Monday, July 27, 2009
U.S.A. HIDING MAD COW DISEASE VICTIMS AS SPORADIC CJD ?
(strange, this would have been my mothers birthday, but she had been dead for 8 years hvCJD confirmed here in the U.S.A....TSS)
CBC’s The National
October 17, 2005
Safe To Eat?
PETER MANSBRIDGE (HOST):
Safe To Eat? She thought her son died of a random illness, one with no known cause, no cure. Now some scientists are questioning whether there's a new link to mad cow disease. Kelly Crowe reports. -
For years, scientists have known that B.S.E. causes variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. What some people call the human form of Mad Cow Disease. But another form of C.J.D., Sporadic C.J.D., has always confounded them. The most common theory has been that the deadly illness occurs spontaneously with no known cause. Now some of the world's leading scientists in the field are having another look at sporadic C.J.D. and the possibility that it too is linked to mad cow. Here's Kelly Crowe with a feature report.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
It starts out slowly. At first, the victims don't know what's wrong with them. They can't put their finger on it. They keep making little mistakes. The spelling mistakes that just look sloppy... numbers become easily confused... the words on the page become blurry. It's the beginning of a terrifying slide in to dementia and death. That's what happened to Jeff Schwan. Little by little, his brain was ravaged by a disease so rare, his mother had never even heard of it.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN (MOTHER OF JEFF SCHWAN):
And finally on August 11th, we received words you'll never want to hear. He has a disease that has no treatment and no cure, and we just tried to take that in.
NORMAN FOSTER (DOCTOR):
Check eye movements, look right here at my finger.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
It was Dr. Norman Foster who discovered the terrible truth. He specializes in diseases of the brain, and he's the one who finally figured out what was wrong with Jeff Schwan.
NORMAN FOSTER (DOCTOR):
The major problem was a seizure disorder, and that was investigated and treated, but despite treatment, he became progressively worse. And it was unclear at the time what was causing these seizures, and it was suspected that this was due to an encephalitis or meningitis or some other problem, and I strongly advocated that everything be done to identify what the cause of this is, and that led to a brain biopsy. When we examined the tissue under the microscope, we were somewhat surprised to find evidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
Jeff Schwan died from a mysterious illness called Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or Sporadic C.J.D. It's a rare and fatal brain-wasting disease that seems to strike out of nowhere. But was it really just bad luck that killed this healthy 26-year-old man, or is there another explanation? Sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is a type of prion disease. Prions are proteins found in humans and other mammals, but when an altered form of the prion appears, it somehow starts a critical chain reaction turning healthy prions in to deadly ones that ultimately destroy the brain. Prion diseases are always fatal. There is no cure, no treatment. And science now knows that prion diseases can be spread by eating meat. It was first realized here in Papua New Guinea back in 1957 where a brain-wasting disease called Curu was sweeping through a tribe of cannibals.
Scientists realized these people were developing Curu after feasting on the remains of their dead who were already infected. It was the first evidence that prion diseases could be spread through eating infected material. 30 years later, British cattle began developing a prion disease. It was called B.S.E. or Mad Cow Disease. It was spread when the animals ate feed made from diseased cattle. Then young Britons began dying, and scientists realized humans could catch a prion disease from eating infected beef. That disease is called Variant C.J.D. So far, it has claimed 170 victims. But none of that seems to explain what happened to Jeff Schwan. He had the other prion disease, the one that is thought to strike at random, so-called Sporadic C.J.D. Like the other prion diseases, the brain fills with sponge-like holes, but scientists don't know what causes sporadic C.J.D., and some are asking, could it also be caused by eating meat? Here's one possible clue: The disease sometimes shows up in clusters in people who live near each other. It happens too often to be explained only by chance. British epidemiologist Simon Cousins worked on two scientific studies that documented clusters of the disease in both England and France. The studies concluded that it must be caused by something on the outside, that it can't be just a spontaneous disease.
SIMON COUSINS (EPIDEMIOLOGIST):
The spontaneous event would be, doesn't really explain why they might be clustering. So the clustering is pointing one in the direction of thinking from time to time people are exposed to a common external source.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
One common external source, infected meat. It's a frightening possibility that is being actively investigated by some European scientists. Here in Switzerland, there was an epidemic of Mad Cow Disease in the 1990s, and now they're seeing a more than doubling in the rate of Sporadic C.J.D. Swiss scientists think there might be a connection.
ADRIANO AGUTZY (SCIENTIST):
What we need to find out is whether the whole problem of the enhanced Creutzfeldt-Jakob does, indeed, have something to do with mad cow's disease, but we certainly did have our definite window of exposure, and so if we now, if we had B.S.E. ten years ago and now we have enhanced Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, it's unavoidable to ask the question whether the two phenomena are related.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
DR. Adriano Agutzy is one of the world's experts on prion diseases. He says he has ruled out most of the other explanations, and now his main working hypothesis is that at least some Sporadic C.J.D. in Switzerland could be another form of human Mad Cow Disease.
ADRIANO AGUTZY (SCIENTIST):
But this by no means excludes that B.S.E. may manifest itself in humans with different characteristics, and maybe B.S.E. in Switzerland is also different from B.S.E. in the U.K., and then variant C.J.D. will also be different. So I think from the U.K. experience, it's impossible to draw the conclusion that B.S.E. will only give rise to what we know as variant C.J.D.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
What it means is cattle infected with prion disease might be causing Sporadic C.J.D. To find out, the scientists are trying to match the tissue from infected Swiss cattle with the tissue from Swiss victims. If the tissue looks the same on the lab tests, then it will be strong evidence the two are connected. Right next door in Italy, they might have already made that connection. This doctor was studying the brains from B.S.E. infected cattle when he noticed a form of the disease he'd never seen before. He realized it was a new form of Mad Cow Disease. It was the first time scientists realized there could be more than one kind of prion disease in cattle.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN:
So our assumption is that since there is this biochemical similarities together with this, we think there might be a connection between the two.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
He got a second shock when he ran the new cattle prion through the lab tests. It looked exactly like Sporadic C.J.D. He could hardly believe his eyes. He was looking at possible proof that humans could catch a second prion disease from cattle.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN:
Yes, this is only a biochemical evidence because at the beginning when B.S.E. has been discovered and the Variant C.J.D. had been discovered in the U.K., They found the single cell. I mean, the biochemical part of both B.S.E. and variant were similar. We found the same biochemical. There are pathological similarities and ecological similarities.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
There is still one more step to prove the link. This new strain of B.S.E. will be injected into mice that have human genes. It will take two years, but the results will bring scientists a little bit closer to the answer of whether Sporadic C.J.D. is caused by meat. ADRIANO AGUTZY (SCIENTIST):
I think that that is a possibility. Personally, I would say that it's possible that some of the cases are caused, I mean, maybe what would cause Sporadic C.J.D. is a collection of different diseases, and some of it could actually be transmission of B.S.E.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN:
It might be a possibility because it is an infectious disease. I mean, if you get a piece of brain of this with classic C.J.D. and you inoculate the animal, you transmit the disease, but on the other side, it's not clear whether the animal transmit the disease to man.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
Scientists agree that cattle prion disease must be kept out of the human food supply. The problem is finding it before the animal is slaughtered. Bitter experience has already proven that the disease can be lurking even as officials boast that their herd is B.S.E.-free. After years of making those claims, the U.S. has had to admit to a homegrown case of B.S.E. in a Texas cow this past June. And that case was discovered only after testing was dramatically increased. And yet the U.S. and Canada are still only testing cattle that look sick. And with that kind of testing and millions of animals slaughtered every year, the disease is easy to miss. A lesson the Italians already learned. In Italy, they didn't know for sure that they had Mad Cow Disease until they started testing, not just the animals that looked sick, but every single animal over 24 months that goes into the food chain. Now four years later, they've only had one animal that looks sick, but they've found more than 130 cases of Mad Cow Disease in healthy looking animals. In other words, if they hadn't been testing those 130 animals would have gone into the food chain. In North America, they're only looking at symptomatic cases, zero so they could be missing a lot of disease.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN:
Sure, they take only neurological cattle, cattle with neurological symptoms or downer cattle. So this is the so-called passive surveillance. When you have neurological, you make the potential diagnosis of C.J.D. And the only way to get rid of this is that all the animals should be tested, and people at least buy a piece of meat to say this is B.S.E.-free.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
Dr. Agutzy says the United States isn't trying hard enough to find prion disease in its cattle.
ADRIANO AGUTZY (SCIENTIST):
I think that in North America, there is a huge problem because North America has refused for many years to put in place any kind of serious surveillance of cattle, and I think this is a disgrace, and it really cries to Heaven about the fact that particularly the U.S. has just refused to even take into consideration the possibility that B.S.E. may be prevalent. It's a huge problem.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
It's also not clear how widespread Sporadic C.J.D. is. The final diagnosis can only be made after death by examining the brain in an autopsy, but today autopsies are rarely done. And although Sporadic C.J.D. is a rare condition, estimated at one in a million, Dr. Norman Foster suspects the rate is higher.
NORMAN FOSTER (DOCTOR):
In many states in the United States, if a physician suspects a case, they can report it as a public health problem, but there's no mechanism to investigate or no way to pursue this in a systematic way.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
So you could be missing lots of cases?
NORMAN FOSTER (DOCTOR):
So we are missing lots of cases.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
Jeff Schwan is on the official record as just another unfortunate victim of a rare disease that seems to strike for no reason. And for his mother, it is the unanswered questions that weigh most heavily on her shoulders.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN (MOTHER OF JEFF SCHWAN):
So all of these people who are dying of Sporadic C.J.D., they don't have an answer for. It's very, very frustrating because we want answers.
KELLY CROWE (REPORTER):
To get those answers, she must wait for the slow deliberate pace of science. Kelly Crowe, CBC News, Sterling Heights, Michigan.
http://www.healthcoalition.ca/cbccjd.pdf
WHY DID THIS VIDEO NOT SHOW ON EVERY NEWS CHANNEL IN THE U.S.A. $$$
IT IS A DAMNING VIDEO !!!
I WATCHED THIS RECENTLY, and had never seen it. i was so mad, i was spitting nails out faster than a framing gun.
WHY DID THE CANADIAN MEDIA ONLY PRESENT THIS TO THE U.S.A. PUBLIC (thank you very much though), and why has the U.S.A. MEDIA FAILED US ???
WHY DID R-CALF NOT SHOW THIS ??? where was r-calf when you needed them back then $$$
SEE DAMNING VIDEO HERE ;
FINALLY, GOT IT UPLOADED !
SEE THE VIDEO NOW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BLOG BELOW ;
http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/07/usa-hiding-mad-cow-disease-victims-as.html
NOW, AFTER SEEING THAT VIDEO, (first watch the video) lets go back in mad cow time here in the USA, shall we.
THERE must be an independent review of this cover-up, and the infamous ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE AND TESTING OF 2004, that was nothing but a cover-up, and blundered at that, and plus a REDO of the testing of no less than 1 million head of cattle tested each year, for five years, with scientist from the EU overseeing the testing protocols, surveillance, and confirmation of all cases.
this video states the 'USA had to _admit_ a home grown case of mad cow in TEXAS." fact was, they did not finally admit anything, IT TOOK AN ACT OF CONGRESS, THE HONORABLE PHYLISS FONG AND THE O.I.G., TO MAKE THEM RETEST AND CONFIRM! that my friend is fact. and only after Prof. Aguzzi, Dr. Jean-Philippe Deslys, Dr. Collinge et al slammed them over the testing of that animal. and then we had the mad cow in Texas that they just refused to test, and was sent to a pet food rendering plant. NO TEST AT ALL. you must realize, when other officials, doctors, and such from other country's confront issues about things in the USA, they must walk on ice when doing so. read inbetween the lines here ;
i wrote all these scientist and doctors and the OIG about that damn texas cow, gave them the evidence i had from TAHC. so did others, but finally fong et al did something.
a bit of history for you mel. file this away. ...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Greetings again Professor Aguzzi ... TSS
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:19:49 +0100
From: "Adriano Aguzzi" To: "'Terry S. Singeltary Sr.'"
Dear Mr. Singeltary
I sympathize with your wish to have the most sensitive assay implemented. However, the situation is not as simple as one might think. In the case of homogeneously distributed agent, biochemical detection of PrPSc is indeed likely to be more sensitive than immunohistochemistry. In the case of variegated, punctate distribution of the agent, morphological methods may indeed be an asset.
There are also issues of feasibility. In my laboratory
, we routinely run phosphotungstic acid precipitation followed by Western blotting. However, this is an extraordinarily cumbersome procedure. The sensitivity is increased vastly, but the amount of work needed is also amazing. There is no way I could see our own procedure implemented for mass screening of millions of cows - unless one would draft a veritable army of laboratory technicians. For all these reasons, while I see all your points, I feel unable to offer a strong public opinion in favor or against any specific methods. The final decision needs to take into account a variety of complex factors, and that is why I believe that it is best left to a panel of experts rather than to a public discussion.
Best regards Adriano Aguzzi
____________________________
Prof. Adriano Aguzzi (MD PhD hc FRCP FRCPath) Institute of Neuropathology, University Hospital of Zürich Schmelzbergstrasse 12, CH-8091 Zürich, Switzerland Tel. ++41-1-255 2107 Tel. (direct line): 2869 Fax: ++41-1-255 4402, cellular: +41-79-320 1516
http://www.unizh.ch/pathol/neuropathologie/
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr. [mailto:flounder@wt.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 20:18
To: adriano@pathol.unizh.ch
Subject: Greetings again Professor Aguzzi ... TSS
Greetings again Professor Aguzzi,
A kind greetings from Texas. I hope you do not mind, but I must ask you several questions that will put you in the hot seat. Someone with credibility must come forward, such as yourself and speak out about the fact of the non scientific approach that USDA et al has take after the first diagnosis of BSE in the USA. This being, the refusal to use Western Blot on any suspicious or inconclusive BSE/TSE test. IHC is like a brain biopsy on trying to diagnose a CJD case. IF you take the sample from a part of the brain that is not that tainted, you will not get a reading. WB is much more sensitive, especially now with the Phospohtugstic acid precipitation step. IF Prusiners CDI was validated, who knows, that might even be more sensitive. Bottom line, we need you to come forward and state publicly ''the facts'' about USDA et al decision not to use WB on not only questionable samples, but on ALL samples. would you be willing to comment on this, to me or someone from the media (under the understanding it will be for the public)? I have several questions for you??? This is very very important in terms of human health (i.e. that nov. pos. pos. incl. neg cow).
P.S. there is one other top TSE scientist that has come forward and said what the USDA et al did with that cow was ''not logical''. (this will not be published for another 3 or 4 weeks). ONE other TOP TSE scientist saying the same thing would be much better for the public to hear and understand. anyway, does not hurt to ask, and i hope you come through here for us. I know this is a very loaded question, but times a wasting, and human health is at risk here...
thank you, with kindest regards,
I am sincerely,
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
CJD WATCH
http://www.fortunecity.com/healthclub/cpr/349/part1cjd.htm
CJD Watch message board
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/236650.html
From: TSS
Subject: Re: Feds skipped key mad cow disease test in 2004 case USDA changes its protocols after animal initially had been cleared
Date: June 17, 2005 at 10:35 am PST
In Reply to: Re: Feds skipped key mad cow disease test in 2004 case USDA changes its protocols after animal initially had been cleared posted by TSS on June 17, 2005 at 5:03 am:
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
I would like to add to the first paragraph of Adriano Aguzzis comments. We have seen cases in Europe, where a positive result obtained with our Western blot rapid test(Prionics-Check WESTERN)could not be confirmed with IHC, but with the OIE-Western blot procedure, and we have also seen cases where the result could be confirmed by IHC but not by OIE-Western blot. As Adrino Aguzzi pointed out both IHC and OIE-Western have their limitations, but when combined and when performed well they pick up BSE reliably. In case of doubt, i.e. if a rapid test comes out consistently positive but an initial attempt of confirmation with IHC (or OIE-Western) fails, we recommend to routinely do a second test with the respective alternative method. This is the procedure most national reference centers, which are responsible for final confirmation of BSE cases, are following.
Regards Markus Moser Prionics
-----Original Message-----
From: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [mailto:BSE-L@aegee.org] On Behalf Of Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Sent: Freitag, 17. Juni 2005 14:07
To: BSE-L@aegee.org
Subject: Re: [CJDVoice] Feds skipped key mad cow disease test in 2004 case USDA changes its protocols after animal initially had been cleared
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:53:39 +0100
From: Moser Markus
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
Regarding your question about Canada's BSE-test choice for their official BSE surveillance, I can confirm that they chose the Prionics-Check Western rapid test. Regards Markus
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:11:04 +0100 From: Roland Heynkes Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy To: mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
Dear Terry,
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.
the BioRad-test seems to be the most sensitive rapid BSE test and it is clear that you "get" false positive results when you try to confirm its results with a less sensitive method like immune histochemistry. Poorly trained technicians of course may produce some false positives with the BioRad-test, but immune histochemistry produces many false negatives especially in the hands of not very experienced people. Generally the false negative and not the much fewer false positive results are the problem of all actually available BSE tests.
It is therefore not so easy to say, if the BioRad-test produced a false positive or if the confirming test produced a false negative result and which of them is more reliable. I for sure would not eat the meat of a cow which was seemingly false positive tested with the BioRad-test.
IT's like they purposely do not want to find any TSE in the USA bovine, so they pick the worst test available.
The BioRad-test is definitively not the worst test available (have a look on the EU results) and when a government does not want to get positive results, it uses immune histochemistry instead.
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.
Are you sure that USDA has experts for BSE testing?
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?
The Prionics western blot test is also a good rapid test which of course does not produce false positive results. In addition this test allows to see new variants of BSE, which would not be seen with the BioRad. But at least in Europe its positive results become confirmed by the OIE Western blot exactly as the BioRad results. Because of this control step the BioRad test cannot produce significantly more problems.
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
Not the minor differences between the rapid tests are the problem, but the much to low testing numbers and the prefered IHC-testing in the USA. In Germany we test every month as many as the USA is going to test per year (mostly with BioRad) - and we have only 13 million cattle.
kind regards
Roland
########### http://mailhost.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/warc/bse-l.html ############
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: US CHOICE OF MAD COW TEST QUESTIONED
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:51:09 +0100
From: Moser Markus
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de
######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########
Dear Roland
Immunohistochemistry, correctly executed, is the gold standard, together with the OIE Western blotting method. It allows detection of infection even in cases where prion aggregates can only be detected in few individual cells. It is certainly not less sensitive than either Bio-Rad or Prionics. In fact, the abundant data on all three methods indicate equal diagnostic sensitivity (if sampling is done appropriate: note that immunohistochemistry has to be conducted on different tissue samples, since the tissue has to be formalin fixed). In case a BSE case obtained with a rapid test cannot be confirmed in a first approach with one of the gold standard methods, the second method will be used. I agree, that the sensitivity of immunohistochemistry can be negatively influenced e.g. by only looking at a limited number of slides or by not carefully examining the slides for prion aggregates. However, if a rapid test is not confirmed by immunohistochemistry due to a sloppy analysis, it will still show up in the OIE Western blot. Nevertheless, it is of course possible, that a true positive result cannot be confirmed e.g. if only the tissue sample used for the initial testing contained prion aggregates, which is theoretically possible, since the aggregates are not evenly distributed in the tissue. This is why it is not formally possible to disproof with 100% certainty an initial positive diagnosis (and you are right: it's certainly wise to rather not eat any suspicious animals). Nevertheless, false positives cannot in general be attributed to faulty confirmatory tests, but to the fact that the ELISA method simply produces a certain rate of false positives, which is why we offer rapid BSE tests on both platforms, the ELISA and the Western technology. And we make it clear to our customers, that when choosing the Prionics-Check LIA (the ELISA based test) coping with occasional false positive results will be inevitable. The LIA is therefore mostly used in European countries, with well established levels of BSE, while the Prionics-Check Western is also used in BSE-free countries (where a maximum positive predictive value is important to support the conclusion of low frequency or absence of BSE, which would otherwise be difficult for the reason you indicated and I mentioned above, i.e. due to the reason that it is hard to formally disprove an initial diagnosis with absolute certainty).
Regards, Markus
-------- 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: mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:BSE-L@LISTSERV.KALIV.UNI-KARLSRUHE.DE References: <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:41A3B789.6080907@wt.net> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:41A4ED7C.4090501@wt.net>
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
-------- 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: <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:419E14E2.5040104@wt.net> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.us> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:41A2724F.3000901@wt.net> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:6.0.0.22.2.20041122174504.02796d38@tahc.state.tx.us> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:41A27EBC.4050700@wt.net> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto: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
-------- 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: <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:419E14E2.5040104@wt.net> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:6.0.0.22.2.20041119113601.02682730@tahc.state.tx.us> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:41A2724F.3000901@wt.net> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:6.0.0.22.2.20041122174504.02796d38@tahc.state.tx.us> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:41A27EBC.4050700@wt.net> <mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto: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 #####################
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: mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto: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 > > #########
A New Prionopathy OR more of the same old BSe and sporadic CJD
http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-prionopathy-or-more-of-same-old-bse.html
http://madcowusda.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html
-------- 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: mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto: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 ##########
SEE ATTEMPTED COVER-UP BEFORE THE END AROUND BY FONG ET AL OF THE O.I.G
The U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed June 29 that genetic testing had verified bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in a 12-year-old cow that was born and raised in a Texas beef cattle herd.
Subsequent epidemiological investigations resulted in the culling and testing of 67 adult animals from the index herd. Bio-Rad tests for BSE were conducted on all 67 animals by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa. All tests were negative.
On July 12, Texas officials lifted the quarantine on the source herd. At press time, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was tracing animals of the same age that had left the ranch.
Timeline
The BSE-positive animal was a Brahman-cross cow born and raised in a single Texas herd. The location of the ranch was not disclosed.
On Nov. 11, 2004, the 12-year-old cow was taken to a Texas auction market. Because of its condition, the cow was sent to Champion Pet Foods in Waco, Texas. The company produces several blends of dog food, primarily for the greyhound industry.
On Nov. 15, the animal arrived dead at Champion. Under procedures established by USDA's intensive surveillance program, a sample was sent to the USDA-approved Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Testing Laboratory (TVMDL) at Texas A&M University.
Between June 1, 2004, and June 1, 2005, TVMDL tested nearly 34,000 samples from Texas, New Mexico, Arkansas and Louisiana. They tested the sample from Champion on Nov. 19 using a Bio-Rad ELISA rapid test for BSE. Initial results were inconclusive.
Because of the inconclusive results, a representative from USDA took the entire carcass to TVMDL where it was incinerated. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) began tracing the animal and herd.
The sample was then sent to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory for further testing. Two Immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests were conducted and both were negative for BSE. At that point APHIS stopped their trace.
USDA scientists also ran an additional, experimental IHC "rapid" tissue fixation test for academic purposes. This test has not been approved internationally.
Some abnormalities were noted in the experimental test, but because the two approved tests came back negative, the results were not reported beyond the laboratory.
Monitoring by OIG
USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has been monitoring implementation of the BSE expanded surveillance program and evaluating the following:
* Effectiveness of the surveillance program;
* Performance of BSE laboratories in complying with policies and procedures for conducting tests and reporting results;
* Enforcement of the ban on specified risk materials in meat products;
* Controls to prevent central nervous system tissue in advanced meat recovery products;
* Ante mortem condemnation procedures; and
* Procedures for obtaining brain tissue samples from condemned cattle.
While reviewing voluminous records, OIG auditors noticed conflicting test results on one sample-rapid inconclusive, IHC negative, experimental reactive.
Sample retested
At the recommendation of the Inspector General, the sample was retested during the week of June 5 with a second confirmatory test, the Western Blot. The results were reactive.
USDA scientists then conducted an additional IHC confirmatory test, using different antibodies from the November 2004 test. On Friday, June 10, Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns publicly announced the results as a "weak positive."
On June 16 an official with USDA's National Veterinary Services Laboratory hand-carried samples for further testing to the Veterinary Laboratory Agency (VLA) in Weybridge, England. Since 1991, the VLA has been a BSE reference laboratory for the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).
Experts from the Weybridge lab confirmed the accuracy of the results of USDA's November confirmatory IHC test, concurring that the case could not have been confirmed on the basis of this sample. They also examined the November experimental IHC test and interpreted the results to be positive.
Weybridge also conducted additional tests, including IHC, OIE-prescribed Western Blot, NaTTA Western Blot and Prionics Western Blot tests.
To better understand the conflicting results, USDA also conducted Bio-Rad and IDEXX rapid screening tests, IHC and OIE-prescribed Western Blot. USDA also used DNA sequencing to determine the prion protein gene sequence of the animal.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5420/is_200508/ai_n21377094
Texas even had a 'secret' test that showed that mad cow positive; experimental IHC test results, because the test was not a validated procedure, and because the two approved IHC tests came back negative, the results were not considered to be of regulatory significance and therefore were not reported beyond the laboratory. . A Western blot test conducted the week of June 5, 2005, returned positive for BSE.
http://www.usda.gov/documents/vs_bse_ihctestvar.pdf
48 hr BSE confirmation turnaround took 7+ months to confirm this case, so the BSE MRR policy could be put into place. ...TSS
PLEASE SEE ;
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan Summary and BSE Red Book Date: February 14, 2000 at 8:56 am PST
WHERE did we go wrong $$$
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/07/us-emergency-bovine-spongiform.html
TSS TO O.I.G. ;
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: re-USDA's surveillance plan for BSE aka mad cow disease
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 16:59:07 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000505/!x-usc:mailto:paffairs@oig.hhs.gov, mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000505/!x-usc:mailto:HHSTips@oig.hhs.gov, mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000553/!x-usc:mailto:contactOIG@hhsc.state.tx.us
Greetings Honorable Paul Feeney, Keith Arnold, and William Busbyet al at OIG, ...............
snip...
There will be several more emails of my research to follow. I respectfully request a full inquiry into the cover-up of TSEs in the United States of America over the past 30 years. I would be happy to testify...
Thank you, I am sincerely, Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA 77518 xxx xxx xxxx
Date: June 14, 2005 at 1:46 pm PST In Reply to: Re: Transcript Ag. Secretary Mike Johanns and Dr. John Clifford, Regarding further analysis of BSE Inconclusive Test Results posted by TSS on June 13, 2005 at 7:33 pm:
Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman resigns Nov 15 2004, three days later inclusive Mad Cow is announced. June 7th 2005 Bill Hawks Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs resigns. Three days later same mad cow found in November turns out to be positive. Both resignation are unexpected. just pondering... TSS
MAD COW IN TEXAS NOVEMBER 2004. ...TSS
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW fromTEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To: Carla EverettReferences: <[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask] us>
Greetings Carla, still hear a rumor;
Texas single beef cow not born in Canada no beef entered the food chain?
and i see the TEXAS department of animal health is ramping up for something, but they forgot a url for update?
I HAVE NO ACTUAL CONFIRMATION YET...
can you confirm??? terry
============================================================
-------- 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: <[log in to unmask]>
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: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ???
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:33:20 -0600
From: Carla Everett
To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."References: <[log in to unmask]><[log in to unmask] us><[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]us> <[log in to unmask]>
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.>>>>>>
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER TEXAS MAD COW THAT WAS CONVENIENTLY A COVER-UP AS WELL, BUT THEY SUCCEEDED IN THIS COVER-UP ???
snip...see ;
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/08/bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-mad.html
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE WASHINGTON, DC
08-07
2/2/2007
FSIS NOTICE
SAMPLE COLLECTION FROM CATTLE UNDER THE BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) ONGOING SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
I. PURPOSE
This notice provides the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspection program personnel with instructions regarding the collection of brain samples for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) ongoing surveillance plan. This notice cancels FSIS Notice 51-06, Sample Collection from Cattle under the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Ongoing Surveillance Program, and FSIS Notice 52-06, Temporary Suspension of Provision in the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Ongoing Surveillance Program. FSIS has incorporated the pertinent information from the cancelled notices into this notice. This revised notice is a result of changes APHIS has made to its surveillance plan.
II. DEFINITION OF NEW COLLECTION PROCEDURES
A. Approved Alternative Off-Site Sample Collection
1. APHIS will provide for the collection of brain (obex) samples from an allocated number of cattle 30 months and older condemned for any reason on ante-mortem inspection, and from cattle of any age displaying Central Nervous System (CNS) symptoms, at federally-inspected slaughter establishments that have agreements with APHIS under the approved alternative off-site sample collection program. 2. At such establishments, FSIS inspection program personnel will not collect brain samples. They will provide the following to plant management: a. condemn tag (Z-tag) numbers (not the Z-tag itself); and
b. disposition information (i.e., the reason for condemnation under 9 CFR Part 309).
DISTRIBUTION: Inspection Offices;
NOTICE EXPIRES: 3/1/08
OPI: OPPED
T/A Inspectors; TSC; Import Offices
B. Brain Sample Collection of Cattle Displaying CNS Symptoms
1. At Federally-inspected establishments not under the approved alternative off-site sample collection program, FSIS Public Health Veterinarians (PHVs):
a. will collect appropriate BSE samples from cattle of all ages that display CNS symptoms, or b. will not collect the samples for BSE testing if the slaughter establishment has made or plans to make arrangements with APHIS, whereby the samples from cattle condemned for CNS symptoms will be collected at a location other than on the official plant premises. NOTE: Certain Alternative Off-Site Agreements that were in place during Enhanced Surveillance may no longer be in effect and establishments will need to initiate new agreements with APHIS and potential collectors.
III. FSIS PERSONNEL RESPONSIBILITIES A. Upon receipt of this notice, the FSIS PHV is to hold an awareness meeting with the establishment. At this meeting, the FSIS PHV should ask the management whether: 1. it is under APHIS' approved alternative off-site sample collection program for collecting allocated samples (paragraph II. A.); and
2. if not, whether:
a. FSIS is to collect brain samples from cattle displaying CNS symptoms (paragraph II. B. 1.a.); or b. the establishment needs time to engage in making arrangements with APHIS for the off-site brain sample collection of such cattle (paragraph II. B. 1. b.). B. If during the awareness meeting establishment management states that it plans to work with APHIS to begin off-site sampling, until APHIS approves that arrangement, or until FSIS is advised that an off-site agreement will not be forthcoming, FSIS PHVs are to: 1. identify all CNS animals condemned on ante-mortem with a "U. S. Condemned" tag; 2. contact the APHIS Area Veterinarian-In-Charge (AVIC) so the AVIC can collect the brain sample; 3. ensure that the animals are humanely euthanized, unless APHIS requests otherwise; and 2
FSIS NOTICE 08-07 4. not allow them to move off the premise of the establishment, unless APHIS requests otherwise. C. In a memorandum of interview (MOI), the FSIS PHV is to document who was present at the awareness meeting, the date and time of the meeting, how the establishment plans to proceed based on the choices set out in A. above, and any documents shared with management.
D. If the establishment plans to work with APHIS to begin off-site sampling, the FSIS PHV is to update the MOI as to whether an agreement was reached and in general, what the agreement was.
E. The FSIS PHV is to maintain a copy of the memorandum of interview in the official government file, provide a copy to the plant management, and electronically mail a copy to the APHIS AVIC as changes occur.
IV. FSIS RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO APPROVED ALTERNATIVE OFFSITE SAMPLE COLLECTION A. The FSIS PHV is to complete the condemnation form, FSIS Form 6000-13 (Certification of Ante-mortem or Post-mortem Disposition of Tagged Animals) and FSIS Form 6150-1 (Identification Tag - Ante-mortem). The FSIS PHV should pay special attention when providing a full description of the reason for the condemnation on FSIS Form 6000-13 and fill out fully FSIS Form 6150-1. B. Incoming animal identification, except the Z-tag, should be left on these animals since it will be needed at the approved alternative off-site collection location to fill out collection forms. Z-tags will be removed prior to any carcasses leaving the official establishment. NOTE: Information supplied to plant management to take to the approved alternative off-site collection sites needs to be complete and accurate. FSIS PHVs need to provide a full description of the reason for the condemnation on FSIS Form 6000-13, APHIS will use this information to triage which condemned animals are sampled.
V. FSIS SAMPLE COLLECTION FOR CATTLE DISPLAYING CNS SYMPTOMS
A. If the establishment does not have an agreement with APHIS for off-site sampling of cattle with CNS symptoms, the FSIS PHV will collect the brain samples from cattle showing signs of CNS symptoms. The FSIS PHV is to make all final disposition decisions regarding whether to condemn cattle in accordance with 9 CFR part 309.
NOTE: FSIS PHVs can also find information regarding BSE sampling (e.g., forms, sampling supply information) at:
Public Folders/All Public Folders/OFO/Technical Service Center/BSE Training Info
3
B. The FSIS PHV, or the establishment under the supervision of the FSIS PHV, should promptly remove the head in order to collect the brain sample. If the establishment does not arrange to remove the head, the FSIS PHV may need to collect the brain sample as a priority over other ante-mortem or post-mortem procedures.
C. The FSIS PHV should collect the brain sample either in the inedible area of the establishment or in another area set aside for such collection to prevent the creation of an insanitary condition. Establishment personnel and FSIS inspection program personnel are to take proper sanitary measures before returning to edible areas of the establishment after brain sample collection, in accordance with 9 CFR 416.5.
D. In situations where the FSIS PHV has missed the last FedEx pick-up for the day, or the FSIS PHV collected the sample on a day when FedEx does not pick up, the PHV is to refrigerate the samples until the next available FedEx pick-up day. Remember, the sample is not to pass through or to be stored in areas of the establishment where the establishment produces edible product. The FSIS PHV is to maintain the sample's chain-of-custody.
E. The FSIS PHV is to verify the collection, documentation, and control of all animal identification associated with cattle condemned during ante-mortem inspection that are to be sampled by FSIS. The FSIS PHV is to attach the "U. S. Condemned" tag to cattle condemned during ante-mortem inspection in accordance with 9 CFR 309.13. This documentation will facilitate traceback in the event that the sample result is positive for BSE. The documentation should include records in accordance with 9 CFR 320.1.
F. The FSIS PHV is to verify that the presence of condemned cattle or parts does not create insanitary conditions (9 CFR part 416). The establishment is responsible for the disposal of the condemned cattle in accordance with 9 CFR part
314. The FSIS PHV also is to verify that the establishment maintains records regarding the disposal of the condemned cattle in accordance with 9 CFR 320.1.
G. Inspection program personnel may inform the establishment that it may choose to hold the carcass and parts until testing results are available. If the establishment chooses to dispose of any carcass or parts before it receives test results, inspection program personnel are to advise the establishment that it must dispose of the carcass in one of the following ways:
1. render it at a facility for non-animal feed use (e.g., biofuel or cement); 2. alkaline digestion; 3. incineration; or 4. lined land fills. H. Documentation for Cattle Showing Signs of CNS Symptoms
1. For locations without high-speed internet connections, the FSIS PHV is to forward the completed BSE Surveillance Information System (BSE-SIS) sample
4
FSIS NOTICE 08-07
collection sheets to the APHIS,VS office by FAX or by e-mail. The follow site lists the VS office FAX numbers and e-mail where available:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/area_offices.htm
The APHIS AVIC in each area office may assist with sample delivery verification and troubleshooting. The FSIS PHV can get copies of BSE-SIS forms by contacting the local APHIS office.
2. The FSIS PHV is to enter the relevant information into the BSE-SIS at locations with high-speed connections and proceed as instructed in the training materials. FSIS PHVs may get the training from AgLearn or may contact the District Office if they need a copy of the BSE Surveillance Information System (BSE-SIS) training CD and for assistance in getting permission to have access to BSE-SIS.
VI. TEST RESULTS FOR FSIS SAMPLING FROM CATTLE SHOWING CNS SYMPTOMS
The FSIS PHV will receive, by e-mail, a report from the AVIC on the BSE test results. The AVIC will also send copies of the results to the District Office.
1. If the test is negative (reported as "not detected"), any carcasses and parts the establishment has held may be released for rendering or other disposal in accordance with 9 CFR 314. 2. If the test is inconclusive, the FSIS PHV will receive supervisory instruction on further actions. 3. For any sample confirmed positive for BSE, the FSIS PHV is to verify that the establishment disposes of the carcasses and parts in the proper manner as set out in paragraph V. G. VII. eADRS PROCEDURES FOR FSIS SAMPLING FROM CATTLE SHOWING CNS SYMPTOMS
After sampling cattle showing signs of CNS symptoms, the FSIS PHV (or designee) is to enter the relevant information for each sample into eADRS.
1. The FSIS PHV (or designee) is to enter each ante-mortem condemned animal in eADRS under the applicable pathological condition. 2. For each relevant disease condition, in the "Add Daily Totals" window, the FSIS PHV is to select the "Update BSE Details" button if FSIS sampled one or more of the condemned animals for BSE. Selecting this button opens the "Update BSE Details" screen. 3. On the "Update BSE Details" screen, the FSIS PHV is to enter the number of
5
animals sampled and the applicable "U.S. Condemned" Z-tag number for each sampled
animal.
4. After entering the relevant information, the FSIS PHV is to click the "Save" button and proceed to the next disease condition.
For additional information on entering BSE sample information, refer to Section 7 of the eADRS User Guide.
VIII. RABIES
In a rare situation, such as when an animal is condemned by the FSIS PHV on antemortem for rabies, the FSIS PHV should contact their District Office, who will advise APHIS. In these cases, APHIS will see that the animal is tested for rabies. APHIS will work with the laboratory to get appropriate samples forwarded for BSE surveillance from rabies negative animals.
Rabies vaccination of FSIS collectors is still highly recommended. The voluntary rabies vaccination program details are covered in FSIS Notice 29-04, Questions and Answers for FSIS Notice 28-04 Regarding Ante-Mortem Condemned Cattle.
Refer questions to the Technical Assistance and Correlation Division, Technical Service Center, at 1-800-233-3935.
Assistant Administrator Office of Policy, Program, and Employee Development
6
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/08-07.pdf
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 REPORT ON 2ND TEJAS MAD COW
Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600
(the one that did NOT get away, thanks to the Honorable Phyllis Fong)
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ??? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:12:15 -0600 From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." To: Carla Everett References: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask] us>
Greetings Carla,still hear a rumor;
Texas single beef cow not born in Canada no beef entered the food chain?
and 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...can you confirm???
terry
==============================
-------- 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: <[log in to unmask]>
The USDA has made a statement, and we are referring all callers to the USDA web site. We have no informationabout the animal being in Texas. CarlaAt 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: Re: BSE 'INCONCLUSIVE' COW from TEXAS ??? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:33:20 -0600 From: Carla Everett To: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." References: <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask] us> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask] us> <[log in to unmask]>
our computer department was working on a place holder we could postUSDA's announcement of any results. There are no results to be announced tonightby NVSL, so we are back in a waiting mode and will post the USDA announcementwhen 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.>>>>>>
========================== ==========================
THEN, 7+ MONTHS OF COVER-UP BY JOHANN ET AL! no doubt about it now $$$
NO, it's not pretty, hell, im not pretty, but these are the facts, take em or leave em, however, you cannot change them.
with kindest regards,
I am still sincerely disgusted and tired in sunny Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
FULL 130 LASHINGS TO USDA BY OIG again
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf
Link: TSS
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0612&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=23557
Feb 06, 2004 Washington State Investigation-Final Epidemiology Report
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/WashingtonState_epi_final3-04.pdf
Secretary's Advisory Committee Recommendations
Feb 13, 2004 Secretary's Advisory Committee Report
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/SAC-Report2-13-04.pdf
Feb 02, 2004 International Review Team (IRT) Report
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/downloads/US_BSE_Report2-2-04.pdf
Subject: Re: USDA/APHIS JUNE 2004 'ENHANCED' BSE/TSE COVER UP UPDATE DECEMBER 19, 2004 USA
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:27:06 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
BSE-L
snip...
OH, i did ask Bio-Rad about this with NO reply to date;
-------- Original Message -------- S
ubject: USA BIO-RADs INCONCLUSIVEs Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:28 -0600 From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." To: [log in to unmask]
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 D ate: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:11 -0800 From: To: [log in to unmask]
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: =================================
snip...end...TSS
[Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirement for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
[Docket No. FSIS-2006-0011] FSIS Harvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf
THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf
PAUL BROWN M.D.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000490-vol40.pdf
9 December 2005 Division of Dockets Management (RFA-305)
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION James J. Kramer, Ph.D. Vice President, Corporate Operations
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-c000383-01-vol35.pdf
Embassy of Japan
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02N-0273-EC240.htm
03-025IF 03-025IF-631 Linda A. Detwiler [PDF] Page 1. 03-025IF 03-025IF-631 Linda A. Detwiler Page 2. ..
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-631.pdf
03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler [PDF] Page 1. 03-025IF 03-025IF-634 Linda A. Detwiler Page 2. ..
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-634.pdf
Page 1 of 17 9/13/2005 [PDF] ... 2005 6:17 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [Docket No. 03-025IFA] FSIS Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food ...
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-2.pdf
03-025IFA 03-025IFA-6 Jason Frost [PDF] ... Zealand Embassy COMMENTS ON FEDERAL REGISTER 9 CFR Parts 309 et al [Docket No. 03- 025IF] Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and ...
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IFA/03-025IFA-6.pdf
In its opinion of 7-8 December 2000 (EC 2000), the SSC ... [PDF] Page 1. Linda A. Detwiler, DVM 225 Hwy 35 Red Bank, New Jersey 07701 Phone: 732-741-2290 Cell: 732-580-9391 Fax: 732-741-7751 June 22, 2005 FSIS Docket Clerk US ...
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/03-025IF/03-025IF-589.pdf
18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting (426 KB) held on 7 December 2006 are now available.
snip...
64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting, a study was presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep may be more virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine derived BSE.
Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified in the prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.
snip...
http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf
3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse
Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western Reserve University
Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to be infected after more than 2 years.
***These results indicate that BASE is transmissible to humans and suggest that BASE is more virulent than classical BSE in humans.***
6:30 Close of Day One
http://www.healthtech.com/2007/tse/day1.asp
SEE STEADY INCREASE IN SPORADIC CJD IN THE USA FROM 1997 TO 2006. SPORADIC CJD CASES TRIPLED, with phenotype of 'UNKNOWN' strain growing. ...
http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resources-casereport.html
There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance collection.
He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/1006-4240t1.htm
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4240t1.pdf
THE USDA JUNE 2004 ENHANCED BSE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM WAS TERRIBLY FLAWED ;
CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006
The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at least a decade.
The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.
These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal, incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated with the mad cow pathogen.
"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer that."
Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow that initially tested positive.
USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.
"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005 suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end
http://www.upi.com/
CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ... Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room 4A-05, ...
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm
PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE
Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM
"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow issue for some years, and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed critiques and recommendations to both the USDA and the Canadian Food Agency." ........TSS
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
SOMETHING TO CHEW ON
BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/319/7220/1312/b#EL2
BMJ
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7226/8/b#EL1
THE PATHOLOGICAL PROTEIN
BY Philip Yam
CHAPTER 14 LAYING ODDS
Answering critics like Terry Singeltary, who feels that the U.S. under- counts CJD, Schonberger conceded that the current surveillance system has errors but stated that most of the errors will be confined to the older population.
http://www.thepathologicalprotein.com/
INTRODUCTION
http://www.thepathologicalprotein.com/_wsn/page3.html
Yam Philip Yam News Editor Scientific American
www.sciam.com http://www.thepathologicalprotein.com/
Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
Singeltary, Sr et al. JAMA.2001; 285: 733-734.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/6/733?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=dignosing+and+reporting+creutzfeldt+jakob+disease&searchid=1048865596978_1528&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama
Journal of Neurology
Re: RE-Monitoring the occurrence of emerging forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the United States
Email Terry S. Singeltary:
[log in to unmask]
I lost my mother to hvCJD (Heidenhain Variant CJD). I would like to
comment on the CDC's attempts to monitor the occurrence of emerging
forms of CJD. Asante, Collinge et al [1] have reported that BSE
transmission to the 129-methionine genotype can lead to an alternate
phenotype that is indistinguishable from type 2 PrPSc, the commonest
sporadic CJD. However, CJD and all human TSEs are not reportable
nationally. CJD and all human TSEs must be made reportable in every
state and internationally. I hope that the CDC does not continue to
expect us to still believe that the 85%+ of all CJD cases which are
sporadic are all spontaneous, without route/source. We have many TSEs in
the USA in both animal and man. CWD in deer/elk is spreading rapidly and
CWD does transmit to mink, ferret, cattle, and squirrel monkey by
intracerebral inoculation. With the known incubation periods in other
TSEs, oral transmission studies of CWD may take much longer. Every
victim/family of CJD/TSEs should be asked about route and source of this
agent. To prolong this will only spread the agent and needlessly expose
others. In light of the findings of Asante and Collinge et al, there
should be drastic measures to safeguard the medical and surgical arena
from sporadic CJDs and all human TSEs. I only ponder how many sporadic
CJDs in the USA are type 2 PrPSc?
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/eletters/60/2/176#535
Tracking spongiform encephalopathies in North America
THE LANCET Infectious Diseases Vol 3 August 2003
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473309903007151/fulltext
http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/1473-3099/PIIS1473309903007151.pdf
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702&L=sanet-mg&P=720
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
U.S. Emergency Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Response Plan Summary and BSE Red Book Date: February 14, 2000 at 8:56 am PST
WHERE did we go wrong $$$
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/07/us-emergency-bovine-spongiform.html
Transgenic mice expressing porcine prion protein resistant to classical scrapie but susceptible to sheep bovine spongiform encephalopathy and atypical scrapie. Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Aug; [Epub ahead of print]
http://nor-98.blogspot.com/2009/07/transgenic-mice-expressing-porcine.html
Transmissible mink encephalopathy - review of the etiology
http://transmissible-mink-encephalopathy.blogspot.com/2009/07/transmissible-mink-encephalopathy.html
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Nor98 scrapie identified in the United States J Vet Diagn Invest 21:454-463 (2009)
http://nor-98.blogspot.com/2009/07/nor98-scrapie-identified-in-united.html
Monday, June 01, 2009 Biochemical typing of pathological prion protein in aging cattle with BSE
SOMETHING TO PONDER ???
O.K. confusious asks, IF all these new atypical BSEs i.e. new strains of mad cow disease is just an 'OLD COW PRION DISEASE', why then can not the 'old human prion disease' such as the sporadic CJD, be from an 'old cow prion disease', same as the nvCJD 'young people mad cow disease' (which also happens in 74 year old), but why cannot the 'old cow prion diseases', i.e. l-BSE, h-BSE, and ibncBSE, cause the 'old people prion disease', which looks like sporadic CJD. seems that is what some of the pathology is showing ???
OH, that probably makes too much sense, and that the only answer could be that it's all just a happenstance of bad luck and or a spontaneous event, that just happens out of the clear blue sky $$$
IF this is the case, then where are all the SPONTANEOUS BSE CASES OF MAD COW DISEASE IN THE U.S.A., AND WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN BURIED IN THE USA OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS ???
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2009/06/biochemical-typing-of-pathological.html
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Monitoring the occurrence of emerging forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the United States 2003 revisited 2009
http://cjdusa.blogspot.com/2009/06/monitoring-occurrence-of-emerging-forms.html
SEE THE VIDEO NOW AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BLOG BELOW ;
http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2009/07/usa-hiding-mad-cow-disease-victims-as.html
Terry S. Singeltary SR. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA 77518
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)