foodmarket
Member
http://www.foodmarket.com/newsemail.asp?key=261780
TimH said:Here is another question.... The Dec./03 Washington State cow was tested,almost immediately, using the Western Blot test. Why was the Nov./04 Texas cow not tested,using the Western Blot test, until now?? And only now after the insistance of the Inspector General??? :???: :???:
I stand corrected! Your question is a valid point indeed! ThanksTimH said:DR. CLIFFORD: "Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And yes, we're confident in the results of actually both of these tests. The IHC was negative for this sample. Actually the Western Blot test, if you go back to the December cow that was found from Canada the Western Blot that was run on that particular sample we used one milligram of tissue to run that test and was found to be a very strong positive.
(cut and pasted from the "Full Transcrript......." thread below.
Pretty much right from the horses mouth, Mike!!!
TimH said:Mike- "Go up to my other post Tim. Not splitting hairs here, but something ain't jiving with USDA info."
The date on your other post is April 08/04. Dr.Clifford says they used a Western Blot test to confirm the Washington cow in December/03.
Yup!!! Something ain't jiving alright!! :shock:
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might say that it appears that USDA tests domestic cattle with Bio-Rad and IHC tests and saves the Western Blot tests for imported cattle.
But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I'm not saying that!!!
reader (the Second) said:TimH said:Mike- "Go up to my other post Tim. Not splitting hairs here, but something ain't jiving with USDA info."
The date on your other post is April 08/04. Dr.Clifford says they used a Western Blot test to confirm the Washington cow in December/03.
Yup!!! Something ain't jiving alright!! :shock:
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might say that it appears that USDA tests domestic cattle with Bio-Rad and IHC tests and saves the Western Blot tests for imported cattle.
But I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I'm not saying that!!!
They sent the Washington cow to the UK to CONFIRM which is where they used the WB. They used the IHC when they initially detected the BSE, per Al Jenny's quote that I posted above. Does this make it all make sense?
reader (the Second) said:Sorry, my "bad." Al Jenny went on to say:
We did get the frozen tissue. We did have Dr. Dr. Richt at the National Animal Disease Center do the Western blot. It was positive, and we are doing one of the rapid tests just on a developmental basis at NVSL. So we did it on the biorad rapid test, and it was positive on that test. I think that was it.
Okay. So according to our plan the BSE response plan, the initial case was going to be confirmed in England by pathologists that look at BSE routinely. So the immuno and histo slides were taken to Weybridge, to that lab, agency lab there, and their pathologists agreed to come in on Christmas day. They spent about ten minutes looking at the slide and said, "That's it."
And the phone call came back here that they agreed, and so that converted it from a presumptive to a confirm.
Sounds like they used a bunch of different tests on the FIRST BSE cow (Washington State) -- IHC, WB, Biorad Rapid. All were positive. They only sent it to the UK because that was protocol for the first ever BSE, set up beforehand I bet.
TimH said:reader(the Second)- "They sent the Washington cow to the UK to CONFIRM which is where they used the WB. They used the IHC when they initially detected the BSE, per Al Jenny's quote that I posted above. Does this make it all make sense?"
It still does not answer my original question. Why was Washington cow IMMEDIATELY tested with the Western Blot test, and the Texas cow(from last November) only NOW tested with the Western Blot???? :???: