SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: Feds skipped key mad cow disease test in 2004 case USDA changes its protocols after animal initially had been cleared
Date: June 17, 2005 at 1:39 pm PST

In Reply to: Re: Feds skipped key mad cow disease test in 2004 case USDA changes its protocols after animal initially had been cleared posted by TSS on June 17, 2005 at 1:10 pm:

>>>Hansen scoffs at that designation: "You don't say someone is a little bit pregnant."<<<


PLEASE NOTE, HANSEN IS ON THE BSE-L ;


TSS POSTED TO BSE-L JUNE 11, 2005

> 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 -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: U.S. checking for possible case of mad cow disease Friday, June 10, 2005


> ##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
>
> 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
> ####################
> >
>
> #################### 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: