SEARCH VEGSOURCE:

 

 

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




From: TSS ()
Subject: For Months, Agriculture Department Delayed Announcing Result of Mad Cow Test NYT
Date: June 26, 2005 at 7:16 am PST


For Months, Agriculture Department Delayed Announcing Result of Mad Cow Test

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. and ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
Published: June 26, 2005
Although the Agriculture Department confirmed Friday that a cow that died last year was infected with mad cow disease, a test the agency conducted seven months ago indicated that the animal had the disease. The result was never publicly disclosed.

The delay in confirming the United States' second case of mad cow disease seems to underscore what critics of the agency have said for a long time: that there are serious and systemic problems in the way the Agriculture Department tests animals for mad cow.

Indeed, the lengthy delay occurred despite the intense national interest in the disease and the fact that many countries have banned shipments of beef from the United States because of what they consider to be lax testing policies.

Until Friday, it was not public knowledge that an "experimental" test had been performed last November by an Agriculture Department laboratory on the brain of a cow suspected of having mad cow disease, and that the test had come up positive.

For seven months, all that was known was that a test on the same cow done at the same laboratory at roughly the same time had come up negative. The negative result was obtained using a test that the Agriculture Department refers to as its "gold standard."

The explanation that the department gave late Friday, when the positive test result came to light, was that there was no bad intention or cover-up, and that the test in question was only experimental.

"The laboratory folks just never mentioned it to anyone higher up," said Ed Loyd, an Agriculture Department spokesman. "They didn't know if it was valid or not, so they didn't report it."

On hearing that Friday night, Dr. Michael K. Hansen, a senior research associate at Consumers Union and frequent department critic, reacted skeptically.

"That seems hard to fathom," he said. "If it's true, we have a serious communication problem at the Department of Agriculture. How can we be confident of anything they're saying?"

Mr. Loyd, reacting to a reporter's question about the Agriculture Department's handling of the issue, said, "In hindsight, reporting it would have been the thing to do."

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns briefly mentioned the positive test result at a news conference on Friday. The primary focus of the conference was to announce that British scientists had confirmed the United States' second case of the disease.

The sequence of events started in November, when an Agriculture Department laboratory in Ames, Iowa, performed two tests on the animal in question. After the "gold standard" test came up negative, the agency announced that the animal had not had mad cow disease. But at the same time, the same lab also conducted the experimental test, with different results.

Then two weeks ago, for reasons that are unclear, Phyllis K. Fong, the Agriculture Department's inspector general, arranged for further tests on specimens of the same cow. A test known as the Western blot, which is widely used in England and Japan but not in the United States, came up positive.

Because this result conflicted with the "gold standard" result from November, a specimen from the same animal was sent to a laboratory in Weybridge, England, that is considered pre-eminent in its field. Several tests were conducted there, and all of them came up positive; it was the results of those tests that Mr. Johanns announced at the news conference on Friday afternoon.

The nation's mad cow testing system is now infuriating both ranchers and consumers. Consumer lobbyists say the flawed results show once again that 15 years of testing has been dangerously inadequate. And now the beef lobby, which has long enjoyed a cozy relationship with the Agriculture Department, is complaining that the testing system is dangerously unpredictable.

Jim McAdams, president of the 25,000-member National Cattlemen's Beef Association, has complained that unexpected testing creates "great anxiety within our industry," and leads to "significant losses."

Thirty-six countries have shut their doors to American beef, virtually wiping out a $3 billion export market, which Australia happily moved into.

On Saturday, Taiwan reimposed a ban on American beef that it had lifted just two months ago, Reuters reported.

Published: June 26, 2005
(Page 2 of 2)

The new case of mad cow appeared to be in a native-born animal, though Mr. Johanns was vague about that. Testing also suggested that the animal caught the disease from a new food source, since the strain was different from that of the Washington State cow that tested positive in 2003.

Mr. Johanns said that catching one positive in 388,000 recent tests proved the system worked.
But critics said it did no such thing, because the system was designed strictly for surveillance. One positive caught after a seven-month delay was, at best, a stroke of luck, the critics said.

Other countries use food-safety standards: Japan tests every cow, Europe tests about one in four.

The United States instead uses statistical models that it says will let a few tests detect the infection even in one cow in a million. It now tests one in 90; when the first mad cow case was found in 2003, it was testing one in 1,700.

With its statistical logic under regular attack, the United States has increased the number of tests to 388,000 in the past year, from 40 in 1990. But until recently, Mr. Johanns was discussing cutting back to 40,000 tests.

That system is "bizarre, illogical and woefully inadequate," said John Stauber, co-author of the book, "Mad Cow U.S.A.," which was first published in 1997.

"The bottom line," he said, "is that the U.S. government is afraid of putting in real food-safety testing because it would certainly find additional cases."

Mr. Loyd of the Agriculture Department replied that surveillance testing assumed a few animals would be positive, and that his department had nearly doubled its own goal of testing 220,000 cases in a year.

"There is no scientific basis," he said, for doing what Japan and many critics want: testing all animals or all those more than 20 months old.

But even a scientist who helped design the department's testing now harbors doubts about it.

In an interview before the second case was found, Dr. Linda A. Detwiler, who retired in 2002 as the chief of the mad cow testing program and now teaches veterinary medicine at the University of Maryland, said the department should be using the Western blot test it was resisting.

"You need to put as many tools in your tool kit as possible," she said.

Mr. Loyd said Secretary Johanns now agreed. The beef industry now cites its consumer-protecting "firewalls."

But it took many years to erect them: a ban on feeding ruminants to cattle, a ban on using near-dead dairy cows as beef and a ban on using the brains and spinal cords of older cattle in feed.

Other practices that many veterinarians dislike continue, such as feeding poultry litter with spilled cattle meal in it back to cattle, giving calves "milk replacer" made from cattle blood and letting cows eat dried restaurant "plate waste."

Dr. Detwiler was adamant that those practices should end, and that the brains and spines of all cattle should be destroyed, not made into feed even for pigs or chickens.

"That's how you keep infectivity out of the food chain," she said. "If a farmer makes a mistake and gives pig feed to cattle by mistake, the feed is safe."

The beef lobby has opposed many changes, and statements from the industry and the lobby often echo each other. When Mr. Johanns held a sort of pep rally for beef in Minnesota recently, no consumer groups were on a panel that declared American beef "very, very safe," but lobbyists were.

The industry casts a long shadow over the department. Ann M. Veneman, a former agriculture secretary, had as her spokeswoman Alisa Harrison, who, in 1996, accused a doctors' group of being an animal rights group opposed to eating meat. The doctors' group had endorsed the ban on feeding cattle or sheep to cattle.

Mr. Johanns, a former Nebraska governor who grew up on a dairy farm, inherited two officials of the cattlemen's group, Charles Lambert and Dale Moore, as deputies. His under secretary for farm and foreign agriculture services, J. B. Penn, worked at a consulting firm serving the industry.

Last week, according to the Kyodo news service in Japan, a group of Japanese lawmakers who visited Mr. Penn in Washington accused him of "threatening" them with trade retaliation and saying that the United States' patience was growing short and that they should simply accept American beef.

Mr. Loyd denied that, saying the meeting was "cordial."

Such connections to industry impede the department's duty to police it, said Representative Rosa L. DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. (On Tuesday, the department announced $140 million in grants to advertise American food overseas, including $12 million to the U.S. Meat Export Federation.)

She wants a new, separate food safety agency, like the one Britain created in 1999.

But the department's harshest critic has emerged from within - it is Ms. Fong, the inspector general, who ordered the new round of tests.

Last spring, she issued a scathing analysis of the testing program, saying, for example, that it could not do scientific sampling because it was voluntary, tested too few healthy-looking cattle, and could not assure that sick but walking cattle and cattle that died on farms were tested.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/national/26beef.html?th&emc=th

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/26/national/26beef.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexei Barrionuevo"
To:
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 12:06 PM
Subject: Query from New York Times reporter


>
> Terry,
>
> XXXXX XXXXXX recommended I contact you. I am following the latest
> potential mad cow case. Word is leaking out that this could be a Texas cow.
> Could you prove that it is in fact a Texas cow?
>
> Best,
> Alexei
>
> ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
> Financial Correspondent
> The New York Times
> 111 E. Wacker Drive
> suite 2912
> Chicago, IL 60601
> 312.552-7204
> alexei@nytimes.com
>


Hello Alexia,

> Terry,
>
> XXXXXXX XXXXXXX recommended I contact you. I am following the latest
> potential mad cow case. Word is leaking out that this could be a Texas
cow.
> Could you prove that it is in fact a Texas cow?


well, i had several emails when this was all going down
from people i did not know. i will have to dig them
up. PLUS, a canadian paper leaked it out. i have that
now. PLUS, some data on the fact they knew only
checking the obex would miss some cases;

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


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


snip...


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


snip...


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


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


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


USDA 2003

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

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


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


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

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

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


snip...


FULL TEXT;


Completely Edited Version
PRION ROUNDTABLE


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


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


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

some history of the nov. inconclusive and the june 2004 enhanced bse
cover-up;

----- 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
> > ####################
> >

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexei Barrionuevo"
To:
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 12:06 PM
Subject: Query from New York Times reporter


>
> Terry,
>
> XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX recommended I contact you. I am following the latest
> potential mad cow case. Word is leaking out that this could be a Texas
cow.
> Could you prove that it is in fact a Texas cow?
>
> Best,
> Alexei
>
> ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
> Financial Correspondent
> The New York Times
> 111 E. Wacker Drive
> suite 2912
> Chicago, IL 60601
> 312.552-7204
> alexei@nytimes.com
>
>
>
>


> Any harder confirmation would be much appreciated.

IF i had anything harder for USDA on BSE, i would stick
it where the sun don't shine ;-)

here is the thread from the person that told me. for now,
i have deleted the email address and name........TSS


Texas

single beef cow

not born in Canada

no beef entered the food chain


HERE IS THREAD;

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

To: BSE-L@LISTSERV.KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE

##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
#####################Greetings list,still hear same rumor on
inconclusive;Texas cow single beef cow not born in Canada no beef entered
the food chain?plus i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping
up forsomething, but they forgot a url for update?I HAVE NO ACTUAL
CONFIRMATION YET...Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy:November 22: Press
Release title here star image More BSE
informationhttp://www.tahc.state.tx.us/TSS##############
BSE-L-subscribe-request@kaliv.uni-karlsruhe.de ##############


-------- Original Message -------- Subject: mad cow details
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:40:36 -0800 (PST)
From:
To: flounder@WT.NET

Texas

single beef cow

not born in Canada

no beef entered the food chain


Stay tuned .....


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!

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

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: mad cow details
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:59:36 -0800 (PST)


From:

To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

Sorry -- that's all I can give you. 7pm EST announcement.


"Terry S. Singeltary Sr." wrote:
you dog you, please give me details..............:tss

XXXX wrote:

Texas


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

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: BSE USA
'INCONCLUSIVE' TEST REPORTED NOV. 18, 2004]
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:12:42 -0800 (PST)
From: >
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

You don't get it. This has not been published. There is no URL. I'm giving
you information that the AP and Reuters don't have yet.

- a friend "inside"


"Terry S. Singeltary Sr." wrote:


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

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: BSE USA
'INCONCLUSIVE' TEST REPORTED NOV. 18, 2004]
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:28:13 -0800 (PST)
From:
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

Patience. It will come. I have no control over when.

"Terry S. Singeltary Sr." wrote:

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


-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: BSE USA
'INCONCLUSIVE' TEST REPORTED NOV. 18, 2004]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:06:09 -0800 (PST)
From:
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

Sorry -- can't tell you more yet. All will come out.

"Terry S. Singeltary Sr." wrote:

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

TSS


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexei Barrionuevo"
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 1:53 PM
Subject: RE: Query from New York Times reporter


> Terry,
>
> Thanks for this. Any harder confirmation would be much appreciated.
>
> Best,
> Alexei
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [mailto:flounder9@verizon.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 12:20 PM
> To: Alexei Barrionuevo
> Subject: Re: Query from New York Times reporter
>
>
> Hello Alexia,
>
> > Terry,
> >
> > XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX recommended I contact you. I am following the latest
> > potential mad cow case. Word is leaking out that this could be a Texas
> cow.
> > Could you prove that it is in fact a Texas cow?
>
>
> well, i had several emails when this was all going down
> from people i did not know. i will have to dig them
> up. PLUS, a canadian paper leaked it out. i have that
> now. PLUS, some data on the fact they knew only
> checking the obex would miss some cases;
>
> Release No. 0207.05
> Contact:
> USDA Press Office (202)720-4623
>
>
> Transcript of Tele-News Conference with Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns
> and Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer, Animal Plant Health
> Inspection Service Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test
> Results Washington, D.C.
> June 10, 2005
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
>
>
> snip...
>
>
>
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&con
> tentid=2005/06/0207.xml
>
>
> >>>"In addition, there are definite differences between these two tests.
The
> IHC is internationally recognized, and why we chose that for our enhanced
> surveillance program is because that particular test does two things. It
> allows you to visualize the anatomic location where the lesions are most
> likely to be found which is the obex. At the same time it uses a staining
> technique on the prions, on abnormal prions in the tissue in that
location.
> ...<<<
>
>
> ANOTHER reason is by only looking at one portion of the brain, you miss
the
> rest of the brain that could be potentally infected. kinda like a 1 in 10
> chance of finding
> something. but this is par for the course with these folks....TSS
>
>
> USDA 2003
>
> We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things
that
> we
> forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
> away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
> stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
> project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they
did
> not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
> cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
> back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
> we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
> away from it. They've recently gone back.
> Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides
an
> 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
> .
>
> Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
> they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're
looking
> only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
> ourselves to one area.
>
>
> snip.............
>
>
> Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
> Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives
> do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the
> disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important.
> If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
> collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
> could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
> There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We
> have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
we
> forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
> away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
> stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
> project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they
did
> not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
> cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
> back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
> we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
> away from it. They've recently gone back.
>
> Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides
an
> 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
> .
>
> Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
> they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're
looking
> only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
> ourselves to one area.
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> FULL TEXT;
>
>
> Completely Edited Version
> PRION ROUNDTABLE
>
>
> Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado
>
>
> http://www.vegsource.com/talk/madcow/messages/94543.html
>
>
> 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
>
> some history of the nov. inconclusive and the june 2004 enhanced bse
> cover-up;
>
> ----- 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
> ####################
> >
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexei Barrionuevo"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 12:06 PM
> Subject: Query from New York Times reporter
>
>
> >
> > Terry,
> >
> > XXXXXX XXXXXXXX recommended I contact you. I am following the latest
> > potential mad cow case. Word is leaking out that this could be a Texas
> cow.
> > Could you prove that it is in fact a Texas cow?
> >
> > Best,
> > Alexei
> >
> > ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO
> > Financial Correspondent
> > The New York Times
> > 111 E. Wacker Drive
> > suite 2912
> > Chicago, IL 60601
> > 312.552-7204
> > alexei@nytimes.com
> >


HEIDENHAIN VARIANT CREUTZFELDT JAKOB DISEASE MOM DOD 12/14/97 !!!

TSS






Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail: (optional)
Subject:

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: