Mike wrote;
The false positives announced by the USDA were predicted beforehand because the tests that were approved by the USDA had the highest false positives of any test available.
I read (don't remember where) then that the USDA was using that particular test in order to "Fatigue" consumers on BSE issue. If that was the case, in my opinion it was a bad choice in strategy. It made them look dishonest. (See Japs & Phyllis Fong)
Canada's choice of tests was far better than the USDA's. Just think. The USDA had the experience of the UK's dishonesty to glean info from and still screwed it up.
The USDA's lack of transparency is costing us points with the Japs today.
Honesty works best everytime.
=====================================
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Possible mad cow case shocks cattle industry
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:26:45 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <
[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Possible mad cow case shocks cattle industry
> The sample was sent to the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in
> Ames, Iowa, where it could take four to seven days to analyze. But the
> manufacturer of the screening test, Bio-Rad, told Reuters that the
> sample was screened twice, which makes it far more likely to be positive.
>
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2908555
USDA advised against mad cow test in 2002
By Steve Mitchell
United Press International
Published 7/13/2004 7:57 AM
WASHINGTON, July 13 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture in late
2002 warned against using the same mad cow disease test the agency now
is using in its expanded surveillance program for the deadly disorder,
United Press International has learned.
The USDA said governments should not authorize the test, which is
manufactured by Bio-Rad Laboratories in Hercules, Calif., because it can
give false positives -- results that are ruled negative on follow-up
testing -- and "will cause loss of consumer confidence in beef and beef
products," the agency wrote in a letter to the World Organization for
Animal Health in Paris.
The OIE, as it is known by its French initials, establishes
international standards for animal disease issues.
The USDA recommended countries employ a different test manufactured by
the Swiss firm Prionics -- a test the agency has licensed but has not
yet put into use. The USDA's reason for the delay is the Prionics test,
which has not yielded a false positive in more than 20 million tests in
Europe, still must pass through the agency's validation procedures.
Concerns about false positives with the Bio-Rad test became a reality
recently during the first month of the USDA's expanded surveillance
plan, launched June 1 in response to the only confirmed U.S. case of mad
cow last December. The agency reported two preliminary positive results,
which caused concern among the public and havoc in the cattle futures
markets until both were ruled negative on follow-up testing several days
later.
So far, seven of the 12 state laboratories participating in the USDA's
mad cow surveillance plan are using the Bio-Rad test and the remaining
five are expected to opt for the test when they begin testing operations.
Experts on testing and mad cow disease have suggested one reason the
USDA might have opted for Bio-Rad is the same reason it advised against
it in 2002: its potential to yield false positives.
By releasing preliminary positives -- or inconclusives, as the USDA has
deemed them -- that are later ruled negative, the agency could
desensitize markets, consumers and foreign trading partners to real
positive cases when and if they occur, the sources said.
"Bio-Rad was approved as a way of getting people used to a possible case
if there ever was one," a veterinarian with expertise in mad cow disease
told UPI.
"They (USDA officials) know it has a high false positive rate ... The
more inconclusives they have, the easier it is to 'mix something up' and
have all negative tests," said the veterinarian, who requested anonymity.
The veterinarian's comments were echoed by other experts in this field,
who also declined to be named.
USDA spokeswoman Julie Quick did not respond to UPI's question of
whether this was the agency's intended strategy. However, John Clifford,
USDA's chief veterinary officer, acknowledged at a recent news
conference that release of the inconclusive results could have that affect.
"We want to minimize the impacts upon the markets," Clifford said. "We
feel like that after we get this information out there a couple of times
that hopefully it will continue to minimize that impact."
To date, more than 15,000 cows have been tested under the surveillance
plan and USDA officials have said they expect many more false positives
as the agency seeks to conduct thousands of mad cow tests per week over
the next 12 to 18 months.
Mad cow disease is otherwise known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy
or BSE. Officials have said they also expect to find additional BSE cases.
Consumer groups and some members of Congress expressed concern about the
USDA's decision to use the Bio-Rad test after the two false positives.
Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., recently sent a letter to Agriculture
Secretary Ann Veneman urging her "to seriously consider the reliability
of your tests and to rigorously evaluate BSE screening tests used
internationally that may offer more accurate results."
The concern to consumers is people can contract an incurable brain
disorder called variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease from eating meat
infected with the mad cow pathogen. More than 150 people worldwide have
become infected, but none of the cases has been linked to U.S. beef.
"Why are we using Bio-Rad instead of Prionics if they are as bad as the
(USDA) would have us believe with all these 'inconclusives?'" asked
Terry Singletary, coordinator of CJD Watch, an advocacy group for
patients and family members. His mother died of a rare form of CJD
called Heidenhain Variant, which has not been linked with mad cow disease.
"Do they really want to find all the cases, or are we just playing a
(public relations) game?" asked Singletary, who has been sharply
critical of the USDA's approach to mad cow. "How many more are we going
to expose to this deadly pathogen?"
Brad Crutchfield, Bio-Rad's vice president, said the science and
experience with his company's test in Europe establishes its soundness
and reliability. Bio-Rad has yielded false positives only once every
300,000 tests, he said, adding that the false positives will decrease as
the U.S. labs acquire more experience.
"The issue has nothing to do with the test, it has to do with the
notification process," Crutchfield said, referring to the USDA's
decision to notify the public of inconclusive results before they were
confirmed or ruled out with confirmatory tests.
Heads of several state labs contacted by UPI said the agency allowed
them to choose among five licensed rapid tests, including Bio-Rad's.
However, outside testing experts said it was curious that all the labs
chose the same test.
"It is slightly peculiar that it went all to one supplier for no other
reason than you would want different tests because they give different
results," said Roger Rosedale, chairman of Microsens Biotechnologies, a
company in London that manufactures technology used in tests for
detecting mad cow disease and similar disorders. One of Microsens'
clients is Idexx Laboratories, which makes a competing mad cow test to
Bio-Rad and Prionics.
At the time the labs were making their choices, the USDA said Bio-Rad
was the only test the agency had "field tested," which apparently is a
prerequisite for putting the tests into use.
The Bio-Rad test "was the only one that had been field tested, so that's
limiting," said USDA's Quick. So although the USDA had licensed the
other rapid tests, they may not have been available for use even if the
laboratories had selected them.
The department also purchased the equipment needed to run the Bio-Rad
test for the labs, some of which otherwise would not have been able to
afford the machinery due to budget constraints.
A source with an American company that manufactures tests for detecting
animal disease said it was unusual for the USDA to approve a test and
then require field testing. Field trials are usually done before
approval, the source said.
"With other tests, if you get USDA approval, you're all set," the source
said. "This is something new."
Asked why the USDA was not using the Prionics Check test, as it had
recommended in the 2002 OIE letter, Quick said it is still being "field
tested." In the letter, however, the agency did not cite the need for a
field test or validation procedure.
"Certain tests, such as the rapid tests, may not give an accurate
picture of the BSE situation in a country or zone," the USDA wrote. "It
is well known that certain rapid tests such as the Enfer and Bio-Rad
tests have recorded false positive BSE results. For BSE-free countries
or zones, the use of rapid BSE tests that give false positive results
will cause loss of consumer confidence in beef and beef products."
A better approach would be to use the Prionics Check test, the agency
wrote.
"For BSE free countries or zones, the use of histopathology,
immunohistochemistry and the Prionics 'check' immunoblot test would
provide a definitive diagnosis of a BSE suspect case," the letter stated.
Quick insisted the agency's statement was not intended to recommend
against the Bio-Rad test. Instead, she said, it was meant to recommend
that countries not simply rely on rapid screening tests as a way to
confirm a case of mad cow disease.
No other testing experts UPI contacted interpreted the statement that
way and Quick, who acknowledged she was not familiar with the technical
details of the tests, declined to make Clifford or other USDA officials
available to discuss the issue or offer clarification.
The USDA's decision not to release the samples from the two
inconclusives for verification by outside labs has also come under
question. The agency used a test called immunohistochemistry, or IHC, to
determine the animals were not infected with mad cow, but experts said
this is not always a foolproof test and it can miss cases.
Markus Moser, Prionics' chief executive officer and a molecular
biologist, noted that Germany was considered BSE-free when using the IHC
test. When officials there began using the Prionics rapid test in 2000,
he said, they found several cases and so far have detected more than 300
infected animals.
Stuart Wilson, Microsens' scientific director and a molecular
pathologist, noted in a document he recently prepared on false positives
that there have been instances when Bio-Rad was used more than a few
months before the animal developed symptoms and they were found
correctly to be positive, but IHC incorrectly ruled them negative.
"In a cow that you don't know is infected or not, it can always appear
IHC positive (or negative) simply by changing the IHC timing," Wilson
wrote in the document.
"This was one of the biggest problems with investigating tonsils in
asymptomatic humans in the United Kingdom," the document said, referring
to a recent study that indicated as many as 3,800 people in England may
be unwittingly incubating vCJD.
In the December mad cow case, the USDA had the results confirmed by the
Weybridge laboratory in the United Kingdom, which is one of the three
mad cow disease testing reference laboratories recognized by the OIE.
The other two are in Switzerland and Japan.
"It must by definition create doubt if they're not allowing any other
... OIE reference laboratory have access to them," Rosedale said. "It's
not to suggest (the USDA) guys are not competent, but why would they not
release it?"
--
Steve Mitchell is UPI's Medical Correspondent. E-mail
[email protected]
Copyright © 2001-2004 United Press International
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040712-060601-3233r
TSS
#################
[email protected] #################
Docket No. 2003N-0312 Animal Feed Safety System [TSS SUBMISSION]
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/do..._emc-000001.txt
Dr. Ron DeHaven DOING THE MAD COW TEXAS TWO-STEP AGAIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Dr. Ron DeHaven DOING THE MAD COW TEXAS TWO-STEP AGAIN
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:35:24 -0600
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <
[email protected]>
Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy <
[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
##################### Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #####################
Release No. 0528.04
Contact:
Office of Communications (202) 720 4623
Statement By Dr. Ron DeHaven Administrator, Animal & Plant Health
Inspection Service
December 30, 2004
"USDA is confident that the animal and public health measures that
Canada has in place to prevent BSE, combined with existing U.S. domestic
safeguards and additional safeguards announced yesterday provide the
utmost protections to U.S. consumers and livestock.
"Last night Canada announced the finding of a "suspect" animal, which is
their term for inconclusive. If this animal proves to be positive, it
would not alter the implementation of the U.S. rule announced yesterday
that recognizes Canada as a Minimal-Risk Region. In the extensive risk
analysis conducted as part of the rule making, we considered the
possibility of additional cases of BSE in Canada. Because of the
mitigation measures that Canada has in place, we continue to believe the
risk is minimal.
"When Canadian ruminants and ruminant products are presented for
importation into the United States, they become subject to domestic
safeguards as well. Beef imports that have already undergone Canadian
inspection are also subject to re-inspection at ports of entry by the
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to ensure only eligible
products are imported
"We are working closely with Canadian officials as they conduct their
investigation into this situation."
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/3/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2004%2F12%2F0528.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_navtype=RT&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM
Greetings list members,
IF you remember correctly, i posted this ;
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 --------
> Subject: USA BIO-RADs INCONCLUSIVEs
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:28 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> To:
[email protected]
>
>
>
> 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:
[email protected]
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 ##########
> 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:
[email protected]
> References: <
[email protected]> <
[email protected]>
>
>
> ##################### 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: <
[email protected]>
> <
[email protected]>
> <
[email protected]>
> <
[email protected]>
> <
[email protected]>
> <
[email protected]>
>
>
> 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
> >>
[email protected].
> >> 202 720-4623
> >>
> >>
> >> TSS
> >>
> >> ##############
[email protected]
> >> ##############
> >>
>
> -------- 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:
[email protected]
>
>
> ##################### 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
[email protected].......
>
> many thanks,
> terry
>
> #################
[email protected] #################
>
>
>
> -------- 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: <
[email protected]>
>
>
> 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:
[email protected]
>
>
> ######## 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