BSE CONFIRMED IN AN ALBERTAN BULL

[Bill]

Carl Lewis was doping... Good point bill. It all makes sense now. Why not admit there is a problem in Canada? No its much easier to bite the hand that feeds you. Blame the US. Its are fault. Point fingers at the US. We are an evil empire with an evil govt.

Don't get too carried away with Canadians fulton. Save some of that scorn for your fellow Americans?

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16685

 

[flounder]

The goverment doesn't do the testing in the USA?

What does Canada use? They use a government agency don't they?

Thanks for taking the time to reply Bill!

Initial testing is done in each country in their own labs with suspicious samples sent on to the OIE approved lab in Weybridge England. Of course the lab in England only tests the samples not already screened out by the Canadian and American testing process as negative. That was how the US Texas case was almost missed. A review process by the US Office of the Inspector General discovered irregularities with that case and it was later announced to be positive.

I am not 100% sure but I believe the Weybridge Lab is still used by all countries to verify all country's positive cases. Flounder or BSE-tester would probably know more.

The following is a list of the Certified OIE Reference Laboratories Worlwide:
Dr Danny Matthews
VLA Weybridge
New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: (44.1932) 35.95.12 Fax: (44.1932) 34.99.83
Email: [email protected].
Web: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/vla/science/science-tse-rl-web.htm


Prof. Andreas Zurbriggen
Institute of Animal Neurology, University of Bern
Bremgartenstrasse 109A, 3012 Bern
SWITZERLAND
Tel: (41.31) 631.25.09 Fax: (41.31) 631.25.38
Email: [email protected].


Dr Stefanie Czub
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Lethbridge Laboratory
Township Road 9-1, Post Office Box 640, Lethbridge? Alberta
CANADA
Tel: (1.403) 382.55.49 Fax: (1.403) 381.12.02
Email: [email protected]


Dr Takashi Yokoyama
Prion Diseases Research Unit, National Institute of Animal Health, National Agricultural Research Organization
3-1-5 Kannondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0856
JAPAN
Tel: (81.298) 38.77.57 Fax: (81.298) 38.79.07
Email: [email protected]

The USA uses several University Labs that contract preliminary BSE screening tests.

Not all samples are verified at Weybridge now. Just the ones that are questionable to be "Atypical", or the ones that were screwed up like the Texas cow.

All that is needed for verification now is a snapshot of the WB results. That can be done by e-mail.

a bit of history on this topic please ;


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nvsl/html/BSElabs.html

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nvsl/html/cwdlabs.html

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/diagnos_tests/downloads/diag_reag_manual.pdf


http://www.usda.gov/documents/vs_bse_ihctestvar.pdf


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


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



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


USDA ANNOUNCES BSE TEST RESULTS AND NEW BSE CONFIRMATORY TESTING PROTOCOL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/



"I also want to mention that the experimental test revealed abnormalities. Because the test was not validated and because it followed the two approved IHC tests that came out negative, the results were not reported out of the lab. Again, appropriate protocols relating to additional testing for research will prevent a similar situation in the future.

"During the course of my review I met several times with the Inspector General and her staff, and they've boiled it down to two additional concerns relating to protocols. One concern is the freezing of this sample, because it's not consistent with guidelines.

"Our scientists agree that the freezing did not compromise the integrity of the sample. The IG does not dispute that conclusion, but because freezing can compromise the sample and our protocol indicates samples should not be frozen, I am dispatching USDA's staff to go over the protocols at the locations where samples are collected to ensure that the samples are not frozen.

"The second concern the IG expressed and the last one on my list relates to inadequate paperwork. When the IHC test was conducted in November, no formal report was completed. The results were relayed as you know, but the paperwork was not finished. Clearly, documentation is an important component of sensitive scientific activity. Completing the paperwork is necessary. I've stressed the importance of complete and accurate documentation, and I've directed our administrators to spot-check lab activity to make sure that the reports are completed in the future.



http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2005/06/0233.xml



SEC. JOHANNS: "Let me address the question about the Ames Laboratory, and I'm sure the doctor will want to offer a thought also.

"One of the things we are very, very proud of is that Ames laboratory. They do great work there, and again I remind everybody that the IHC test is an internationally accepted test. And that comes from the OIE, and like I said even amongst scientists you would get debate about the test.

"But it is an internationally accepted test. It was done according to protocol. It was properly done and produced negative results as the doctor explained.

"In terms of the confidence of the international community, I believe they look to us as leaders. Not only are we aggressive when it comes to this disease; we quite honestly don't leave any stone unturned in terms of our efforts to make sure that we're proceeding along the right pathway.

"As the doctor pointed out, this is an aged animal. Our discussions with Japan have related to 20-month animals as you know. Our discussions with Korea have related to 30-month animals, and the rule relative to Canada or the Minimal Risk Rule in general I should say relates to animals under 30 months and meat product under 30 months.

"So I really don't believe this has any impact on our international trading partners. We'll be working with them to get information in their hands and make sure that they understand the situation. But again just because of what we're talking about here and the age of the animal, we've got a vast difference between what this is about and what we're working with them about.

http://www.usda.gov/2005/06/0207.xml



Subject: USDA JOHANN'S MAD ABOUT FONG, PLANS HIS OWN LAB AND HIS OWN MAD COW ANTIBODIES ;-)
Date: July 29, 2005 at 2:35 pm PST

Friday, July 29, 2005


Ames lab to take over testing for mad cow disease
Published: 07/29/2005 3:52 PM

By: Associated Press - Associated Press


AMES, IA - Scientists at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories here soon will begin conducting their own Western blot tests, eliminating the need to travel to Weybridge, England, when initial rapid testing detects mad cow disease.

"I think the change is good because we're more likely to know exactly what we're dealing with on each case," said Dr. Randall Levings, director of the labs.

The change is a response to an order from U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns.

"We took those as our marching orders," Levings said.

Mad cow disease, formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, attacks a cow's nervous system. It is characterized by spongelike holes in the brain, the result of misshapen proteins called prions that kill brain cells.

The only way it is known to spread is by cattle eating infected brain and nerve tissue from other cows. That's why the government in 1997 banned the use of cattle feed that contains remnants of other cows. Of the three cases of mad cow confirmed in the United States, all three cows were born before the feed ban, Levings said.

Since January 2004, the government has tested more than 400,000 cows for the disease, using a rapid screening test and a test known immunohistochemistry, or IHC.

Rapid testing of a sample involves removing normal proteins and adding chemicals that bind to the abnormal proteins, making them visible. The IHC test involves staining paper-thin brain tissue samples to highlight the abnormal protein.

The Western blot test, conducted at Weybridge destroys normal proteins in the brain, leaving only the abnormal prions.

In June, the nation's Office of Inspector General ordered a review of the Ames lab's testing procedures after a sample last fall tested positive in England, but negative in Ames.

A rapid test on the sample in Ames detected the presence of BSE, but the following IHC test was negative. Ames workers also relayed the results of the test, but did not complete formal paperwork.

A version of mad cow disease, known as variant Creutzfeld-Jakob, has killed about 150 people worldwide, most of them in Britain, where there was an outbreak in the 1990s.

"We're taking all of the right steps," Levings said. "It would not be a risk to human or animal health in this country. It's not high. It's very, very low."


http://www.crgazette.com/2005/07/29/Home/News/madcowtesting.htm



In Reply to: THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS FONG AND HER Rocky Mountain oysters should be given a medal posted by TSS on June 29, 2005 at 5:55 am:

The Lufkin Daily News

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Thank God for people like Phyllis Fong.

She's the inspector general for the U.S. Department of Agriculture who ordered the test that determined that a cow cleared by the USDA, did in fact have bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.

And thank God as well that she didn't notify Agricultural Secretary Mike Johanns before she did it.

Hours before a British lab confirmed that the cow did have BSE, Johanns told the Associated Press that he was "disappointed" that Fong didn't consult him before ordering a test that would have confirmed a diagnosis.

The first test on the animal had come back positive. The second, performed by the USDA, came back negative.

Despite the diametrically opposed results, and requests from consumer groups to have another test run to determine which one was correct, the department said there was no need.

''We are confident in the expertise of USDA's laboratory technicians in conducting BSE testing,'' wrote Jere Dick, an associate deputy administrator.

While BSE is not a serious threat to human life – about 150 people worldwide have died from the disease – it is a most serious threat to the beef industry. In Nacogdoches County, it's a $28 million per year industry.

Dozens of countries banned U.S. beef imports after a cow was diagnosed in 2003, costing the industry billions.

Japan, formerly one of the country's biggest customers, had shown signs of ending its ban. According to the AP, the Japanese Food Safety Commission recommended that mad cow disease tests be waived for domestic cattle under 21 months old. They had asked that the United States test all cattle before slaughter, as Japan does – a request Washington rejected as too costly.

It appears to us that it is Washington's testing technique that will prove even more costly to the beef industry.

How could anyone accept with confidence that the USDA and the Department of Agriculture are seriously dedicated to ensuring the safety of the food supply with the attitude reflected by Johanns and Dick?

As one former cattle producer told the AP, "Our credibility around the world is almost zero."

After Monday's revelation, it's no doubt a few degrees below zero.

The beef industry has taken steps to keep sick cows out of the food supply, but that is just one part of the equation. Without the assurance of strictly enforced government oversight, that means little, if anything.

The cow was suspected of disease last November. We are getting a confirmation of that eight months later. Were it up to Dick and Johanns, we'd all be "blissfully ignorant" – until the next outbreak of mad cow disease.

Johanns and Dick should resign, and we'd suggest that the letter asking for those resignations come from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.


http://www.lufkindailynews.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2005/06/28/20050628LDNeddy.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 --------
> 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: =================================


snip...end...TSS

 

[rkaiser]

I am becoming more of American lover all the time. Those Dixie Chicks really rock, and GW is down to what -- about a 25% rating. You go America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If only those Rcalf boys would wake up and smell the Kettle eh Terry.

 

[flounder]

I am becoming more of American lover all the time. Those Dixie Chicks really rock, and GW is down to what -- about a 25% rating. You go America!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If only those Rcalf boys would wake up and smell the Kettle eh Terry.

i must concur there rkaiser.


God loves the Dixie Chicks, and so do we. ...


http://www.dixiechicks.com/




THE OIE has now shown they are nothing more than a National Trading Brokerage for all strains of animal TSE.

AS i said before, OIE should hang up there jock strap now, since it appears they will buckle every time a country

makes some political hay about trade protocol, commodities and futures. IF they are not going to be science based, they

should do everyone a favor and dissolve there organization. ...


Page 95 of 98

8/3/2006

WHAT ABOUT RISK FACTORS TO HUMANS FROM ALL OTHER TSEs, WITH RELATIONS TO SRMs ???

a.. BSE OIE

see full text ;


http://p079.ezboard.com/fwolftracksproductionsfrm2.showMessage?topicID=470.topic



IT'S as obvious as day and night, either Larry, Curley, and Mo have been at the helm of the

USDA/APHIS/FSIS/FDA/CDC/NIH et al for many many years, or the incompetence of these agencies are so inept,

either through ignorance and or just too overweight with industry reps., they then should be all done away with and a

single agency brought forth, and if not, how will you correct this ongoing problem ?


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/Comments/2006-0011/2006-0011-1.pdf



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0612&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=20678



http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0611&L=sanet-mg&T=0&I=-3&P=3381



and


GW et al i.e. OIE BSE MRR ;


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=8374


Subject: [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



[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



BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL


BMJ


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/319/7220/1312/b#EL2


BMJ


http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7226/8/b#EL1




TSS