• 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?

mrj

Well-known member
Tex, my point re. Anthrax was to re-inforce yours about environmental conditions, AND i intended, but forgot to add that while some people are severely affected if they don't catch it in their herd soon enough, it is not the terribly quick spreading disease that F& M is with severe financial consequences to large numbers of cattle producers and little to no harm to humans.

Re. SRM removal: my point is that whether one chooses to believe it or not, the system of removal is generally accepted by the world science community as leaving beef from non-symptomatic (maybe not quite the right term, sorry.) animals as safe to eat even if they did have BSE, isn't it? Not saying it "proves" the meat safe.

Is that type of staph formerly 'caught' only in hospitals? Or is this different? Anyway, any staph problem seems to fuel the myth that antibiotics used appropriately and properly for health problems in cattle are causing resistant bacteria. I believe that is not correct, and that improper and over-dosage of humans by our doctors is more likely to be the culprit.

Was it "economic interests", or was it following protocols set by computer models (with which I don't always agree, but seems like there isn't much else to use in the BSE situation, having no real history of it until quite recently) developed by top minds in top universities in the USA that was the reasoning behind stopping the testing here? How, specifically, was that testing "flawed", given the knowledge and available information about BSE at that time? There simply is too much that is not known. How do we know it is not a rather common anomally in protein bearing, cloven hooved animals, for instance?

I still feel it is reasonable to ask the person who repeats that at least 2000 some head of BSE riddled cattle have been consumed in the USA should offer some verification or reasoning for that conclusion. Is it odds given our numbers of cattle, reading palms, moon sign, or what that gives that figure????

I have to disagree with you on keeping the RUMORs of serious, highly contagious disease in animals quiet until verification and a plan of action is in place, not ONLY due to economic damage, but so that, if true, the infection can be controlled and contained as quickly as possible. People being imperfect beings, there would be no small number who would try to cheat the system for their own benefit and as in so many situations, we would probably all be surprised and disappointed to know who some of them are.

mrj
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
This is all moot as it is over and done with. But it does reinforce the perception that the US is not above hideing a disease out break so not to cause economic losses afterall money seems to be the most important in the US. It would be a better world if the people involved were open and up front. A prime example is the CFIA releasing all potential BSE positives then prove if the animal is positive or not. Or recalling all potentially contaminated feed this spring and disposing of all animals as a safety measure . Short term pain for long term gain. But one must remember this is the US we are talking about. And US producers wonder why the OIE gave them the same rating for BSE risk as Canada even though they have less BSE cirulating in the US herd :roll: :wink: :wink: Basically it is bad optics for the USDA, US producers and US goverment officals. Wouldn't it just be easier to be open and up front? probably but with the current state of the US economy it is not unexpected.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
mrj said:
I still feel it is reasonable to ask the person who repeats that at least 2000 some head of BSE riddled cattle have been consumed in the USA should offer some verification or reasoning for that conclusion. Is it odds given our numbers of cattle, reading palms, moon sign, or what that gives that figure????
mrj

mrj, the number of 2300 or 2600 was given by a researcher whose work Terry presented on here months ago. If you missed the article, it would be worth digging up. I could not help but notice the lack of response from Americans.

He arrived at that figure by extrapolating the number of "positives" that were actually declared in the U.S., compared to the number of high risk cattle that were actually tested, as well as the number of high risk cattle that were NOT tested, or tested using the WRONG test.

Furthermore, many of the samples were taken from the wrong part of the brain. All in all, the whole U.S. history of testing for BSE was so badly messed up that it had to be either a case of stunning incompetence beyond the normal realm of bureaucratic creativity, or a conglomerate case of sheer stupidity. Take your pick.

Apparently, many of the animals tested in the U.S. did not even fit the criteria that the Canadian system uses to give a true representation of rates of infection. In other words, if you test the wrong age group, you really reduce the chances of finding it! Now that is a really brilliant move if you want to remain ignorant to the truth! :lol:

I said right from the beginning that Canada would be North America's whipping boy for the continental BSE problem. The packers, as we all know, hold the clout in this industry and profitted immensely from the Canadian cattle producers agony.

The U.S. hardly felt any repercussions from their BSE problem that many believe was never allowed to come to light. As far as that goes, I would not want any cattlemen and women to have to endure what we did up here.

mrj, is there a negative attitude in some of my posts? Well try to imagine yourself in the situation that Canadian producers were in for the past few years. Then, listen to some arrogant, mindless old coots repeatedly and endlessly rant about the "danger" our product poses to the world. :lol: :lol:

(Talk about rubbing salt into the wound! I am slowly learning that there are a few people who are very worthy of being ignored.)

Then try to imagine what your response would be to the inequity demonstrated in this situation. Many can patiently tolerate ignorance if there is a possibility of it being enlightened. Most can reluctantly live with a short-term, correctible injustice, if they have a hope of the wrong being fairly addressed.

But few have any goodwill for those who gloat in their hard-boiled, obvious hypocrisy.

And trust me, I am not one of those few.
 

Tex

Well-known member
mrj said:
Tex, my point re. Anthrax was to re-inforce yours about environmental conditions, AND i intended, but forgot to add that while some people are severely affected if they don't catch it in their herd soon enough, it is not the terribly quick spreading disease that F& M is with severe financial consequences to large numbers of cattle producers and little to no harm to humans.

Tex: MRJ, thanks. I think we would agree on most of this topic. F&M is easily spread through contact and that is why it is sooo important to keep it under quarentine. Brucellosis is another. Brucellosis can be controlled, however, with vaccines and much of it has been eradicated in the many parts of the U.S. so the vaccine is not necessary.

Re. SRM removal: my point is that whether one chooses to believe it or not, the system of removal is generally accepted by the world science community as leaving beef from non-symptomatic (maybe not quite the right term, sorry.) animals as safe to eat even if they did have BSE, isn't it? Not saying it "proves" the meat safe.

Tex: SRM removal helps but is not the "cure". It might be better to say that SRM removal cuts a lot of the risk back because it reduces the quantity of the possible infective material (since it is thought that the defective material is concentrated there). It does not stop the meat, which could also be infected but in lower quantities, from being eaten by humans. Not allowing high risk materials to enter the food chain is a great step and may go a long way, in the absence of testing for bse, but it does not mean that the infected meat is safe. Not in any way.

mrj: Is that type of staph formerly 'caught' only in hospitals? Or is this different? Anyway, any staph problem seems to fuel the myth that antibiotics used appropriately and properly for health problems in cattle are causing resistant bacteria. I believe that is not correct, and that improper and over-dosage of humans by our doctors is more likely to be the culprit.




Tex: I don't know that we know where the staph drug resistant (MRSA) forms developed their resistance. It may or may not be related to other antibiotic use. Staph is only one pathogen, however. By introducing vast amounts of antibiotics into the environment, whether it is by giving to animals to increase growth rates so companies can compete on price of their product, or whether it is from antibiotic use on humans, we are definitely creating the chance (and a reality) of pathogens to develop resistance to our drugs. We haven't been that good at developing new drugs to cover drug resistant bugs. If we could come up with new drugs easily, this wouldn't be that much of an issue.

We think that about 25% of the population has staph on their skin. A small number of those people have the MRSA types. Some strains of staph and other skin pathogens are very, very virulent. You don't even need a scratch for some of these varieties to infect the body. You have heard of the flesh eating drug resistant bacteria. They are particularly dangerous.

To answer your question, whether MRSA is caused by people drugs or overuse of animal antibiotics --the answer is not known. We do not require animal antibiotics to be somehow "marked" to find this answer. I don't even know if this can be done. The fear is that MRSA type problems develop because we are exposing germs to their natural enemy too often so that they develop resistance. Whether this comes from agricultural workers who work in these environments and then is transmitted to other people in society or whether the problems are a result of staph like infections treated medically in people is just not known. We do know that exposing these germs to their natural enemies allows them to mutate to defeat these threats. Increasing the exposure does increase the likelihood of germs like staph to mutate to protect themselves. That is irrefutable.

Staph is only one of many, many, pathogens gaining drug resistance and as you are learning about ecoli--even staph has many varieties. We use classes of antibiotics in our biological war with nature that have broad spectrum capabilities against broad classes of pathogens. Seeing these pathogens break this line of defense, most definitely through their exposure to these drugs, lessens the weapons we have in our medical defense mechanisms.

The question will come as to whether our exposing these pathogens to our defenses for cheaper food is worth it. The problem is that the answer will be too late do allow us to do anything about it. By then, we will have what we have.

....and no, the staph is not only in hospitals. It is living on people's skin. Hospitals are where people go who have a problem with that staph and so that is where the contamination can concentrate and expand to others.




mrj: Was it "economic interests", or was it following protocols set by computer models (with which I don't always agree, but seems like there isn't much else to use in the BSE situation, having no real history of it until quite recently) developed by top minds in top universities in the USA that was the reasoning behind stopping the testing here? How, specifically, was that testing "flawed", given the knowledge and available information about BSE at that time? There simply is too much that is not known. How do we know it is not a rather common anomally in protein bearing, cloven hooved animals, for instance?

Tex: I think your question here is valid. What is not valid is allowing us to ascertain whether or not these "top minds" are correct through the use of private testing. We also have the further information that the information that was used to determine the statistical models was flawed. The USDA got caught trying to influence the information the models were based on. If the USDA can not competently catch bse through their testing methods and protocals, all the statistical models that use this information are flawed. The USDA shut down their testing even as this information became public. It is the old, "If there is no evidence, we can plausibly deny its existence, even if we prevent others from looking for the evidence we refused to look for".



mrj: I still feel it is reasonable to ask the person who repeats that at least 2000 some head of BSE riddled cattle have been consumed in the USA should offer some verification or reasoning for that conclusion. Is it odds given our numbers of cattle, reading palms, moon sign, or what that gives that figure????

Tex: I agree. The only problem is that the USDA is not allowing anyone to look for this evidence. They want to control all the information and ask us to "trust them". That is not a government by the people answer, it is a government over the people answer. It is the same technique the Soviet Union used in undermining religion in their country.



mrj: I have to disagree with you on keeping the RUMORs of serious, highly contagious disease in animals quiet until verification and a plan of action is in place, not ONLY due to economic damage, but so that, if true, the infection can be controlled and contained as quickly as possible. People being imperfect beings, there would be no small number who would try to cheat the system for their own benefit and as in so many situations, we would probably all be surprised and disappointed to know who some of them are.

Tex: It seems the USDA can not be trusted in this respect. They are the ones who tried to hide the positives in the US. Not allowing them time to cover something up may be more important than giving them the authority to handle the situation professionally. They are influenced by a political base that has interests other than the public interest in mind. Truth hidden is more dangerous than truth known in a democracy. It is one reason we require a transparent government. We are not getting it. We are getting the argument you pose which relies on trust that the government is honest and competent. We all know that is not the case.

mrj
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Maple Leaf Angus said:
mrj said:
I still feel it is reasonable to ask the person who repeats that at least 2000 some head of BSE riddled cattle have been consumed in the USA should offer some verification or reasoning for that conclusion. Is it odds given our numbers of cattle, reading palms, moon sign, or what that gives that figure????
mrj

mrj, the number of 2300 or 2600 was given by a researcher whose work Terry presented on here months ago. If you missed the article, it would be worth digging up. I could not help but notice the lack of response from Americans.

He arrived at that figure by extrapolating the number of "positives" that were actually declared in the U.S., compared to the number of high risk cattle that were actually tested, as well as the number of high risk cattle that were NOT tested, or tested using the WRONG test.

Furthermore, many of the samples were taken from the wrong part of the brain. All in all, the whole U.S. history of testing for BSE was so badly messed up that it had to be either a case of stunning incompetence beyond the normal realm of bureaucratic creativity, or a conglomerate case of sheer stupidity. Take your pick.

Apparently, many of the animals tested in the U.S. did not even fit the criteria that the Canadian system uses to give a true representation of rates of infection. In other words, if you test the wrong age group, you really reduce the chances of finding it! Now that is a really brilliant move if you want to remain ignorant to the truth! :lol:

I said right from the beginning that Canada would be North America's whipping boy for the continental BSE problem. The packers, as we all know, hold the clout in this industry and profitted immensely from the Canadian cattle producers agony.

The U.S. hardly felt any repercussions from their BSE problem that many believe was never allowed to come to light. As far as that goes, I would not want any cattlemen and women to have to endure what we did up here.

mrj, is there a negative attitude in some of my posts? Well try to imagine yourself in the situation that Canadian producers were in for the past few years. Then, listen to some arrogant, mindless old coots repeatedly and endlessly rant about the "danger" our product poses to the world. :lol: :lol:

(Talk about rubbing salt into the wound! I am slowly learning that there are a few people who are very worthy of being ignored.)

Then try to imagine what your response would be to the inequity demonstrated in this situation. Many can patiently tolerate ignorance if there is a possibility of it being enlightened. Most can reluctantly live with a short-term, correctible injustice, if they have a hope of the wrong being fairly addressed.

But few have any goodwill for those who gloat in their hard-boiled, obvious hypocrisy.

And trust me, I am not one of those few.

The arguements from up there don't add up. The claim is that both countries have to have identical risks because of years of open border trade, that we have a huge problem we're covering up, and that the CFIA is honest - but then the question begs to be asked; Why isn't Canada finding more? To say there is a hole in the arguement is an understatement.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
SandHUSKER, rather than repeating some of the stronger statements I made in the post you quoted, let me just say that I am not surprised that you do not understand.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Maple Leaf Angus said:
SandHUSKER, rather than repeating some of the stronger statements I made in the post you quoted, let me just say that I am not surprised that you do not understand.

I don't understand because the arguements don't add. At least one of them has to be wrong. Which one(s) is it? If we have a huge problem and "You have to have what we have", you also have a huge problem. If the USDA is covering up all our cases, why aren't your share of the cases being found by the CFIA?
 

Tex

Well-known member
All statistical projections are based on accurate observations.

We know that both the U.S. and Canada have the observations made by governments--- governments who will not allow any one else to make their own observations.

Sounds almost like the argument between the church (basically the government back then) and Galileo.

We now know Galileo was correct.
 

Latest posts

Top