' without WB.
>
> just ask the experts ;
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys USDA REFUSAL TO USE WB ON TEXAS COW
> WITH BSE SYMPTOMS (FULL TEXT)
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:53:47 -0500
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> To: BSE-L@LISTS.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
>
>
>
> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#####################
>
> Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys
>
> 1. What is the standard regime for testing of suspect animals in the EU?
>
> The regime is an initial screening by a high-output test, the Bio-Rad
test.
> If a result raises suspicion, a confirmatory test is conducted with the
> Western blot test.
>
> 2. How long has this been the case?
>
> Its a fairly recent development. Only recently has the Western blot test
> become sensitive enough, with the addition of phospohtungstic acid
> precipitation step. The Bio-Rad test (which Deslys helped develop) is
> extremely sensitive, and the standard Western blot is extremely reliable
> with high-signal test results. However, it had to be made more sensitive
for
> low-signal (samples with low density of malformed prions) samples. It has
> been made more sensitive.
>
> Reproducibility is the problem with the IHC test. It is not standardized;
> depending on the lab and its protocols, or even on the technician involved
> in the test, one can get conflicting results.
>
> 3. Is there a way to measure the three tests in sensitivity, accuracy and
> objectivity?
>
> Historically, yes. The IHC was the gold standard at one point, but we have
> shifted to the Western blot. It requires less work, it is more sensitive
and
> its results are reproducible. IHC relies on localization. If you have a
weak
> signal case, you may get lucky and test a spot with a high concentration
of
> prions. But the opposite it true too; you can miss an infection by testing
a
> sample with low concentrations. Western blot is much better for low signal
> situations.
>
> 4. The USDA in 2003 used the Western blot to confirm the BSE case in
> Washington state, and it sent samples to the U.K. for independent testing.
> In the case this November, which it announced was negative, it instead
used
> the IHC test and did not send samples to the U.K. Is this good science?
>
> Its not logical. If you have two consecutive questionable screenings, you
> do another test. I can only advise, its managements duty at USDA to make
> the decisions. But when you have a discrepancy between the rapid test and
> the IHC, it is only logical to confirm it with another test.
>
> 5. We are hearing now about a new strain of BSE, atypical BSE or aBSE. Or
> BaSE. We have heard that IHC, the so-called gold standard, cannot detect
the
> variant. Is this true?
>
> Yes. There have been a few cases, one in Italy, one in Belgium, one here
in
> France. It seems to only affect very old animals. The distribution in the
> brain is very different than we see with BSE, it looks very different. The
> IHC test will come back negative.
>
> This his a very recent phenomenon. I have no opinion on its virulence. We
do
> not know where it comes from. It could be a version of sporadic infection.
> Western blot caught them, but we would not even know it existed if we
> werent running systematic testing in the EU.
>
> BSE was around for a long time before we caught it and by then, it was
> everywhere. It had become highly infectious. It probably amplified due to
> low-temperature rendering. The disease was recycled through the food
chain,
> and was given time to amplify. By the time it was identified, even good
> cooking couldnt eliminate it.
>
> I cant stress enough that systematic testing is necessary. Withdrawing
all
> positives from the food chain is the best way to break the cycle.
>
> What can happen with testing of only cattle that are clearly at risk is
that
> several can remain undetected. Canada has tested about 30,000 head of
cattle
> and has three positives. That would indicate that there are probably
> undiscovered cases. And what happens then is that the disease is allowed
to
> amplify. You have to maintain testing.
>
> When people choose to protect their economic interests over public health,
> it can have a boomerang effect. It happened all through Europe. They
always
> deny; its not OUR problem, it is our neighbors problem. And then a
single
> case is discovered and the public reacts. The economic results are
> devastating. It would be better to just assume BSE is present and use
> systematic testing as protection. That way, the public is reassured that
it
> is not entering the food supply.
>
> By systematic testing, I mean doing as we do in the EU, which is to test
> every animal over 30 months of age when it is slaughtered. In Europe,
three
> times as many cases of BSE have been caught by systematic testing as by
> clinical testing (of clearly sick animals). In 2004, eight clinical cases
> were discovered, 29 were discovered at rendering plants, and 17 at
> slaughter. We should be using these tests as a weapon to protect the
public
> and to give them assurance that the food supply is being protected.
>
> 6. USDAs list of specified risk materials excludes some products, like
> blood and bone meal, that are banned in the EU and UK. Is our feed supply
> safe?
>
> With SRMs, where do you stop? Tests have found prions in meat, nerves
travel
> through meat, and so on. The main infectivity is in the brain and the
spinal
> cord. A blood and bone meal ban in animal feed is not really necessary,
> because except in cases of highly infective animals, it is unlikely that
> they are dangerous in themselves. If you combine systematic testing and
> targeted SRM removal, the brain and the spinal column in cattle over 30
> months, you can have a compromise that is both safer and less costly than
> expanded feed bans.
>
> Certainly, you can stop the spread of BSE with a total ban on offal. But
it
> has to be a total ban. It cant be given to sheep or swine or poultry. It
> would be very expensive and virtually impossible to accomplish. You can
have
> farmers using the wrong feed or transportation errors.
>
> Systematic testing makes far more sense. I think of it as a thermometer.
It
> not only allows us to catch the disease, it also allows us to monitor its
> progress. We can watch the levels of infectivity and if they start going
up
> instead of down, we can take measures.
>
> To an extent, our environment is contaminated. About 10 percent of wild
> animals test positive for TSEs. If you recycle these agents, they can
evolve
> and get more dangerous. This is probably what happened with BSE. It wasnt
> very dangerous until it evolved to the disease we know today.
>
> People complain that testing is very expensive. It is much more expensive
to
> kill and test whole herds.
>
> 7. In your opinion, is infected feed the sole method of transmission of
BSE,
> apart from the very rare maternal transmission?
>
> Feed is the main problem. However, we are seeing some other possibilities,
> including through fat and greases. Calves are fed milk extracts, with the
> cream removed. To make it nutritious, they are using fat and grease from
> cattle.
>
> (FOLLOW QUESTION: Would that allow BSE to develop into an infective level
in
> cattle younger than 30 months, assuming they might be getting infected at
a
> younger age?)
>
> 8. You were involved in a study that tested two primates who were fed
> infected brain tissue. One eventually died of TSE; the other survived. The
> press reported that the main finding was that it would take something on
the
> order of 1.5 kilograms of infected matter to create an infection, but that
> seems to be an oversimplification. Could you explain it further?
>
> The findings suggest that as little as five grams is enough to infect. The
> 1.5 kilo figure is the amount of infected tissue that would have to be
> ingested from an animal that would be below the threshold of infection,
and
> would test negative. In other words, even though a younger animal may be
> developing the disease, it would take a considerable amount of tissue to
> transmit the disease.
>
> An animal could be just below the testing level, and not be particularly
> dangerous. But that is why you have to keep testing. Once it reaches the
> threshold, it can become highly infective.
>
> 9. BSE is a pretty horrifying disease, but overall, it has killed less
than
> 200 humans, and only a handful in recent years. Listeria, by comparison,
> kills thousands every year. Overall, how do you rate the threat from BSE?
>
>
> The overall risk is not particularly high. Over two million infected
animals
> went into the food chain in Europe, 400,000 of them before the SRMs, the
> brains and spinal column, were removed from the carcass. Less than 200
died,
> and less than 4,000 are at risk of developing the disease. What we know
now
> is that one particle is not going to kill you. There has to be
condensation
> of the prions to be truly dangerous.
>
> This is not a sterile world. But the danger is that now that the crisis
> appears to be over, attention will turn elsewhere and that will allow the
> disease to amplify again. Just as we stopped paying attention to AIDS when
> medication seemed to control it, then were surprised when a new and more
> infectious and aggressive strain appeared, we could be surprised by a more
> serious strain of BSE. That is why I support systematic testing for the
long
> term. The object is to keep levels of BSE low, and to recognize the danger
> if it suddenly pops back up. ...END
>
> TSS
>
> ######### https://listserv.kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html
##########
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys USDA REFUSAL TO USE WB ON TEXAS
> COW WITH BSE SYMPTOMS (FULL TEXT)
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:14:14 -0500
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
> To: BSE-L@LISTS.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE
> References: <42692C1B.7090200@wt.net>
>
>
>
> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#####################
>
> IN FACT, i must bring this up again.
> IN TEXAS, when they are really worried about a mad cow,
> when the cow is clinical and stumbling and staggering, TEXAS
> does not bother TESTING the cow at all. nope, they just send
> it directly to be rendered head and all to get rid of all evidence.
> the june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up was just that. the USA
> could test every cow that goes to slaughter, and it would be meaningless
> unless properly done with the most sensitive testing to date.
> but not in TEXAS or any other state in the USA.............
>
>
> FDA Statement
>
> 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, 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
>
> TSS
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> APHIS Statement: June 29 Inconclusive BSE Test is Negative
> 07/02/2004
>
> APHIS Statement: First Inconclusive BSE Test is Negative
> 06/30/2004
>
> APHIS Statement Regarding Second Inconclusive BSE Test
> 06/29/2004
>
> APHIS Statement Regarding First Inconclusive BSE Test
> 06/25/2004
>
> Week 25
> (11/1511/21)
> 7,900
> 1
> Negative
> 0
> 7,901
>
> Week 5
> (6/287/4)
> 3,500
> 1
> Negative
> 0
> 3,501
> Week 4
> (6/216/27)
> 3,254
> 1
> Negative
> 0
> 3,255
>
>
>
>
>
> USDA orders silence on mad cow in Texas
>
> By Steve Mitchell
> United Press International
> Published 5/11/2004 10:16 PM
>
> WASHINGTON, May 11 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued
an
> order instructing its inspectors in Texas, where federal mad cow disease
> testing policies recently were violated, not to talk about the cattle
> disorder with outside parties, United Press International has learned.
>
> The order, sent May 6 by e-mail from the USDA's Dallas district office,
was
> issued in the wake of the April 27 case at Lone Star Beef in San Angelo,
in
> which a cow displaying signs of a brain disorder was not tested for mad
cow
> disease despite a federal policy to screen all such animals.
>
> The deadly illness also is known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
>
> Both the USDA and its Inspector General -- amid allegations that an
offsite
> supervisor overruled the opinion of the inspectors onsite and made the
final
> decision not to test the animal -- have opened up investigations to
> determine why agency policy was violated.
>
> The order, which was obtained by UPI, was issued by Ijaz Qazi, circuit
> supervisor for the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service's Dallas
> district, which covers the entire state. It reads: "All BSE inquiries MUST
> be directed to Congressional Public Affairs Phone 202-720-9113 attention
Rob
> Larew OR Steve Khon. This is an urgent message. Any question contact me.
> Ijaz Qazi."
>
> Although the language might sound innocuous, experienced inspectors
familiar
> with USDA parlance have taken to referring to the notice as a "gag order."
>
> The National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals -- the national
> inspectors union -- considers the order a violation of inspectors' free
> speech rights and is considering legal action against the USDA for
breaching
> the labor agreement they have with the agency.
>
> Inspectors alleged the order also suggests the agency is concerned about
its
> personnel leaking damaging information about either the Texas case or the
> USDA's overall mad cow disease surveillance program, which has come under
> fire since the discovery of an infected cow in Washington state last
> December.
>
> "Anytime the government suppresses an individual's freedom of speech,
that's
> unconstitutional," Gary Dahl, president of Local 925, the Colorado
> inspectors union, told UPI.
>
> Stanley Painter, chairman of the National Joint Council, said the USDA has
> sent out notices in the past stating inspectors cannot talk to reporters.
>
> "It's an intimidation thing," Painter told UPI. Inspectors have the right
to
> talk to anybody about any subject, as long as they clarify they are not
> speaking on behalf of the USDA and they are not doing it on government
time,
> he said.
>
> USDA spokesman Steven Cohen said he was not familiar with the notice from
> the Dallas office. He said he would look into it, but did not respond by
> UPI's publication time. In general, Cohen said, "There's an expectation
any
> statement on behalf of the agency would come from the office of
> communications (in Washington.)"
>
> Asked if employees could speak freely as long as they clarified that their
> views did not reflect those of the agency, Cohen said, "We'd rather that
> agency policy be communicated by those in a position to speak for the
> agency."
>
> Qazi told UPI the notice was not issued in conjunction with the Texas case
> and it was routine agency practice that outside inquiries be referred to
the
> Washington office. He said inspectors are free to talk to outside parties,
> including reporters, and he did not consider the e-mail a violation of the
> labor agreement with the inspectors.
>
> Painter said the USDA's efforts to keep its employees from talking about
mad
> cow would be better spent "with issues like protecting the consuming
public
> instead of trying to hide things." He added he would "just about bet his
> last nickel" agency management was attempting to suppress information
about
> the Texas case.
>
> "To keep federal employees from reporting government waste, misuse of
> appropriations -- those types of things -- that's not a good thing
either,"
> Dahl said. "If there is something wrong, let's get it out in the open --
> let's get it fixed. We're working for the public, the American consumers.
I
> think they have the right to know this," he said.
>
> "And believe me there's so many indicators saying that the USDA's mad cow
> testing program is broken," Dahl added.
>
> 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
> Secretary Ann Veneman on Monday, saying the Texas incident "calls into
> question the effectiveness and reliability of USDA's current and proposed
> surveillance system."
>
> The USDA has proposed testing more than 200,000 cows -- or 10 times its
> current rate -- in an expanded program scheduled to begin June 1. Harkin
> wrote in the five-page letter, however, that given the realities of the
> cattle industry, it is "quite doubtful" the USDA will be able to test that
> many cows, particularly because it had difficulty finding 20,000 last
year.
>
> "We simply cannot tolerate a BSE testing system that fails to give valid
> answers to critical questions for U.S. consumers and foreign customers,"
> Harkin said in the letter, which sharply criticizes the agency's failure
to
> address explicitly how its new surveillance program will be implemented.
>
> "We look forward to receiving (Harkin's) letter and having the opportunity
> to review it and respond to him," USDA spokesman Ed Loyd told UPI. "USDA
has
> acknowledged there was a failure in not testing that cow in Texas for BSE,
> so we are all working to ensure that does not occur again."
>
> Jim Rogers, a spokesman for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
> Service, which oversees the agency's mad cow surveillance program, told
UPI
> the agency has tested about 15,500 animals since fiscal year 2004 began,
on
> Oct. 1, 2003. However, the agency has refused to identify the states and
> facilities from which the cows originated. Rogers said UPI would have to
> seek that information through the Freedom of Information Act.
>
> The question is central to the USDA's implementation of its expanded
> surveillance program. Downer cows -- those unable to stand or walk -- made
> up the bulk of the animals the agency tested for mad cow in previous
years,
> but these were banned from being slaughtered for human consumption in
> December. This means the agency inspectors no longer can obtain brain
> samples from these cows at slaughterhouses as they could in the past.
>
> Furthermore, the USDA has not provided any evidence it has worked out
> agreements with rendering facilities or ranchers, where downers and dead
> cows are now most likely to be found, to obtain the extra animals for
> testing.
>
> Loyd said the agency is "working very hard to get animals on the farm that
> would never show up in a processing facility," and he was "not aware of
any
> issues" that would delay the launch of the new program.
>
> However, he was unable to provide the names or locations of the rendering
> facilities where the agency will be obtaining cow brains for BSE testing.
He
> said he would look into it but did not return two follow-up phone calls
from
> UPI before publication.
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>
>
> USDA did not test possible mad cows
>
> By Steve Mitchell
> United Press International
> Published 6/8/2004 9:30 PM
>
> WASHINGTON, June 8 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture claims it
> tested 500 cows with signs of a brain disorder for mad cow disease last
> year, but agency documents obtained by United Press International show the
> agency tested only half that number.
>
> USDA officials said the difference is made up in animals tested at state
> veterinary diagnostic laboratories, but these animals were not tested
using
> the "gold standard" test employed by the agency for confirming a case of
the
> deadly disease. Instead, the state labs used a less sensitive test that
> experts say could miss mad cow cases.
>
> In addition, the state lab figures were not included in a March 2004 USDA
> document estimating the number of animals most likely to be infected among
> U.S. herds, and apparently were not given to a congressional committee
that
> had requested agency data on the number of cows with brain disorder signs
> that had been tested for the disease.
>
> "This is just adding to the demise of USDA's credibility," said Felicia
> Nestor, senior policy adviser to the Government Accountability Project, a
> group in Washington, D.C., that works with federal whistleblowers.
>
> "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," Nestor told UPI.
>
> Nestor, who has monitored the USDA's mad cow surveillance program closely
> for several years, asked, "Are they deliberately avoiding testing animals
> that look like they have the disease?"
>
> Concerns about the number of cows in U.S. herds with brain disorder
symptoms
> have been heightened due to the recent case in Texas, in which USDA
> officials failed to test an animal with such symptoms, also known as
central
> nervous system or CNS signs. This was a violation of USDA policy, which
> stipulates all CNS cows should be tested because they are considered the
> most likely to be mad cow infected. To date, the Washington cow that
tested
> positive last December is the only confirmed case of mad cow disease --
also
> known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy -- among U.S. herds.
>
> The Texas incident has alarmed the public and members of Congress because
> humans can contract a fatal brain disorder called variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob
> disease from consuming meat infected with the mad cow pathogen. If the
> USDA's surveillance program is allowing the riskiest cows to go untested,
it
> raises concerns about the ability of the monitoring system to detect the
> disease reliably in U.S. herds, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., charged in a
> May 13 letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman.
>
> Dr. Peter Lurie, of the consumer group Public Citizen, said CNS cows
should
> be the one category that absolutely has to be tested to have a sound
> surveillance system.
>
> "CNS animals are far and away the most important animals to test," said
> Lurie, who has done several analyses of the USDA's mad cow surveillance
> program.
>
> "If there's any category that needs 100 percent testing, that's it,
because
> they would be the most likely place to find mad cow in America," he told
> UPI. "Any CNS cow that slips into the food supply represents a major case
of
> malpractice by USDA, and similarly, the failure to test the brain of that
> animal to see if it was indeed infected is really a failure to protect the
> public."
>
> USDA officials said the agency has no estimate on how many CNS cows occur
in
> U.S. herds. But spokesman Ed Loyd has told UPI, and at least one other
media
> outlet, that 500 CNS cows were tested in fiscal year 2003. Yet agency
> testing records for the first 10 months of FY 2003, obtained by UPI under
> the Freedom of Information Act, show only 254 animals that fall under the
> CNS category -- or about half the number Loyd cited.
>
> After failing to respond to repeated requests from UPI for clarification
of
> the apparent discrepancy, Loyd finally offered the explanation that an
> additional 45 CNS cows were tested by the USDA during the final two months
> of FY 2003. The remainder, he said, was made up by CNS cases tested at
> various state veterinary diagnostic laboratories.
>
> "We also include data reported to us from state veterinary diagnostic
> laboratories, and all of these are CNS cases that have been tested for BSE
> using a histological examination," Loyd said.
>
> "We were not using any other labs during this period, other than (the USDA
> lab), to run the IHC tests for BSE, which is the gold standard," he said.
> "This (state laboratory) information contributes important data to our
> surveillance effort."
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The state labs used histopathology to screen 266 CNS cases in FY 2003, as
> well as 257 cases in FY 2002, according to Loyd. He did not explain why
this
> information was not included in the testing records the agency provided to
> UPI and has not responded to requests for the identity of the state labs.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> The USDA seems to agree on the need for a back-up test. Its expanded
> surveillance program, which began June 1, calls for using IHC -- or
another
> test called Western blot -- to confirm any positives found on rapid tests.
> The March 15 document that describes the new program does not mention
using
> histopathology to confirm cases of mad cow disease.
>
> "Subtle changes can be missed on histopathology that would probably not be
> as easy to miss using IHC," 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.
>
> "Therefore I believe it is valuable to run (histopathology)," Mumford told
> UPI.
>
> She noted that in Europe, two tests -- neither one the histopathology
> test -- are used to ensure no cases are missed. A rapid test is used
> initially for screening, followed by IHC as a confirmatory test.
>
> Markus Moser, a molecular biologist and chief executive officer of the
Swiss
> firm Prionics, which manufactures tests for detecting mad cow disease,
> agrees about the possibility of a case being missed by histopathology.
>
> "There were cases which were (histopathology) negative but still clearly
> positive with the other (testing) methods," Moser said. "BSE testing based
> on histology on sub-optimal tissue was probably one of the reasons why
> Germany was allegedly BSE-free until our test discovered that they were
not"
> in 2000, Moser told UPI.
>
> He agreed with Detwiler that histopathology should be suitable for most
> cases of CNS cows, but added it still can fail to detect the disease in
some
> CNS cases -- particularly if the sample is not optimum.
>
> "It is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the subtle changes in
a
> diseased brain from artifacts like ruptures in the tissue due to tissue
> damage during the sampling, transport or preparation," he said.
>
> Loyd asserted the additional CNS cases from the state labs actually
yielded
> a total of 565 such cows the USDA had tested -- 65 more than his original
> figure of 500. Whether the USDA considers its total to be 500 or 565,
> however, either figure would exceed the agency's own estimates for the
total
> number of such cows that it identifies annually.
>
> According to data the USDA provided to the House Committee on Government
> Reform, and numbers the agency included in the March document about its
> expanded surveillance plan, only 201 to 249 CNS cows are identified at
> slaughterhouses. Approximately 129 additional cases occur on farms
annually.
> At most, that yields a combined total of 378 CNS cows, or nearly 200 less
> than the 565 Loyd claims the agency tested.
>
> The USDA surveillance plan document makes no mention of the number of CNS
> animals tested at state veterinary diagnostic labs. The figure also does
not
> appear to be included in the agency's estimates of the number of high-risk
> animals that occur in the United States each year. The latter number was
> used to help the USDA calculate the number of animals it will screen for
mad
> cow disease in its expanded surveillance plan.
>
> USDA officials also did not include the state lab figures in response to a
> question from the House Committee on Government Reform, a source close to
> the issue told UPI. The committee, on which Waxman is the ranking
Democrat,
> had requested in a March 8 letter to Veneman that she provide "the number
of
> BSE tests that were conducted on cattle exhibiting central nervous system
> symptoms" for each of the last five years.
>
> Loyd did not respond to a request from UPI asking why agency officials did
> not provide that information to the committee or include it in USDA's
> explanation of its expanded surveillance plan.
>
> The committee has taken note of the CNS issue and plans to delve into it
> further in a hearing slated for sometime in the next few months.
>
> "The committee will explore this and other issues surrounding USDA and BSE
> testing at a hearing later this summer," Drew Crockett, spokesman for the
> committee, told UPI.
>
> --
>
> 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
>
> IN FACT, i must bring this up again.
> IN TEXAS, when they are really worried about a mad cow,
> when the cow is clinical and stumbling and staggering, TEXAS
> does not bother TESTING the cow at all. nope, they just send
> it directly to be rendered head and all to get rid of all evidence.
> the june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up was just that. the USA
> could test every cow that goes to slaughter, and it would be meaningless
> unless properly done with the most sensitive testing to date.
> but not in TEXAS or any other state in the USA.............
>
>
> FDA Statement
>
> 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, 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
>
> TSS
>
> Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
> P.O. Box 42
> Bacliff, Texas USA
>
> #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
> ####################
>
> #################### https://lists.aegee.org/bse-l.html
####################
>




Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: