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

Creekstone Testing

Mike

Well-known member
"The Agriculture Department argued widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry. Robertson said he was concerned by that possibility but noted Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on."

Didn't the USDA do just that? (announced false positives before they were confirmed) :lol:


"Tests are done on brain tissue from cows, so animals must be killed before they can be tested. Because of this, Robertson rejected the government's stance that it has the authority to regulate the tests because they are used in the treatment of disease."

"Sound Science" that the Judge could see right through! :lol:



"He said regulation of the tests might be appropriate through the Federal Trade Commission or the Commerce Department but the authority does not exist."

This will be more degradation of confidence in the USDA should they appeal the decision. It would be a Public Relations nightmare.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
"Tests are done on brain tissue from cows, so animals must be killed before they can be tested. Because of this, Robertson rejected the government's stance that it has the authority to regulate the tests because they are used in the treatment of disease."

"Sound Science" that the Judge could see right through! Laughing



I am a little concerned about this statement. Does this mean that if a live test comes through, the judgment is out and the USDA controls?

I also don't see how the govt. could argue that it has the authority to regulate the tests because they are used in the treatment of disease. Is there a treatment for BSE that they are not telling us about?

The fact that the judge had to have this kind of reasoning is a little concerning. It seems the reasoning is just a little out of whack although I agree with the decision. I wonder if this is the caliber of judges we have in our court system and if so, we are all in a lot of trouble. It seems this decision was just a bit of luck, not based entirely on judicious reasoning. I guess you have to take them however you can get them.

I just wish we had judges who could identify specious reasons and reject them on that basis. This is about as bad as SH's argument that Tyson in the Pickett case didn't make as much money as the damages they caused therefore they could not be held accountable to the damages they created.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Econ, there is definitely no treatment for BSE other than total and complete destruction of the infected animal. There is however, numerous theories surrounding the development of a vaccine. But again, there is nothing even close to being issued even in "Paper" form of any substance.

I think you know my position regarding total testing as the only sure-fire means to bring about the complete eradication of BSE from the national herds and thus the human food chain?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
bse-tester said:
Econ, there is definitely no treatment for BSE other than total and complete destruction of the infected animal. There is however, numerous theories surrounding the development of a vaccine. But again, there is nothing even close to being issued even in "Paper" form of any substance.

I think you know my position regarding total testing as the only sure-fire means to bring about the complete eradication of BSE from the national herds and thus the human food chain?

Yes, Ron, and I agree with you. I think allowing companies to test further than the USDA has considered adequate a first step in that direction. If there are a good amount of cattle tested, and those tests come up negative consistently, then we have more evidence that BSE is not widespread. If we do not allow the collection of this data, we are just guessing.

I hope that you can be fruitful in your efforts to get an inexpensive live test out there. I also hope that you are rewarded for your efforts to get a live test. I find it incredible that some on this board think they have a right to make a profit and keep people like you from making one. When your test gets approved, and I hope it does soon, I hope you are able to market it to as many companies that want to use it to open additional markets in Japan or elsewhere.

If there are positives out there, your test will become more valuable in being able to get rid of bse positives before they enter the food chain for humans. At the very least, it will help break down another comparative advantage the big boys have on the industry.

Please keep us informed on what trouble you have to go through to get your test approved as you have in the past. An inefficient system to get new science out there hurts everyone. Everyone should realize that these hurdles are what end up making your test cost more. Those additional costs will be passed onto the industry and so they are concerning to me.

Good luck on it and give Creekstone and the Japanese a call to update them on your progress. They might be your future customers.
 

bse-tester

Well-known member
Thanks Econ. It is actually not about making a profit for us. It is about having the funds necessary to offer post-doc scholarships to increase the knowledge of prion disease throughout the world - in animals and humans. That is where the profits will go. Sure, we would like to recover our initial development costs, but that can be done over an extended period of time.

Having said that, we certainly do intend to begin our validation for the BSE test and also the CJD Test. Our funding is almost complete and the labs are on track to begin the actual vaidations. The OIC has given us the green light to proceed and to also share our data as we progress, not only with them but EFSA also. It is very exciting.

The end result will be an extremely cost efficient test that will, as you correctly state, prove that the herds are free of BSE and that is it is no longer as widespread as feared. But, because of the low testing cost, it will be a most effective "Risk Management Tool" that can be utilized to maintain the overall vigilance for the detection of BSE.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
bse-tester said:
Thanks Econ. It is actually not about making a profit for us. It is about having the funds necessary to offer post-doc scholarships to increase the knowledge of prion disease throughout the world - in animals and humans. That is where the profits will go. Sure, we would like to recover our initial development costs, but that can be done over an extended period of time.

Having said that, we certainly do intend to begin our validation for the BSE test and also the CJD Test. Our funding is almost complete and the labs are on track to begin the actual vaidations. The OIC has given us the green light to proceed and to also share our data as we progress, not only with them but EFSA also. It is very exciting.

The end result will be an extremely cost efficient test that will, as you correctly state, prove that the herds are free of BSE and that is it is no longer as widespread as feared. But, because of the low testing cost, it will be a most effective "Risk Management Tool" that can be utilized to maintain the overall vigilance for the detection of BSE.

In light of the fact that we don't know if there can be transmission via contact and that in both the U.S. and Canada has had feed ban enforcement challenges, the risk management tool may be a good tool to use.

I hope that even if we had 100% testing, we will not go back into the practice of feeding animal products back to cattle, which got us into this problem in the first place.
 
Top