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

Foot & Mouth Thought in Minnesota?

Mike

Well-known member
WASHINGTON — When there were fears of a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the Midwest this summer, the White House received secret briefings that highlighted the potential for old farm diseases to be new national security threats.

The suspected outbreak in Minnesota of the disease, which does not affect humans, never materialized. Yet federal officials said their concerns showed how the government probably would respond to a foot-and-mouth epidemic. The disease strikes cloven-hoofed animals including cows, sheep, pigs and goats and can have a major economic impact.

"We wanted to keep it quiet to the extent we could so it wouldn't cause any panic or economic impact but make sure the people who would be most concerned like the president or the secretary knew what we were doing," said Roger Rufe, director of operations coordination at the Homeland Security Department.

The incident began June 26 in Austin, Minn., known as "Spamtown, USA" because it is home to Hormel Foods Corp., which makes the canned meat product.

A shipment of about 200 pigs had come into a slaughterhouse, and an inspector noticed suspicious lesions on some.

The symptoms indicated possible foot-and-mouth disease. It is one of the most feared animal diseases because it so highly contagious. The U.S. has not had an outbreak since 1929; Britain had one this summer.

Once the inspector raised the alarm, federal authorities quarantined the animals and began testing. They also notified Homeland Security officials, who coordinated the response through their National Operations Center.

The information was kept secret out of fear it could cause consumer panic and spook investors.

Rufe and others DHS officials briefed White House anti-terrorism officials while they waited for test results back from a government lab on Plum Island, N.Y.

In bracing for the worst, officials wanted to avoid the kind of short-lived rumors of a foot-and-mouth outbreak such as the one in 2002 that cost the beef industry an estimated $50 million.

They also sought out any possible intelligence on terrorist links.

"One of the first things you have to worry about in these cases is, if it was foot-and-mouth, was it an attack?" Rufe said.

The federal effort quickly expanded beyond national security and agriculture officials to include the departments of State, Transportation, and Health and Human Services.

Dr. John Clifford, the Agriculture Department's chief veterinary officer, said his staff usually does 400 to 500 animal disease investigations a year. Most are much less serious matters involving individual farms.

The chief difference in the Minnesota case, Clifford said, was that it involved a slaughter facility "where you had a congregation of animals and a movement of animals, versus on a farm."

About 200 pigs were quarantined in Minnesota. Animals in Iowa that had shared space with those pigs were also isolated.

Officials scrambled to trace the pigs' path from Canada.

Canadian inspectors visited the pigs' source and found nothing amiss, Clifford said.

Within about two days of the initial alert, lab testing determined the infection was not foot-and-mouth disease, and the government issued a short statement to quell local rumors. A few days later, further testing confirmed the lesions resulted from an illness that did not threaten humans or the livestock industry.

Heidi Kassenborg, a disease expert at Minnesota's Agriculture Department, said the false alarm ended up as a good test, revealing gaps in communication systems and the need for additional training.

Rufe said that in the past, Homeland Security rarely became involved in such cases. He said the government's intense and silent mobilization to the foot-and-mouth scare showed it is improving its crisis response systems after years of criticism and doubt.

"It's been highlighted in Hurricane Katrina and highlighted in every major disaster that you need someone to coordinate all that and bring it together," he said. "This was a good chance for us to work on that and get it smoothed out."
 

mrj

Well-known member
Some of us living in states around Nebraska recall back a few years how a RUMOR of cattle in a sale barn in NE APPEARED to show symtoms of FMD, possibly begun in jest, or intentionally if one is the more suspicious type, had a negative effect on our cattle markets for a while.

I appreciate caution in releasing such 'news' IF steps are taken to control the outbreak if it is found to be factual.

There is no shortage of people willing to manipulate markets for their ownselfish/greedy benefit........and they are not ALL in management or ownership of the biggest/corporate packing plants!

mrj
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Mike said:
WASHINGTON — When there were fears of a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the Midwest this summer, the White House received secret briefings that highlighted the potential for old farm diseases
to be new national security threats.

. . . . .

"We wanted to keep it quiet to the extent we could so it wouldn't cause any panic or economic impact but make sure the people who would be most concerned like the president or the secretary knew what we were doing," said Roger Rufe, director of operations coordination at the Homeland Security Department.

. . . . . . .

The information was kept secret out of fear it could cause consumer panic and spook investors.

"


So it IS possible to conduct a cover-up of significant scale of disease threats and existence . . .



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: :roll:
 

hillsdown

Well-known member
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Mike said:
WASHINGTON — When there were fears of a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the Midwest this summer, the White House received secret briefings that highlighted the potential for old farm diseases
to be new national security threats.

. . . . .

"We wanted to keep it quiet to the extent we could so it wouldn't cause any panic or economic impact but make sure the people who would be most concerned like the president or the secretary knew what we were doing," said Roger Rufe, director of operations coordination at the Homeland Security Department.

. . . . . . .

The information was kept secret out of fear it could cause consumer panic and spook investors.

"


So it IS possible to conduct a cover-up of significant scale of disease threats and existence . . .



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: :roll:

It is so thoughtful that the American government kept so quiet and all the secrecy while still exporting live cattle around the world. :???: :roll: What the hell would they have done if the animals were positive.Cover up more and say they came from Canada?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Mike said:
WASHINGTON — When there were fears of a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the Midwest this summer, the White House received secret briefings that highlighted the potential for old farm diseases
to be new national security threats.

. . . . .

"We wanted to keep it quiet to the extent we could so it wouldn't cause any panic or economic impact but make sure the people who would be most concerned like the president or the secretary knew what we were doing," said Roger Rufe, director of operations coordination at the Homeland Security Department.

. . . . . . .

The information was kept secret out of fear it could cause consumer panic and spook investors.

"


So it IS possible to conduct a cover-up of significant scale of disease threats and existence . . .



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: :roll:

Actually, they probably handled this surprisingly well. They didn't go off half cocked hollering Wolf, let the bosses know what was going on, and identified whether or not they had a problem quickly.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hillsdown said:
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Mike said:
WASHINGTON — When there were fears of a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the Midwest this summer, the White House received secret briefings that highlighted the potential for old farm diseases
to be new national security threats.

. . . . .

"We wanted to keep it quiet to the extent we could so it wouldn't cause any panic or economic impact but make sure the people who would be most concerned like the president or the secretary knew what we were doing," said Roger Rufe, director of operations coordination at the Homeland Security Department.

. . . . . . .

The information was kept secret out of fear it could cause consumer panic and spook investors.

"


So it IS possible to conduct a cover-up of significant scale of disease threats and existence . . .



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: :roll:

It is so thoughtful that the American government kept so quiet and all the secrecy while still exporting live cattle around the world. :???: :roll: What the hell would they have done if the animals were positive.Cover up more and say they came from Canada?

Duh--They did come from Canada :shock: :wink: :lol:

Once the inspector raised the alarm, federal authorities quarantined the animals and began testing. They also notified Homeland Security officials, who coordinated the response through their National Operations Center.
--------------------
The chief difference in the Minnesota case, Clifford said, was that it involved a slaughter facility "where you had a congregation of animals and a movement of animals, versus on a farm."

About 200 pigs were quarantined in Minnesota. Animals in Iowa that had shared space with those pigs were also isolated.


Officials scrambled to trace the pigs' path from Canada.

Canadian inspectors visited the pigs' source and found nothing amiss, Clifford said.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Mike said:
WASHINGTON — When there were fears of a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the Midwest this summer, the White House received secret briefings that highlighted the potential for old farm diseases
to be new national security threats.

. . . . .

"We wanted to keep it quiet to the extent we could so it wouldn't cause any panic or economic impact but make sure the people who would be most concerned like the president or the secretary knew what we were doing," said Roger Rufe, director of operations coordination at the Homeland Security Department.

. . . . . . .

The information was kept secret out of fear it could cause consumer panic and spook investors.

"


So it IS possible to conduct a cover-up of significant scale of disease threats and existence . . .



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: :roll:

Actually, they probably handled this surprisingly well. They didn't go off half cocked hollering Wolf, let the bosses know what was going on, and identified whether or not they had a problem quickly.




sandhusker,




how do you know they were not positive, and all cleaned up now?

fact is, this is just another cover-up that got out, a bit late.

we will never know what really happened.

but we do know what thing, as Maple Leaf Angus wrote:


>>> So it IS possible to conduct a cover-up of significant scale of disease threats and existence . . . <<<




course, the feds been doing this with mad cow disease for a long long time.



also, HD brought up an excellent point, one that is very true ;


>>>It is so thoughtful that the American government kept so quiet and all the secrecy while still exporting live cattle around the world. What the hell would they have done if the animals were positive.Cover up more and say they came from Canada?<<<



this homeland security crap is worse than 9-11. there using it on us, instead of the terrorist. it's not being used as it was intended to be, or is it?
was it really intended on spying on the USA citizen, and or help cover up disease outbreaks, and blame it on the terrorist?




here is full story ;



US Feared Summer Foot-And-Mouth Outbreak
By DEVLIN BARRETT – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — When there were fears of a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the Midwest this summer, the White House received secret briefings that highlighted the potential for old farm diseases to be new national security threats.

The suspected outbreak in Minnesota of the disease, which does not affect humans, never materialized. Yet federal officials said their concerns showed how the government probably would respond to a foot-and-mouth epidemic. The disease strikes cloven-hoofed animals including cows, sheep, pigs and goats and can have a major economic impact.

"We wanted to keep it quiet to the extent we could so it wouldn't cause any panic or economic impact but make sure the people who would be most concerned like the president or the secretary knew what we were doing," said Roger Rufe, director of operations coordination at the Homeland Security Department.

The incident began June 26 in Austin, Minn., known as "Spamtown, USA" because it is home to Hormel Foods Corp., which makes the canned meat product.

A shipment of about 200 pigs had come into a slaughterhouse, and an inspector noticed suspicious lesions on some.

The symptoms indicated possible foot-and-mouth disease. It is one of the most feared animal diseases because it so highly contagious. The U.S. has not had an outbreak since 1929; Britain had one this summer.

Once the inspector raised the alarm, federal authorities quarantined the animals and began testing. They also notified Homeland Security officials, who coordinated the response through their National Operations Center.

The information was kept secret out of fear it could cause consumer panic and spook investors.

Rufe and others DHS officials briefed White House anti-terrorism officials while they waited for test results back from a government lab on Plum Island, N.Y.

In bracing for the worst, officials wanted to avoid the kind of short-lived rumors of a foot-and-mouth outbreak such as the one in 2002 that cost the beef industry an estimated $50 million.

They also sought out any possible intelligence on terrorist links.

"One of the first things you have to worry about in these cases is, if it was foot-and-mouth, was it an attack?" Rufe said.

The federal effort quickly expanded beyond national security and agriculture officials to include the departments of State, Transportation, and Health and Human Services.

Dr. John Clifford, the Agriculture Department's chief veterinary officer, said his staff usually does 400 to 500 animal disease investigations a year. Most are much less serious matters involving individual farms.

The chief difference in the Minnesota case, Clifford said, was that it involved a slaughter facility "where you had a congregation of animals and a movement of animals, versus on a farm."

About 200 pigs were quarantined in Minnesota. Animals in Iowa that had shared space with those pigs were also isolated.

Officials scrambled to trace the pigs' path from Canada.

Canadian inspectors visited the pigs' source and found nothing amiss, Clifford said.

Within about two days of the initial alert, lab testing determined the infection was not foot-and-mouth disease, and the government issued a short statement to quell local rumors. A few days later, further testing confirmed the lesions resulted from an illness that did not threaten humans or the livestock industry.

Heidi Kassenborg, a disease expert at Minnesota's Agriculture Department, said the false alarm ended up as a good test, revealing gaps in communication systems and the need for additional training.

Rufe said that in the past, Homeland Security rarely became involved in such cases. He said the government's intense and silent mobilization to the foot-and-mouth scare showed it is improving its crisis response systems after years of criticism and doubt.

"It's been highlighted in Hurricane Katrina and highlighted in every major disaster that you need someone to coordinate all that and bring it together," he said. "This was a good chance for us to work on that and get it smoothed out."

On the Net:
U.S. Department of Agriculture information on animal diseases: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/
Minnesota Agriculture Department: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5T1dr6qN8EDet3-74slUjxN5u-AD8S9HPB00






tss



sadly disgusted in stormy baycliff, texas
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Mike said:
WASHINGTON — When there were fears of a foot-and-mouth outbreak in the Midwest this summer, the White House received secret briefings that highlighted the potential for old farm diseases
to be new national security threats.

. . . . .

"We wanted to keep it quiet to the extent we could so it wouldn't cause any panic or economic impact but make sure the people who would be most concerned like the president or the secretary knew what we were doing," said Roger Rufe, director of operations coordination at the Homeland Security Department.

. . . . . . .

The information was kept secret out of fear it could cause consumer panic and spook investors.

"


So it IS possible to conduct a cover-up of significant scale of disease threats and existence . . .



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:roll: :roll:

Actually, they probably handled this surprisingly well. They didn't go off half cocked hollering Wolf, let the bosses know what was going on, and identified whether or not they had a problem quickly.

Sandhusker, from your reply, then, we can conclude that you are in favour of a cover-up if it has a positive economic benefit, even though it involves a super high-risk disease like FMD. Even though it involves a disease that would devastate the industry. "Let the bosses know what was going on . . . " :lol: :lol: :lol:

You don't suppose maybe someone in the U.S. beef industry "let the bosses know what was going on" down there in Texas a time or two before your fine friend fillus fongus blew the top off of it, EH? And found ONE (1) cow

:lol: :lol: :lol:

2600 head of BSE-ridden head eaten by American consumers last year alone. . . . .

and counting . . . . . .


No BSE coverup in the USA - yeah right!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I don't think the USDA is capable of a coverup. If you guys have any proof, let's see it.

For what it's worth . . .
> federal officials said their concerns showed how the government probably would respond to a foot-and-mouth epidemic.

followed by highlights from the time line

> an inspector noticed

> the inspector raised the alarm, federal authorities quarantined the animals and began testing.

> The information was kept secret

> and agriculture officials

> Dr. John Clifford, the Agriculture Department's chief veterinary officer

> Clifford said

> government's intense and silent mobilization

> U.S. Department of Agriculture information on animal diseases: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/
Minnesota Agriculture Department: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/

_Part of_ keeping the information secret after an intense and silent mobilization.
 

Longcut

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I don't think the USDA is capable of a coverup. If you guys have any proof, let's see it.
Why not??????????????
We have been covering up steroid use in our atheletes for DECADES. From pro-atheletes to gold medal winning olympians the US has been as underhanded as any old communist eastern block country ever was.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Fine, if you don't think the USDA is trustworthy enough that they would orchestrate a coverup on animal health, why do you trust them when they say it's safe to open the border?
 

flounder

Well-known member
here is another lie by the USDA et al. now i am sure kathy will dismiss the cause here too as either from nukes, ops, and or metals, :lol: :lol2: :lol2: but i thought some might be interested regardless ;


APHIS et al ;

Q: Can people get the disease from animals?
A: It is not believed to readily affect humans. The disease has no
implications for the human food chain. People, however, can spread the virus
to animals because it can remain in human nasal passages for as long as 28
hours.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/faq_ahfmd.html


DEFRA et al ;

Can people contract the disease?
Advice from the Department of Health is that it is very rare. There has only
been one recorded case of FMD in a human being in Great Britain and that was
in 1966. The general effects of the disease in that case were similar to
influenza with some blisters. It is a mild short-lived, self-limiting
disease. The Food Standards Agency have advised that the disease in animals
has no implications for the human food chain.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/about/qanda.htm#4



Foot and mouth disease is a zoonosis, a disease
transmissible to humans, but it crosses the species bar­
rier with difficulty and with little effect. Given the high
incidence of the disease in animals, both in the past
and in more recent outbreaks worldwide, its occur­
rence in man is rare3 so experience of the human
infection is limited. The last human case reported in
Britain occurred in 1966, during the last epidemic of
foot and mouth disease.4 The circumstances in which it
does occur in humans are not well defined, though all
reported cases have had close contact with infected
animals. There is one report from 1834 of three veteri­
narians acquiring the disease from deliberately
drinking raw milk from infected cows.5 There is no
report of infection from pasteurised milk, and the
Food Standards Agency considers that foot and mouth
disease has no implications for the human food chain.

http://birdflubook.com/resources/Prempeh565.pdf




Fiebre aftosa en seres humanos. Un caso en Chile

Foot and mouth disease in human beings. A human case in Chile



Patricio Berríos E.

Universidad Andrés Bello Santiago, Chile
Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria
Facultad de Ecología y Recursos Naturales



Foot and mouth disease (FMD) of cattle can cause a significant economic
burden and is thus for one of the most feared of cattle disease. FMD is
endemic in South America, Africa, Asia and parts of Europe and it is
characterized by vesicles in different locations, mainly mouth, feet and
teats leading to severe animal weakness. Currently most countries refuse to
import livestock and livestock products from FMD areas. North and Central
America are currently free of FMD and Chile is free of FMD from 1987.
Approximately 40 cases of human infection with FMD virus have been reported,
mostly in Europe, and confirmed by virus isolation and the detection of a
specific immune response. We discuss the case of a human infection with FMD
virus occurred in Chile in 1961 and other relevant cases reported. FMD does
not currently present a threat to public health. Even though the FMD virus
has the potential to mutate rapidly and emerge as a significant human
zoonosis; the rarity of the disease in humans despite a long history of
close contact with FMD infected animals suggests that the risk is highly
improbable. Then FMD should not be managed as a zoonosis.


snip...


REFERENCIAS

1.- Berríos P. Actualización sobre fiebre aftosa. Chile Agrícola 2001; 26:
79-81.

2.- Berríos P. Fiebre aftosa en humanos. ¿Es la fiebre aftosa una zoonosis?
Tecno Vet 2004; 10: 19-23.

3.- Sellers R F, Donaldson A I, Herniman K A J. Inhalation, persistence and
dispersal of foot and mouth disease virus by man. J Hyg 1970; 68: 565-73.

4.- Donaldson A, Knowles N. Foot and mouth disease in man. Vet Rec 2001;
148: 319.

5.- Armstrong R, Davie J, Hedger R S. Foot and mouth disease in man. Br Med
J 1967; 4: 529-30.
[ Medline ]

6.- Bohn H O. Foot and mouth disease in man. Z Allgemeinmed 1972; 48:
149-51.

7.- Capella G L. Foot and mouth disease in human beings. Lancet 2001; 358
(9290): 1374.

8.- David W, Brown G. Foot and mouth disease in human beings. Lancet 2000;
357 (9267): 1463.

9.- Dlugosz H. Foot and mouth disease in man. Br Med J 1968; 1: 251-2.
[ Medline ]

10.- Casas Olascoaga, Gómez R I, Rosenberg F J, Augé De Mello J P, Astudillo
V, Magallanes N. 1999. Fiebre Aftosa. Editora Atheneu.

11.- Eissner G, Bohn H O, Julick E. A human case of foot and mouth disease.
Ger Med Mon 1967; 12: 271-3.
[ Medline ]

12.- Rasmussen E S. Foot and mouth disease in man. Report of a case and some
serologic observations. Ugeskr Laeger 1968; 130: 1619-21.
[ Medline ]

13.- Meléndez L. Aislamiento e identificación del virus de la fiebre aftosa
procedente de vesículas de la epidermis de un ser humano. Bol Of San Pan
1961; 100: 135-7.

14.- Acha P N, Szyfres B. Fiebre aftosa. En: Zoonosis y enfermedades
transmisibles comunes al hombre y a los animales. Ed Washington DC, OPS
1968; p. 394-407. (Publicaciones Científicas, 503).

15.- Hyslop N S. Transmission of the virus of foot and mouth disease between
animals and man. Bull World Health Org 1973; 49: 557-85.

16.- Korotich A S, Vasil'chenko A A, Sobko A I, Sokolov L N, Prokhorov V N.
Foot and mouth disease in man. Zh Mikrobiol Epidemiol Immunobiol 1974; 2:
132-5.

17.- Jebavy Z. Foot and mouth disease in people. Cesk Stomatol 1976; 76:
200-3.
[ Medline ]

18.- Prempeh H, Smith R, Miller B. Foot and mouth disease: the human
consequences. Br Med J 2001; 10: 565-6.

19.- Simmons N, Feldman R. If foot and mouth disease were a disease of human
beings? Lancet Infect Dis 2001; 1: 75-6.

20.- van der Poel W H. Transmission of the foot and mouth disease virus
through milk and meat products is not a threat for human health. Tijdscher
Diergeneeskd 2001; 126: 285-6.

21.- Chan L G, Parashar U D, Lye M S, Zaki S R, Ong F G, Alexander J P, et
al. Deaths of children during an outbreak of hand, foot and mouth disease in
Sarawak, Malyasia: clinical and pathological characteristics of the disease.
Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 678-83.
[ Medline ]

22.- Shieh W, Jungs S M, Hsueh C, Kuo T T, Mounts A, Parashar U D, et al.
Pathologic studies of fatal cases in outbreaks of hand, foot and mouth
disease. Taiwan. Emerg Infect Dis 2001; 7: 146-8.

23.- Bauer K. Foot and mouth disease as zoonosis. Arch Virol (Suppl) 1997;
13: 95-7.

24.- Schrijver R S, Van Oischot J T, Dekker A, Schneider M M, Van Knapen F,
Kimman T G. Foot and mouth disease is not a zoonosis. Tijdschr Diergeneekd
1998; 123: 750.



Recibido: 7 noviembre 2005
Aceptado: 27 septiembre 2006

Correspondencia a:
Patricio Berríos Etchegaray
[email protected]




http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-10182007000200013&tlng=en&lng=en&nrm=iso




tss
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Fine, if you don't think the USDA is trustworthy enough that they would orchestrate a coverup on animal health, why do you trust them when they say it's safe to open the border?

Well SandHUSKER did it ever occur to you that "they" realize that our beef is just as safe, if not safer than U.S. beef because we look for, find and openly acknowledge the existence of BSE in the herd? :eek:

And do not feed ruminant by-product back to our herd, as do some of your feedlots? :shock:

And SandHUSKER don't even bother running out that old line about not bringing more cattle in until you have your own house in order - that dog won't hunt.
:roll:

2600 head of "BSE ridden", (if I may borrow the term that Oldtimer loves to use) U.S. born and raised cattle fed to your own population and where do the SRM's go . . . .well, SandHUSKER who knows, but in all likelihood, a significant portion (mega tonnage) was fed back to your "native" cattle herd.

I forget how much infected material it takes to start the cycle in another animal, but SandHUSKER I think it is a rather small number. Like milligrams per cow, not pounds or tons.

I'm not sure of the number of infected cattle you have eaten down there to date Sandhusker, or how many tons of dangerous SRM's you have fed, and are feeding back to your herd on a daily basis. But if you want to know, I'm sure that Terry can dig up his research, post it here for all to re-read, and refresh your memory!

And SandHUSKER when the media takes hold of it . . . . . .

MAybe you should just shut up and drive, but that would be so unlike you SandHUSKER . . . . .


:lol: :lol: :lol:
 

flounder

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Fine, if you don't think the USDA is trustworthy enough that they would orchestrate a coverup on animal health, why do you trust them when they say it's safe to open the border?



i dont sandhusker, and neither do a great deal of other folks ;


SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR
IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS: More than 4,000 scientists – including 48 Nobel Prize
winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences – have accused
the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing science to suit its
political goals. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 07.09.04)

A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this administration
has:


a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific
finding by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across
numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human
health, public safety and community well being. Incidents involve air
pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant
bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence


The report also found that:


there is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation,
suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is
unprecedented.



A report by the House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff
reaches the same conclusion, revealing examples such as the administration:



Changing education performance measures to make “abstinence-only” programs
appear effect; deleting information on the efficacy and use of condoms from
the Center for Disease Control web site; withholding findings on global
warming and other negative impacts on wetlands and preventing any analyses
on alterative environmental proposals;




using misleading data to suggest that a functioning missile defense system
could be deployed quickly;




including information on the National Cancer Institute’s web site suggesting
conflicting evidence on whether abortion leads to breast cancer when the
scientific community has determined no such link exists; and




preventing research on agricultural practices having a “negative health [or]
environmental consequences.

READ THE REPORT!
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf



Published on Friday, July 9, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
Researchers Accuse Bush of Manipulating Science
by Elizabeth Shogren

WASHINGTON — More than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners
and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, accused the Bush
administration Thursday of distorting and suppressing science to suit its
political goals.

"Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the
quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of
the government's outstanding scientific personnel," the scientists said in a
letter.



This administration distorts scientific knowledge on stem cell research,
which makes it increasingly difficult to have an honest debate in a field
that holds promise for treatment of many serious diseases like Parkinson's
and juvenile diabetes.

Janet Rowley, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics
The administration has frequently been accused of misusing and ignoring
science to further its policy aims. The list of signatures collected by the
Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that the issue has become worrisome
throughout the scientific community.

Administration officials rejected the criticism Thursday, as they did when
the same letter was released in February bearing the names of 62 prominent
scientists.

John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
said the letter and a report released simultaneously by the Union of
Concerned Scientists "reach conclusions that are wrong and misleading."

"This administration values and supports science, both as a vital necessity
for national security and economic strength and as an indispensable source
of guidance for national policy," Marburger said.

The scientists cited examples of colleagues denied seats on advisory panels,
allegedly because of their political beliefs.

Dr. Gerald T. Keusch, who left his post as associate director for
international research and director of the John E. Fogarty International
Center at the National Institutes of Health, said the Department of Health
and Human Services had rejected 19 of his 26 candidates for the center's
board over three years. Among the 19 was a Nobel laureate who, Keusch said
he was told, was turned down because his name had appeared in newspaper ads
accusing the administration of manipulating science.

His nominations for the board — which advises on which research should
receive federal grants — were accepted during the Clinton administration.
But once President Bush took office, Keusch said, they "were rejected one
after another."

"There are increasing bits of evidence at attempts at control over the
business of science," said Keusch, now the assistant provost for global
health at Boston University Medical Center.

He said he was motivated to speak out not by "political malice," but a
desire to protect the "integrity of science" at the NIH.

Among the Keusch nominees rejected by the HHS was Jane Menken, a population
expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder who had served on scientific
advisory boards under President Reagan and the first President Bush. "I was
being renominated and I was turned down," she said. "No official ever gave
me any reason."

Contrary to the Bush administration, Menken supports the availability of
legal abortions. She said that given her qualifications and those of two
colleagues rejected with her, one a Nobel laureate, "it's very hard not to
reach a conclusion that it was based on something different from scientific
qualifications."

Department spokesman Bill Pierce said the appointments to many National
Institutes of Health panels were made by Health and Human Services Secretary
Tommy G. Thompson, not NIH directors such as Keusch.

"I completely reject the notion" that the administration is manipulating
government science to bolster its policy aims, he said. "There's no
evidence."

But Janet Rowley, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, said she
had seen the misuse of science firsthand.

"This administration distorts scientific knowledge on stem cell research,
which makes it increasingly difficult to have an honest debate in a field
that holds promise for treatment of many serious diseases like Parkinson's
and juvenile diabetes," Rowley said. She added that the administration,
which opposes research with most embryonic stem cells, had exaggerated the
usefulness of adult stem cells.

Richard Myers, director of the Stanford Human Genome Center, said he was
rejected for a seat on the National Advisory Council for Human Genome
Research after he told an administration official that it was inappropriate
to ask him his opinion of Bush, according to the report compiled by the
Union of Concerned Scientists. He later received the post after an NIH
director interceded on his behalf.

© Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

###


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-science9jul09,1,424737,print.story?coll=la-news-a_section


http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/SITN/2004/0449.htm#S3492


evidence of political interference

The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (SEE CHART...TSS)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government
have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have
systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific
information. To document this abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists has
created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science.


From air pollution to Ground Zero, the A to Z Guide showcases dozens of
examples of the misuse of science on issues like childhood lead poisoning,
toxic mercury contamination, and endangered species.

View alphabetical list
View by issue area
View timeline
View by agency/department
10,000 Scientists Speak Out
As the list of examples of political interference in science has grown, so
has concern from diverse groups of Americans, from ordinary citizens to
members of Congress to the nation’s leading newspapers. Particular concern
comes from the scientific community, as scientists know first hand that a
healthy respect for independent science has been the foundation of American
prosperity and contributed greatly to our quality of life.

In 2004, 62 renowned scientists and science advisors signed a scientist
statement on scientific integrity, denouncing political interference in
science and calling for reform. On December 9, 2006, UCS released the names
of more than 10,000 scientists of all backgrounds from all 50
states—including 52 Nobel Laureates—who have since joined their colleagues
on this statement.

If you are a scientist, you can add your voice to the statement right now.
And all citizens can take action on a critical scientific integrity
challenging us today: the EPA’s decision to hastily close its unique network
of scientific libraries. Call today and tell the EPA to stop destroying
documents, selling off library equipment, and limiting access to its
critical scientific collection.

The United States government bears great responsibility for keeping our
environment clean and Americans healthy and safe. And while science is
rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be
objective and impartial.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html



statement
Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

————
On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading
medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and
presidents–signed the statement below, voicing their concern over the misuse
of science by the Bush administration. UCS is seeking the signatures of
thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort.
————


Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one
of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on
issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering
to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science
for guidance.

President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990



Attention Scientists


We need you to support this statement calling for an end to scientific
abuse—now more than ever.

Creating meaningful reform will require the persistent and energetic
engagement of the scientific community—in universities, laboratories,
government agencies, and companies across the United States.

We need engineers and ecologists, physicists and physicians, psychologists
and public health professionals—scientists of all disciplines.

Sign the statement today—click here.

For a sampling of prominent signatories, click here.

To search for your colleagues who are among the 12,000 plus current signers,
click here.

Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies
that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation
and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific
input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy
decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and
impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle
has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties
in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush
has, however, disregarded this principle.

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its
political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process
through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by
placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear
conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory
committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and
suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not
seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on
occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so
wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not
scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented
scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its
policies.
For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating
emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently
misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government
scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White
House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a
major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing
a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the
discussion of climate change and its consequences.

The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a
bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits
than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration
is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. "Clear Skies"
would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and
reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the
existing Clean Air Act.

Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes
can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on
such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970,
which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths
and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly,
George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.

The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that
has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and
Ford, to observe, "How radically we have moved away from regulation based on
independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and
economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the
White House and driven primarily by political considerations."

Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the
quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of
the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:

Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees
dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive
health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for
industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not
restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health
and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are
in conflict with the administration's policies or with the views of its
political supporters.
The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act
that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of
identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on
nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been
disbanded.
In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes
for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the
contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge
National Laboratories.
The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must
cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its
well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in
scientific research and education. To elevate the ethic that governs the
relationship between science and government, Congress and the Executive
should establish legislation and regulations that would:


Forbid censorship of scientific studies unless there is a reasonable
national security concern;
Require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high
professional standards; and
Ensure public access to government studies and the findings of scientific
advisory panels.
To maintain public trust in the credibility of the scientific, engineering
and medical professions, and to restore scientific integrity in the
formation and implementation of public policy, we call on our colleagues to:

Bring the current situation to public attention;
Request that the government return to the ethic and code of conduct which
once fostered independent and objective scientific input into policy
formation; and
Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative reforms that would
ensure the acquisition and dissemination of independent and objective
scientific analysis and advice.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientists-signon-statement.html


See a list of prominent signatories


statement
RSI Signatories



http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/prominent-statement-signatories.html


On December 9, 2006, UCS released the names of more than 10,000 scientists
of all backgrounds from all 50 states—including 52 Nobel Laureates—who have
since joined their colleagues on this statement.


http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/


Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

Agencies slow in responding to FOIA requests
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:03:09 -0500

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0707&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=2679


see more damning cover-up by our federal criminals ;


https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/168556f5aa7a82ba85256ed00044eb1f/eff9eff1f7c5cf2b87256ecf000df08d


tss
 

Kato

Well-known member
This is old news. We read it in our media back in the summer.

Within about two days of the initial alert, lab testing determined the infection was not foot-and-mouth disease,

Personally I don't think two days constitutes a "cover up". I think it was handled properly. There are other diseases that look like fmd, and the logical thing to do was quarantine and find out what the pigs actually had before running out and making announcements that would cause a panic.

It was probably a good thing that this happened, because it woke people up on both sides of the border to an issue that had been put in the background when it shouldn't have been. It was a good wakeup call.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Maple Leaf Angus said:
Sandhusker said:
Fine, if you don't think the USDA is trustworthy enough that they would orchestrate a coverup on animal health, why do you trust them when they say it's safe to open the border?

Well SandHUSKER did it ever occur to you that "they" realize that our beef is just as safe, if not safer than U.S. beef because we look for, find and openly acknowledge the existence of BSE in the herd? :eek:

And do not feed ruminant by-product back to our herd, as do some of your feedlots? :shock:

And SandHUSKER don't even bother running out that old line about not bringing more cattle in until you have your own house in order - that dog won't hunt.
:roll:

2600 head of "BSE ridden", (if I may borrow the term that Oldtimer loves to use) U.S. born and raised cattle fed to your own population and where do the SRM's go . . . .well, SandHUSKER who knows, but in all likelihood, a significant portion (mega tonnage) was fed back to your "native" cattle herd.

I forget how much infected material it takes to start the cycle in another animal, but SandHUSKER I think it is a rather small number. Like milligrams per cow, not pounds or tons.

I'm not sure of the number of infected cattle you have eaten down there to date Sandhusker, or how many tons of dangerous SRM's you have fed, and are feeding back to your herd on a daily basis. But if you want to know, I'm sure that Terry can dig up his research, post it here for all to re-read, and refresh your memory!

And SandHUSKER when the media takes hold of it . . . . . .

MAybe you should just shut up and drive, but that would be so unlike you SandHUSKER . . . . .


:lol: :lol: :lol:

So they're idiots one day, conspiritors the next, and geniuses after that.... Holy Cherry Picking Batman. :lol:
 

Tex

Well-known member
Kato said:
This is old news. We read it in our media back in the summer.

Within about two days of the initial alert, lab testing determined the infection was not foot-and-mouth disease,

Personally I don't think two days constitutes a "cover up". I think it was handled properly. There are other diseases that look like fmd, and the logical thing to do was quarantine and find out what the pigs actually had before running out and making announcements that would cause a panic.

It was probably a good thing that this happened, because it woke people up on both sides of the border to an issue that had been put in the background when it shouldn't have been. It was a good wakeup call.

I think you are right, Kato.

Didn't we hear about anthrax in Canada because of environmental conditions? It didn't become a problem.

I don't freak out when I find out someone might have a serious disease unless there is a likelihood of me contracting the disease or it spreading and causing more damage. That is the reason we need to be careful when it comes to transmissible nature of pathogens. When we understand these routes of transmission and take appropriate actions, we reduce the likelihood of them spreading. We take out the damage fear can cause.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Those of you referring to the common sense reaction of USDA re. not publicizing a RUMOR of POSSIBLE Hoof & Mouth disease as a "cover-up" seem either interested in trashing (yet again!) USDA, or in retaliating ifor bad treatment (of Canadians) by some on this site. It was handled correctly in the eyes of anyone not in conspiracy or retaliation mode,IMO.

BTW, isn't Anthrax "environmental" in that it lives in the soil, and when an environmental event such as flooding disturbing soils, or extreme drought causing deep cracks to open the soil, the disease often 'comes out' and affects cattle? I know that is how it happens in SD from time to time. It seems to be quite easy to control by vaccination.

Realizing some of you don't believe in science (Black Helicopters, oh my!), but it is a fact that the science which indicates it is safe to eat even meat from BSE afflicted cattle IF there is SRM removal, and that is done in the USA.

Is there any verification or proof of any specific number of cattle KNOWN to have BSE being used as food in the USA? It does seem reasonable to ask that information to accompany such serious charges, IMO.

mrj
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Those of you referring to the common sense reaction of USDA re. not publicizing a RUMOR of POSSIBLE Hoof & Mouth disease as a "cover-up" seem either interested in trashing (yet again!) USDA, or in retaliating ifor bad treatment (of Canadians) by some on this site. It was handled correctly in the eyes of anyone not in conspiracy or retaliation mode,IMO.

BTW, isn't Anthrax "environmental" in that it lives in the soil, and when an environmental event such as flooding disturbing soils, or extreme drought causing deep cracks to open the soil, the disease often 'comes out' and affects cattle? I know that is how it happens in SD from time to time. It seems to be quite easy to control by vaccination.

Tex: MRJ, this is exactly what I was saying.

MRJ: Realizing some of you don't believe in science (Black Helicopters, oh my!), but it is a fact that the science which indicates it is safe to eat even meat from BSE afflicted cattle IF there is SRM removal, and that is done in the USA.

Tex: MRJ, you may be a little off here. While it may take a certain set of conditions for pathogens to become pathogenetic (meaning that a whole set of events are triggered, having in the end a result), the lack of the series of these events does not prove the pathogen is safe.

A perfect example is the MRSA. MRSA is a drug resistant form of staph that is a leading cause of death in the U.S.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/267659

Almost all people (maybe not the bubble boy) have staph living on their skin. Skin cuts can allow staph to enter the body and cause infection, if the body is not successful in countering the attack. MRSA is a concern because it has become resistant to the most common form of medicine used to treat the MRSA. MRSA has become problematic because the use of first line drugs in combating the problem are ineffective.

If you can only find 90,000 cases in the U.S. with a population of 300 million then you only have an occurrence of about .03 percent (.0003 of the population). This low occurrence in no ways means that staph infections are not problematic or that staph is "safe". It means that in a large part of the population, the conditions for the pathogen to become pathogenetic, resulting in infection and death, do not occur. This may be as a result of no cut in the skin to the body being able to handle the staph infection, to the medicine actually working to reduce death.

If you do have studies which support your view (and they have to be real medical studies, not some special interest group study), share it with us. I would be interested.

MRJ:
Is there any verification or proof of any specific number of cattle KNOWN to have BSE being used as food in the USA? It does seem reasonable to ask that information to accompany such serious charges, IMO.

mrj

Tex: We do know that the USDA has stopped testing for bse, so the information is not available (deplorable that the economic interests trump real science), that the testing they did in the past was flawed, and that they will not allow private testing.

I think you are misdirecting what could be called "reasonableness" .


Tex: Industries should not use the excuse of possible economic damage to limit the dissemination of knowledge.

The public will discount inaccurate information when it is continually fed inaccurate information. A perfect example of this is Homeland Security's red, yellow, etc.... security alert. To the normal joe on the street, there is little value in information that is shown to be inaccurate or not useful to their self interests.
 
Top