SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: US ‘rediscovers’ its second mad cow
Date: June 13, 2005 at 9:42 am PST

US ‘rediscovers’ its second mad cow
17:03 13 June 2005
NewScientist.com news service


The US has found its second case of mad cow disease in a cow suspected, but cleared, of having BSE in November 2004. Although meat from the cow did not enter the food chain, the finding calls into question the accuracy of the country’s BSE surveillance programme. The cow might also be the first case born in the US.

The first US case was in a cow imported from Canada in 2003. In 2004 the country started testing “high-risk” cattle - those that show neurological symptoms, are found dead or are “downers” (unable to stand).

Since then it has tested 375,000 cattle. None were declared positive. In contrast, Canada has tested 30,000 cattle and found three positives. The rate at which the tests uncover positive cattle depends on the sample size, stresses Marcus Doherr of the University of Bern in Switzerland, who helped develop Swiss BSE surveillance.

This means either that BSE is less evenly distributed in North America than thought, or that the US is missing cases. Unlike Canada, which uses the rapid “western blot” test, the US uses a test called ELISA, which is more prone to false positives.

Prion diffusion
In 2004 the ELISA test detected three BSE positive cattle in the US. When these brains were re-tested, the ELISA was negative. Then they were subjected to immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing - a thin slice of brain is stained with antibodies for the prion protein that causes BSE. All were negative, and the cattle were declared BSE-free. “But if the prion is diffuse enough in the brain tissue, you can get a weak signal with the ELISA, and a negative with IHC,” says Doherr. Another test is needed to be certain, he says.

It was revealed on 10 June that the US Department of Agriculture’s own Inspector General asked the USDA to carry out western blot tests on the three conflicting samples from 2004. One sample - a downer from November - came back positive.

The animal was reportedly nine years old - born just before the US banned the use of cattle remains in cattle feed, which can spread BSE. USDA would not confirm this or the origin of the animal, though John Clifford, the USDA’s chief veterinary officer, notes that “we have no information that it was an imported animal”.

But the animal is still not officially BSE positive. Because of the conflicting results, says Clifford, the sample will be re-tested at the USDA lab in Iowa, and the international BSE reference lab at Weybridge, UK.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7513

THEY will test this damn cow until they get the answer they want, or until there is not enough brain tissue to properly confirm a 10th or 11th time, so it will then again be inconclusive. how many times does one have to have a tests be postive to confirm the damn thing?

>>>Since then it has tested 375,000 cattle. None were declared positive. In contrast, Canada has tested 30,000 cattle and found three positives. The rate at which the tests uncover positive cattle depends on the sample size, stresses Marcus Doherr of the University of Bern in Switzerland, who helped develop Swiss BSE surveillance.

This means either that BSE is less evenly distributed in North America than thought, or that the US is missing cases<<<

JUST what Dr. Detwiler tried to tell them at one of those useless BSE ROUND TABLE EVENTS IN 2003, but instead of listening to her, the fired her and went into cover-up mode, what the USDA called the June 2004 Enhanced BSE surveillance program, what i called the June 2004 Enhanced BSE COVER-UP. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS MEANT TO BE ;

Release No. 0207.05
Contact:
USDA Press Office (202)720-4623


Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns
and Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test
Results Washington, D.C.
June 10, 2005


snip...


DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary.


snip...


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
tentid=2005/06/0207.xml


>>>"In addition, there are definite differences between these two tests. The
IHC is internationally recognized, and why we chose that for our enhanced
surveillance program is because that particular test does two things. It
allows you to visualize the anatomic location where the lesions are most
likely to be found which is the obex. At the same time it uses a staining
technique on the prions, on abnormal prions in the tissue in that location.
...<<<


ANOTHER reason is by only looking at one portion of the brain, you miss the
rest of the brain that could be potentally infected. kinda like a 1 in 10
chance of finding
something. but this is par for the course with these folks....TSS


USDA 2003

We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip.............


Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives
do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the
disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important.
If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We
have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.

Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip...


FULL TEXT;


Completely Edited Version
PRION ROUNDTABLE


Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado


http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94543.html


JOHANNs MUST BE FIRED FOR HIS BLANANT LIES AND COVER-UP OF SOMETHING THAT IS A HUMAN HEALTH ISSUE WHETHER HE WANTS IT OR NOT.

THIS is sort of interesting speculation below. interesting about abrupt quitting of Bill Hawks who was in charge of BSE regulatory oversight. not seen that much in the papers.


"I'm wondering how we can get the press to report on the fact that the USDA and Johanns clearly knew they had another positive test at the Thursday hearing but never told anyone. They let the charade go on, and then waited till the best/worst possible time to call a phone in press conference - Friday night - to release it.
This all precedes the abrupt quitting of Bill Hawks who was in charge of BSE regulatory oversight. Did he know before he quit. My feeling is that they knew back in November that this animal was positive, and have been covering it up. At some point, I suspect, they decided it was too dangerous NOT to come clean. I think they had this all timelined, and pulled together the meat heads (sic) in St. Paul to clue them in and line them up, at least some of them."


TSS






Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: