• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Apology to bse-tester

A

Anonymous

Guest
bse-tester,

I thought long and hard about your response.

In fairness to you and in remaining consistant with my "presumption of innocense" position on other issues, it was not right or fair for me to question your motives. For that I apologize.

I cannot apply one set of "presumption of innocense" standards to one issue and not apply those same standards to your motives as well. For that reason, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives but I reserve the right to question them.

For all I know, you may have a bse test that is valid and justified. I just happen to have a hard time believing that the agency responsible for food safety in this nation that is receiving criticism and lawsuits from the packers as well as the producers is doing nothing but what the best available science says is best for the safety of the US consumer. If they rejected your BSE test, they must have had a damn good reason.

I find it rather ironic that USDA was being sued by both the packers for not allowing imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age was also being sued by R-CALF for allowing Canadian imports of cattle under 30 months of age. Where's the bias there?

Where is the polticial bias when one considers the number of consumers in relation to the number of packers and the number of producers in this country???

Based on that, I would think it would be a fair assumption to assume that USDA does have the best interests of US consumers in mind despite enduring politically motivated attacks from special interest groups on both sides of the isle.

I am not a bse scientist so I have to trust that the USDA is utilizing the best scientists available and that if they rejected your tests, they did it for justified reasons.

If I was diagnosed with terminal cancer, I am not a doctor, so I have no option but to trust the best minds at the Mayo Clinic and assume that they know what they are doing. I have that same level of confidence in USDA despite the constant criticisms from biased industry blamers.

What I do know about BSE is that, despite all the testing that is being done, a bse positive animal is a rare animal indeed which bodes the question as to what level of bse testing is truly justified. It also appears that the bse precautionary measures taken by the United States and Canada has been working or we would finding more bse positive animals.

I am all for JUSTIFIED measures to protect human safety, but I'll leave the justification up to the experts. You can sit here and easily state why you think your test is justified and have USDA critics feeding out of your hand because nobody is here to refute you. I want to hear why USDA refused your test before I'm going to sink my teeth into the need to bse-test every animal out there.

I can't prove your motives either way. Only you know your true motives. It may not be money and it may not be notoriety but you sure as heck are going to have to do some serious convincing to get any independent thinkers to believe that you have more concerns about consumer safety than the agency taxed with that responsibility.

Again, my apologies for questioning your motive without proof.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
bse-tester,

I thought long and hard about your response.

In fairness to you and in remaining consistant with my "presumption of innocense" position on other issues, it was not right or fair for me to question your motives. For that I apologize.

I cannot apply one set of "presumption of innocense" standards to one issue and not apply those same standards to your motives as well. For that reason, I have to give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives but I reserve the right to question them.

For all I know, you may have a bse test that is valid and justified. I just happen to have a hard time believing that the agency responsible for food safety in this nation that is receiving criticism and lawsuits from the packers as well as the producers is doing nothing but what the best available science says is best for the safety of the US consumer. If they rejected your BSE test, they must have had a damn good reason.

I find it rather ironic that USDA was being sued by both the packers for not allowing imports of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age was also being sued by R-CALF for allowing Canadian imports of cattle under 30 months of age. Where's the bias there?

Where is the polticial bias when one considers the number of consumers in relation to the number of packers and the number of producers in this country???

Based on that, I would think it would be a fair assumption to assume that USDA does have the best interests of US consumers in mind despite enduring politically motivated attacks from special interest groups on both sides of the isle.

I am not a bse scientist so I have to trust that the USDA is utilizing the best scientists available and that if they rejected your tests, they did it for justified reasons.

If I was diagnosed with terminal cancer, I am not a doctor, so I have no option but to trust the best minds at the Mayo Clinic and assume that they know what they are doing. I have that same level of confidence in USDA despite the constant criticisms from biased industry blamers.

What I do know about BSE is that, despite all the testing that is being done, a bse positive animal is a rare animal indeed which bodes the question as to what level of bse testing is truly justified. It also appears that the bse precautionary measures taken by the United States and Canada has been working or we would finding more bse positive animals.

I am all for JUSTIFIED measures to protect human safety, but I'll leave the justification up to the experts. You can sit here and easily state why you think your test is justified and have USDA critics feeding out of your hand because nobody is here to refute you. I want to hear why USDA refused your test before I'm going to sink my teeth into the need to bse-test every animal out there.

I can't prove your motives either way. Only you know your true motives. It may not be money and it may not be notoriety but you sure as heck are going to have to do some serious convincing to get any independent thinkers to believe that you have more concerns about consumer safety than the agency taxed with that responsibility.

Again, my apologies for questioning your motive without proof.


~SH~

Bse tester, did the USDA do anything at all that would block your getting the test approved like moving real slow, not answering, not giving your requests of approval the time or attention or just not having an approval process that could be fast and at the same time accurate or not trying to cut through the bureaucratic red tape on an important issue?

When did you approach them with your test and what is the holdup?
 

mrj

Well-known member
bse tester, where or how does your test stand with the OIE or other groups re. acceptance, licensing, etc.

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
comment to SH, "I understand GIPSA did all they could to NOT to investigate. So does Tom Harkin, Joan Waterford, Saxby Chambliss, etc... You commented that nothing was wrong there."

SH's accusation, "You liar! I commented that nothing had been PROVEN wrong there. A political allegation that makes packer blamers happy is not proof. I want to hear GIPSA's side of the argument rather than being a packer blaming lemming."

My followup, "Here's a reminder of what you said, SH, on 2/9/06, "There is nothing wrong with how GIPSA is being run."


When do I get my apology, SH?
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Ok guys, here is the true skinny on what all happened back in 2003 and to where we are currently.

We took our test and presented it to the CFIA in Winnipeg, Manitoba in 2003. They liked it so much that their leading BSE Scientist there, at the time, also their Head of BSE Research, indicated to us that they were seriously wanting our test and even offered us space in their laboratory to conduct the trials for the purpose of then putting together enough data to present to the EFSA and the OIE in Paris to allow them to qualify us for their strict testing protocol, which, in the world of BSE, they can easily (the EU) claim to have the best protocol testing program around.

Also, simultaneously, we sent all necessary information regarding our test and how it works to the USDA Labs in Aimes, Iowa. I personally received a telephone call from two of the USDA Scientists who indicated that they thought we were onto something pretty darn significant with our test and would like to know more about it.

When we sent them the information and coupled with that we sent them an invitation to attend a meeting with some of Canada's top scientists and also one or two of the top prion researchers in the UK, who had already agreed to come to this meeting. Weeks went by and nothing came back to us untill finally, I received yet another telephone call from Aimes Iowa and it was during that telephone call that I was personally told that in order for our test to be even remotely considered, it would have to be validated by the European Union (EU) and at that time, the USDA would then be in a position to "consider it!"

Strangely enough, within a matter of 48 hours, we receive notification from the CFIA that said - literally word for word - the same exact thing. How strange is that??

So, in order to complete this next stage, we applied to have our test included in the next round of testing that was being conducted by the EFSA group in Belgium. Unfortunately, we missed the deadline for applications by a matter of days and were told that no further applications were being accepted.

Following this, I chatted with a good friend who is a leading scientist with the VLA OLabs in England - it is these labs that conduct the final assay on all of the suspected cases of BSE and Scrapie - and he told me that since he was a sitting member of the EFSA Committee, he would present our test and our protocol at the upcoming meeting of the board of commissioners of the EFSA (European Food Safety Association). He did this and called me to tell me that the board was bound by protocol and rigid rules not to allow any "late-comers" to receive special attention in light of the fact that this may well lead to protests from those already accepted. We agreed and although we were disappointed, all was not lost.

Two weeks layter, I was contacted by Dr. Koen Van Dyke, the then Chairman of the EFSA. He sent me a copy of the exact testing program that they in the EFSA use to validate tests such as ours and those that were accepted by the EFSA for validation would be subjected to this very same testing regimen. He further stated that it would be acceptable to have our test validated here in North America by the CFIA in Canada and by the USDA in Aime, Iowa. This was an incredibly powerful endorcement for us and we then contacted both the CFIA and the USDA with this new revalation.

Both agencies ignored us but the USDA did contact me and explain that it was not in the interest of the industry to test all animals and that they thanks us for contacting them and to please understand that the USDA is committed to doing all it can to erradicate BSE from the American herd.

As for the CFIA, we almost got in the door but out of nowhere can a letter stating that since the USDA appeared to be limiting their testing of their domestic herd in animals younger than 30 months, the position of the CFIA will likely move in that direction also.

So folks, we are basically going it alone and maintaining contact with the VLA in the UK and with other agencies around the world who wish to see the future for what it is outside of the stagnant thinking processes at work within the CFIA and the USDA.

It became so blatantly obvious that both the CFIA and the USDA wish to control all testing, regardless of the quality of their tests and to literally dictate to the North American producers who and when and where if any, these tests will be done. It seems to me that the USDA more so than the CFIA have literally placed a noose around the producers of the USA inthat you guys cannot market your animals unless that USDA says you can and they also appear to dictate where those markets are and one of my close friends also indicated that he has found evidence that the USDA ia indeed working closely with the large organised packers to manipulate the market, domestic and internationally, to suit the annual output targets which the large packers have forcast in their yearly projections. Of course, I cannot verify this but the more I look into it the more I see meat growing on the bones of this idea. Again though, and I stress, this is not my opinon, but it is drawing me closer to it and it is worth a second look. Sort of like the Canadian Wheat Board and how they manipulate the market and literally throw wheat farmers in jail if they try to sell their product privately.

As for our current position, we are chatting with a group who wish to use our test exclusively here in Alberta and we are also going to contract with the USA National Prion Surveillance Center and have them (they have already agreed) conduct the validation of our test for not only BSE and Scrapie, but also CJD, CWD and Alzheimer's Disease.

I hope this explains why this test of ours has been somewhat overlooked by the two main agencies here in North America and provides an insight as to just how closely these two outfits work together!!!!
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
We are moving toward validation for all TSE's and with the help of Dr. Chen and his team at Case Western in Cleveland, within the next two years, we hope to be able to present enough data to the EFSA and the OIE to provide them the qualification of our test. At that point, we would expect them to take it on for testing and clarification with a view toward having it declared to be the "Gold Standard" test for all TSE's. That is a lofty goal but then why the heck not!
 

Mike

Well-known member
Ron, Have you any correspondence with these folks?


http://www.prioninstitute.ca/files/prion_pop_call_final.pdf


They are calling for applications.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Both agencies ignored us but the USDA did contact me and explain that it was not in the interest of the industry to test all animals and that they thanks us for contacting them and to please understand that the USDA is committed to doing all it can to erradicate BSE from the American herd.

I am having problems understanding too?? How could a live test NOT be in the best interest of the industry?

Your holding out on us Ron. Did the USDA and the CFIA say that SH and Tam were their No. 1 BSE advisors? :???:
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Use our test exclusively here in Alberta and we are also going to contract with the USA National Prion Surveillance Center and have them (they have already agreed) conduct the validation of our test for not only BSE and Scrapie, but also CJD, CWD and Alzheimer's Disease.

Alzheimer's Disease, CJD and CWD tests will fly high ,Bse TESTER.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
bse-tester said:
Ok guys, here is the true skinny on what all happened back in 2003 and to where we are currently.

We took our test and presented it to the CFIA in Winnipeg, Manitoba in 2003. They liked it so much that their leading BSE Scientist there, at the time, also their Head of BSE Research, indicated to us that they were seriously wanting our test and even offered us space in their laboratory to conduct the trials for the purpose of then putting together enough data to present to the EFSA and the OIE in Paris to allow them to qualify us for their strict testing protocol, which, in the world of BSE, they can easily (the EU) claim to have the best protocol testing program around.

Also, simultaneously, we sent all necessary information regarding our test and how it works to the USDA Labs in Aimes, Iowa. I personally received a telephone call from two of the USDA Scientists who indicated that they thought we were onto something pretty darn significant with our test and would like to know more about it.

When we sent them the information and coupled with that we sent them an invitation to attend a meeting with some of Canada's top scientists and also one or two of the top prion researchers in the UK, who had already agreed to come to this meeting. Weeks went by and nothing came back to us untill finally, I received yet another telephone call from Aimes Iowa and it was during that telephone call that I was personally told that in order for our test to be even remotely considered, it would have to be validated by the European Union (EU) and at that time, the USDA would then be in a position to "consider it!"

Strangely enough, within a matter of 48 hours, we receive notification from the CFIA that said - literally word for word - the same exact thing. How strange is that??

So, in order to complete this next stage, we applied to have our test included in the next round of testing that was being conducted by the EFSA group in Belgium. Unfortunately, we missed the deadline for applications by a matter of days and were told that no further applications were being accepted.

Following this, I chatted with a good friend who is a leading scientist with the VLA OLabs in England - it is these labs that conduct the final assay on all of the suspected cases of BSE and Scrapie - and he told me that since he was a sitting member of the EFSA Committee, he would present our test and our protocol at the upcoming meeting of the board of commissioners of the EFSA (European Food Safety Association). He did this and called me to tell me that the board was bound by protocol and rigid rules not to allow any "late-comers" to receive special attention in light of the fact that this may well lead to protests from those already accepted. We agreed and although we were disappointed, all was not lost.

Two weeks layter, I was contacted by Dr. Koen Van Dyke, the then Chairman of the EFSA. He sent me a copy of the exact testing program that they in the EFSA use to validate tests such as ours and those that were accepted by the EFSA for validation would be subjected to this very same testing regimen. He further stated that it would be acceptable to have our test validated here in North America by the CFIA in Canada and by the USDA in Aime, Iowa. This was an incredibly powerful endorcement for us and we then contacted both the CFIA and the USDA with this new revalation.

Both agencies ignored us but the USDA did contact me and explain that it was not in the interest of the industry to test all animals and that they thanks us for contacting them and to please understand that the USDA is committed to doing all it can to erradicate BSE from the American herd.

As for the CFIA, we almost got in the door but out of nowhere can a letter stating that since the USDA appeared to be limiting their testing of their domestic herd in animals younger than 30 months, the position of the CFIA will likely move in that direction also.

So folks, we are basically going it alone and maintaining contact with the VLA in the UK and with other agencies around the world who wish to see the future for what it is outside of the stagnant thinking processes at work within the CFIA and the USDA.

It became so blatantly obvious that both the CFIA and the USDA wish to control all testing, regardless of the quality of their tests and to literally dictate to the North American producers who and when and where if any, these tests will be done. It seems to me that the USDA more so than the CFIA have literally placed a noose around the producers of the USA inthat you guys cannot market your animals unless that USDA says you can and they also appear to dictate where those markets are and one of my close friends also indicated that he has found evidence that the USDA ia indeed working closely with the large organised packers to manipulate the market, domestic and internationally, to suit the annual output targets which the large packers have forcast in their yearly projections. Of course, I cannot verify this but the more I look into it the more I see meat growing on the bones of this idea. Again though, and I stress, this is not my opinon, but it is drawing me closer to it and it is worth a second look. Sort of like the Canadian Wheat Board and how they manipulate the market and literally throw wheat farmers in jail if they try to sell their product privately.

As for our current position, we are chatting with a group who wish to use our test exclusively here in Alberta and we are also going to contract with the USA National Prion Surveillance Center and have them (they have already agreed) conduct the validation of our test for not only BSE and Scrapie, but also CJD, CWD and Alzheimer's Disease.

I hope this explains why this test of ours has been somewhat overlooked by the two main agencies here in North America and provides an insight as to just how closely these two outfits work together!!!!

Thanks, bse tester. It seems the current administration believes in the "Joseph Goebles propaganda to further self interest of campaign contributors" approach rather than trying to solve the bse problem through science.

Money and politics over truth and integrity. These guys haven't severed their tie with K Street, they have only hidden it deeper.

I'm with porker, sell it for alzheimers and get it on the market. Let the market bury the lies.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
There's two sides to every story, we heard one side.

Those who want to blame USDA will only listen to one side. Those who want to form an objective opinion would listen to both sides before making up their minds.

I don't see the justification for absorbing the costs of 100% testing either. If the precautionary measures that have been taken were not adequte, you'd see more cases of bse. It's just not an issue.

Mike, I never claimed to be an authority on BSE but it doesn't take much common sense to figure out that the agency taxed with the responsibility of food safety in the United States is bound to know more than most at this site.

There's all kinds of private drug companies screaming and hollaring about their inability to get their drugs approved too. Somebody has to make the call. In this case it's USDA. Perhaps Ron needs to go work for USDA since he appears to know more than their best scientists do.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
There's two sides to every story, we heard one side.

Those who want to blame USDA will only listen to one side. Those who want to form an objective opinion would listen to both sides before making up their minds.

I don't see the justification for absorbing the costs of 100% testing either. If the precautionary measures that have been taken were not adequte, you'd see more cases of bse. It's just not an issue.

Mike, I never claimed to be an authority on BSE but it doesn't take much common sense to figure out that the agency taxed with the responsibility of food safety in the United States is bound to know more than most at this site.

There's all kinds of private drug companies screaming and hollaring about their inability to get their drugs approved too. Somebody has to make the call. In this case it's USDA. Perhaps Ron needs to go work for USDA since he appears to know more than their best scientists do.


~SH~

To my knowledge, SH, testing cattle piss doesn't hurt anyone unless they do something dumb like drink it.

To equate companies that want to sell drugs that people/cattle ingest and the safety approval for that process with testing cattle piss shows how ridiculous your arguments have become. Your intellectual prowess may work on gophers, but for most people, you just sound ridiculous.
 

Mike

Well-known member
SH:Mike, I never claimed to be an authority on BSE but it doesn't take much common sense to figure out that the agency taxed with the responsibility of food safety in the United States is bound to know more than most at this site.

Glad to see that you think that BSE and TESTING is a "FOOD SAFETY" issue!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "The USDA needs to make the call regarding product for the US, not other countries - that is their call."

I'll take that as support for USDA refusing bse-testers urine bse test.


Conman: "To my knowledge, SH, testing cattle p*** doesn't hurt anyone unless they do something dumb like drink it."

The issue is not whether anyone will get hurt by testing cattle pee, the issue is whether the cost of that test is justified by the benefits.

You don't have a clue on the simplest issues discussed here let alone something as complex as bse testing.


I haven't trapped gophers since I was 12 years old. Yet another lie. I trap coyotes, not gophers. IDIOT!


Mike: "Glad to see that you think that BSE and TESTING is a "FOOD SAFETY" issue!"

Nice spin job Mike! You're learning from the best!

If 100% bse testing was justified, we would be doing it. It's not so we're not!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Quote:
Sandbag: "The USDA needs to make the call regarding product for the US, not other countries - that is their call."


SH, "I'll take that as support for USDA refusing bse-testers urine bse test."

Then you're jumping to premature conclusions without any facts. Like thats a surprise......... :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top