SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: Re: MAD COW CONFIRMED IN USA, 2ND CASE CONFIRMED FINALLY
Date: June 24, 2005 at 1:20 pm PST

In Reply to: MAD COW CONFIRMED IN USA, 2ND CASE CONFIRMED FINALLY posted by TSS on June 24, 2005 at 12:38 pm:

Greetings,

TSS TEJAS MAD COW LIVES!
BUT, what about TSS other Texas mad cow?
THE stumbling and staggering one they did not test AT ALL?
I suppose that mad cow does not count. This mad cow would not have
counted either if myself and others would have not insisted on retesting this animal
with PROPER PROTOCOL. when USDA et al decided to stop using WB after
the first cow was detected in Washington, and the other Texas mad cow they
rendered without testing at all, it was pretty obvious what direction Sec. Ag. Johann
and GW had taken. cover-up at all cost, until caught, then cover-up some more,
lie, decieve, what ever it takes. but the truth prevailed, this time. additional comments
to follow below FDA statement on TEXAS other mad cow;

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.

####

ooops

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


>>>Johanns also directed USDA scientists to work with international experts to thoughtfully develop a new protocol that includes performing dual confirmatory tests in the event of another "inconclusive" BSE screening test.<<<

IF USDA/APHIS et al would have just followed the old protocols things might not have gotten this bad. BUT, they chose
to ignore, lie, conceal and cover-up, until they got caught.

SEEMS the Sec. of Agr. Johanns is more concerned about keeping mad cow cases concealed and making GW happy, than protecting public health;

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

From: TSS ()
Subject: Ag Secretary Questions New Mad Cow Tests $$$
Date: June 24, 2005 at 12:25 pm PST

snip...

Johanns said it's up for debate whether Fong had the authority to order the new tests. The inspector general has the right to perform audits, but operations of the department are run by the secretary, he said.

"If it's operational, then it's my domain," Johanns said. "She could recommend; she could strongly urge. But then the question is whether it's an operational decision."

He said he learned of the order from his chief of staff after the new testing was under way.

"I was asked by the Senate and the president to operate the department," he said. "I believe, in this area, very clearly, the secretary should be consulted, whoever the secretary is, before testing is undertaken. From my standpoint, I believe I was put there to operate the department and was very disappointed." ...snip...end

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

Johann might be MAD for the retesting of this animal, but what if they had not? just one more USA mad cow that would have went undocumented and in the food chain for either animals or pets.

I APPLAUD Inspector General Phyllis Fong and the OIG! SHE should be given a damn medal for standing up to this administration and it's 'don't look, don't tell' BSE MAD COW policy.

WITH such little tissue sample from this suspicious POSITIVE, POSITIVE, INCONLUSIVE, AND FINALLY POSITIVE animal, makes one wonder about a few things.

WHAT also makes one wonder, is WHY such a small BSE sample is taken and saved. same as with testing minimal animals as per OIE regs. IF you test minimal animals, you will find minimal infected animals. IF you take minimal tissue samples, you will have minimal tissue samples to confirm a inconclusive. ALL protocols to find and eradicate BSE/TSE in the USA are based on minimal everything, they are and have been based on NOT finding any BSE/TSE, thus, the agent continues to amplify, spread and expose. Johanns must resign now! Dr. Detwiler tried to tell them in 2003 (SEE BOTTOM for reference).


TSS submission to OIE on the TEXAS inconclusive and USA BSE surveillance (or the lack of);


Subject: re-USDA's surveillance plan for BSE aka mad cow disease
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:59:07 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: paffairs@oig.hhs.gov, HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov, contactOIG@hhsc.state.tx.us


Greetings Honorable Paul Feeney, Keith Arnold, and William Busby
et al at OIG,

snip...

full text of TSS submission to OIE on the TEXAS inconclusive and USA BSE surveillance (or the lack of);

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94595.html


Taking a Quality Sample

Too Little Tissue Submitted Too Little Tissue Submitted

NOTE: The samples in these photos are suitable for ELISA testing and if negative by ELISA
there would not be a problem, but if the results were inconclusive then it would be
difficult to process for IHC and additional testing.

August 24, 2004 Taking a Quality Sample: E4

snip...end

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nvsl/BSE/Manual/appendixe.pdf


Getting a Sample of
Sufficient Quality
Unless the sample is of sufficient quality, it will be unusable and
not count towards the survey. Please see Appendix E for
guidance on collecting a quality sample. If the sample is not of
sufficient quality, STOP: DO NOT TAKE THE SAMPLE. This
does NOT apply to samples taken from:
• animals that are highly suspicious for BSE or that
involve an FAD investigation
• animals that were condemned in an antemortem
inspection
BSE sampling using a
spoon
Step 1
• Place head upright
– On head rack or barrel
– On table edge
– On the ground facing down if no other option

snip...

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nvsl/BSE/procedure_manual.pdf


Factsheet
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service June 2005
APHIS
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all
programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,
etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Safeguarding American Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • United States Department of Agriculture •
Immunohistochemistry (IHC)
• Primary confirmatory test for
USDA’s BSE surveillance
program.
• Recognized by the World
Organization for Animal Health, or
OIE.
• Allows scientists to determine if a
sample is positive for BSE in two
distinct ways: visually (spongiform
changes), and through a staining
technique (presence of abnormal
prion protein).
• Involves looking at an intact
portion of the brain, the obex, to
see if there are lesions (holes or
a “spongy” appearance) present
that are characteristic for BSE,
and using a staining process
using antibodies that detect the
abnormal protein prion.
• Takes four to seven days to run.
• Freezing samples does not
interfere with performing the IHC
test as long as the sample is
confirmed as obex.
Western Blot
• Several types, with the SAF
Immunoblot being the one
recognized by OIE.
• Used under USDA protocol when
a sample is “not suitable for IHC”,
i.e., if it is autolyzed (or degraded)
or brain stem architecture is not
evident microscopically.
• Uses a large portion of obex brain
tissue; the abnormal prion protein
in brain material is enriched
by ultracentrifugation, and the
sample is exposed to protease,
an enzyme, to destroy any
normal prion proteins that may be
present, leaving only abnormal
prion proteins. Remaining
sample is then run through a gel
to separate the abnormal prion
protein components by molecular
weight. After the transfer of the
proteins to a membrane, proteins
are stained using antibodies that
can identify a specific banding
pattern associated with prion
diseases including BSE. A
diagnosis is made by recognizing
three distinctive bands that
are identified as a result of a
reaction with the anti-prion protein
antibody.
• Freezing samples does not
interfere with the performance of
western blot tests.
Similarities/Differences:
• Both IHC and the SAF Immunblot
(Western blot) are internationally
recognized as confirmatory tests
for BSE.
• The tests use different methods
to determine if the abnormal prion
protein is present in brain tissue
of an animal.
• The IHC test additionally allows
for the viewing of brain tissue to
determine if lesions characteristic
to BSE are present.
• Both tests are equally effective
at detecting the classical form of
BSE.
BSE Confirmatory Tests

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/faq_BSE_confirmtests.pdf


SAMPLE JOB AID

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nvsl/BSE/Manual/appendixd.pdf

Procedure Manual for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance
August 24, 2004 Page 16
Step 8
• You should be able to identify the Obex area of the brain
• Make sure your samples contain the Obex
• The Obex MUST be collected for the sample to be used
in BSE the surveillance data
Procedure Manual for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance
August 24, 2004 Page 17
Note:
• The area marked in black is the location of the Motor
Nucleus of the Vagus nerve
• The nucleus appears as “pink fleshy” areas
• This nucleus is the area we examine in the lab
• The pointer at the “V” is the Obex
Step 9
• Cut the samples as pictured
• The middle piece of tissue contains the Obex and the
Motor Nucleus of the Vagus
• The Obex is the key area
Procedure Manual for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance

snip...


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nvsl/BSE/procedure_manual.pdf

Procedure Manual for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance
Procedures for Obtaining and Submitting Samples from
Targeted High-Risk and Apparently Normal Cattle

□ Collect the brain stem, including the obex. Use a brain
tissue spoon or other suitable device. Sampling spoons and
tools will be provided by NVSL to sample collectors.

□ Prepare samples for shipping. Sample collectors must
evaluate the acceptability of the tissue sample. Samples that
are taken from the wrong location or that are significantly
autolyzed are not testable, and should not be submitted unless
specific arrangements are made in advance. The only
exception to this is for samples taken from cattle condemned
as a result of an antemortem inspection. See Appendix E for
guidance on taking and submitting a quality sample.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nvsl/BSE/procedure_manual.pdf


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/94513.html


HISTORY OF THIS COW AND TESTING OF IT;

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94622.html

Aguzzi Letter

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94620.html

Markus Moser Prionics BSE-L

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94621.html

Q&A Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94629.html


BIO-RAD

> > -------- 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
>

FULL TEXT;

http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94627.html


TSS TEXAS MAD COW LIVES !

still disgusted in Bacliff, Texas

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To:
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 2:43 PM
Subject: MAD COW CONFIRMED IN 2ND CASE IN USA


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

From: TSS ()
Subject: MAD COW CONFIRMED IN USA, 2ND CASE CONFIRMED FINALLY
Date: June 24, 2005 at 12:38 pm PST

Release No. 0232.05
Contact:
USDA Press Office (202)720-4623

Printable version


USDA ANNOUNCES BSE TEST RESULTS AND NEW BSE CONFIRMATORY TESTING PROTOCOL

WASHINGTON, June 24, 2005 -- Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns today announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has received final test results from The Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, England, confirming that a sample from an animal that was blocked from the food supply in November 2004 has tested positive for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Johanns also directed USDA scientists to work with international experts to thoughtfully develop a new protocol that includes performing dual confirmatory tests in the event of another "inconclusive" BSE screening test.

"We are currently testing nearly 1,000 animals per day as part of our BSE enhanced surveillance program, more than 388,000 total tests, and this is the first confirmed case resulting from our surveillance," Johanns said. "I am encouraged that our interlocking safeguards are working exactly as intended. This animal was blocked from entering the food supply because of the firewalls we have in place. Americans have every reason to continue to be confident in the safety of our beef."

Effective immediately, if another BSE rapid screening test results in inconclusive findings, USDA will run both an IHC and Western blot confirmatory test. If results from either confirmatory test are positive, the sample will be considered positive for BSE.

"I want to make sure we continue to give consumers every reason to be confident in the health of our cattle herd," Johanns said. "By adding the second confirmatory test, we boost that confidence and bring our testing in line with the evolving worldwide trend to use both IHC and Western blot together as confirmatory tests for BSE."

USDA has initiated an epidemiological investigation to determine the animal's herd of origin. That investigation is not yet complete. The animal was born before the United States instituted a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in August 1997, which prevents the use of most mammalian protein in cattle feed. According to internationally accepted research, feed containing meat-and-bone meal is the primary way BSE is transferred to the cattle population.

The animal was selected for testing because, as a non-ambulatory animal, it was considered to be at higher risk for BSE. An initial screening test on the animal in November 2004 was inconclusive, triggering USDA to conduct the internationally accepted confirmatory IHC tests. Those test results were negative. Earlier this month, USDA's Office of the Inspector General recommended further testing of the seven-month-old sample using another internationally recognized confirmatory test, the Western blot. Unlike the IHC, the Western blot was reactive, prompting USDA to send samples from the animal to the Weybridge laboratory for further analysis.

The laboratory in Weybridge, England, is recognized by the World Animal Health Organization, or OIE, as a world reference laboratory for BSE. Weybridge officials this week conducted a combination of rapid, IHC and Western blot testing on tissue samples from the animal in question. At the same time these diagnostic tests were being run by Weybridge, USDA conducted its own additional tests.

As a non-ambulatory, or "downer" animal, the cow was prohibited from entering the human food supply, under an interim final rule in effect since January 2004. Research has shown that BSE is most likely to be found in older non-ambulatory cattle, animals showing signs of central nervous system disorders, injured or emaciated animals, and cattle that have died for unexplained reasons. USDA's testing program targets these groups of animals for testing.

The system of human health protections includes the USDA ban on specified risk materials, or SRM's, from the food supply. SRM's are most likely to contain the BSE agent if it is present in an animal. Additional measures, such as a longstanding ban on importing cattle and beef products from high-risk countries, a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, U.S. slaughter practices, and aggressive surveillance provide a series of interlocking safeguards to protect U.S. consumers and animal health.

USDA remains committed to protecting both U.S. consumers and U.S. livestock from BSE, and to that end continues efforts to detect the disease through its enhanced BSE surveillance program. Once sufficient data from the surveillance program has been accumulated, USDA will consult with outside experts to analyze it and determine whether any changes to existing risk management measures are necessary.

This confirmed case of BSE in no way impacts the safety of our nation's food supply. As the epidemiological investigation progresses, USDA will continue to communicate findings in a timely and transparent manner.


Last Modified: 06/24/2005


http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/1/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2005%2F06%2F0232.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM

TSS

#################### 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: