Question for SH

[Mike]

Before the change in format here at ranchers.net we discussed the disclosure in the NCBA report that 25 animals UTM in EU had tested positive for BSE between 1986 and 1996. You questioned that data saying that those test results had been done using "Rapid Tests" and not the "Gold Standard".

Question: How could those 25 UTM's have tested positive using "Rapid Tests" when the "Rapid Tests" were not even invented and/or used until 1998-1999?

Could this be the reason that the USDA caved to the Japs on age testing?
Note: There are only 3 BSE testing facilities approved by OIE in the world.
1-Japan 2-England 3- Switzerland
And we know more than the Japs?

 

[Sandhusker]

Up the tree you go, SH! :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Question: How could those 25 UTM's have tested positive using "Rapid Tests" when the "Rapid Tests" were not even invented and/or used until 1998-1999?

It is my understanding that the the 25 UTM's that tested positive for BSE were not confirmed with the same testing methodology that is accepted by the OIE today.

If that is incorrect, by all means bring the facts to the contrary.

With that said, I may have wrongly stated that they were comparing "Rapid Diagnostic Test Results" to "Golden Standard Test Results". I could be wrong on that aspect.

Either way, the OIE does not recognize BSE testing of animals younger than 30 months of age to be accurate even if some positives, that to my understanding were not confirmed with modern testing methodology, have shown up between 24 and 30 months of age.

Testing animals younger than 20 months, as you and Sandhusker are advocating, is a total facade but you are unwilling to admit that.

"JUST TEST THEM, JUST TEST THEM....BAAAAAAAAAAAH"

I have not had the time to contact the two individuals that I was referred to on this issue. I'll take your desperation to peg something on me as a compliment. Thank you! LOL!

You guys remind me of that oriental that always jumped out of the weeds and attacked inspector Kluso.


Mike: "Could this be the reason that the USDA caved to the Japs on age testing?

How do you figure USDA caved? Japan originally wanted 100% testing and now the negotiations are discussing age verification.

WHO CAVED?


Don't yell treed when you just had one land on your melon.


While I have you on the line, Nebrusker claims that you have proof that the Japanese government would allow 100% BSE tested beef into their country from the U.S. Could you provide this proof please?




~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Mike, is that the reply that you were looking for? LOL! Was

 

[Anonymous]

No! I'll have to respond later (maybe tommorrow) because my PC blew a head gasket last night in the thunderstorm. (lightening) Mike Callis

 

[frenchie]

mike..Note: There are only 3 BSE testing facilities approved by OIE in the world.
1-Japan 2-England 3- Switzerland
And we know more than the Japs

So who does the testing for the U.S. What facility..?

 

[Sandhusker]

Question: How could those 25 UTM's have tested positive using "Rapid Tests" when the "Rapid Tests" were not even invented and/or used until 1998-1999?

SH, "It is my understanding...... yada, yada, yada.

Mr. Huber, you emphatically said that Mike was wrong about those positives because of the inaccuracy of the rapid tests - tests that were NOT used because they hadn't been invented yet! I think we would all like to hear you address that statement without tangenting off.

SH, "Testing animals younger than 20 months, as you and Sandhusker are advocating, is a total facade but you are unwilling to admit that."

You are wrong again, SH. I realize testing animals younger than 20 months probably won't come up with anything. I'm advocating testing simply as a "feel good" measure so the Japanese consumers will confidently buy our product. It is a sales tool to use - a tool that has lost us over 2 BILLION because the big packers don't want us to use it.

Mike: "Could this be the reason that the USDA caved to the Japs on age testing?

SH in response,"How do you figure USDA caved? Japan originally wanted 100% testing and now the negotiations are discussing age verification. WHO CAVED?"

The US caved, SH. You want proof? We originally wanted to ship beef as before. Who else have we agreed to age test for? Age testing is not a part of our overall exporting policy. It's obvious that the US caved for Japan's benefit. Yet, I can't help but notice that we're still not shipping beef. I think your Inspector Clouseau must be a USDA negotiator

 

[rancher]

Now that we caved to Japan, will all the other countries and consumers demand the same?

 

[Anonymous]

The Prionics®-Check WESTERN was the first rapid BSE test officially recognized by the Swiss authorities in 1998. It was also the only test approved by the EU in 1999 which scored 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity, with no repetition of tests required. The Prionics®-Check WESTERN scored excellent results in all the evaluation studies. The test also allowed easy and clear-cut discrimination between positive and negative samples taken from fallen stock and therefore largely autolyzed (decaying). As the most frequently used rapid BSE test in the world, the Prionics®-Check WESTERN has also demonstrated its outstanding suitability for use under practical conditions. Under such field conditions, the test has furthermore proven to be able to detect a subclinical BSE infection even before the occurrence of pathological changes in the brain.
There have been over 20 million animals tested without a false positive occurrance.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "Mr. Huber, you emphatically said that Mike was wrong about those positives because of the inaccuracy of the rapid tests - tests that were NOT used because they hadn't been invented yet! I think we would all like to hear you address that statement without tangenting off."

Amazing how long you circle an issue when you think you finally detect a little blood in the water. I consider that a compliment.

In light of your absolute desperation to peg something on me, here it is again.

SH (previous): "I may have wrongly stated that they were comparing "Rapid Diagnostic Test Results" to "Golden Standard Test Results". I could be wrong on that aspect.

There, feel better now? Should I say it again for you?

Contrast that with your R-CALF boot licking comments like, "maybe R-CALF isn't lying about contaminated beef". AS IF! I'm glad you hold me to a much higher standard of accuracy than you hold yourself.

Now run and claim victory when you have provided absolutely nothing to prove me wrong but will simply believe that I am wrong. I may be wrong on the Rapid Diagnostic Tests but you certainly weren't the one to prove it. You were merely waving the pom poms again.

Gosh that could be the second time I was wrong in almost a month of posting. The last time is when I said "when BSE is discovered here" instead of my normal "if/when BSE is discovered here".



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "Mr. Huber, you emphatically said that Mike was wrong about those positives because of the inaccuracy of the rapid tests - tests that were NOT used because they hadn't been invented yet! I think we would all like to hear you address that statement without tangenting off."


SH (previous): "I may have wrongly statedResults". I could be wrong on that aspect.

"I may be", "I could be wrong" LMAO!!!!

SH, " Now run and claim victory when you have provided absolutely nothing to prove me wrong but will simply believe that I am wrong."

There has been nothing to prove you wrong? LMAO!!! I guess Mike proving to you those tests you claimed were used weren't even invented yet is "nothing" But hold it, you just said you "may be" and "could be wrong". If there was no proof, how could you "may be" or "could be wrong"?

SH, " I may be wrong on the Rapid Diagnostic Tests but you certainly weren't the one to prove it. You were merely waving the pom poms again."

OK, so you're back to "I may be wrong". :? :lol:

SH, "Gosh that could be the second time I was wrong in almost a month of posting."

What :???: Now you are wrong? Holy flip flop, Batman. I'm confused. First you "may be" and "could be wrong". Then there was no proof that you were wrong, followed by "I may be wrong" again. Then comes "I was wrong". What a telling window of your MO on your posts on this board. You're a funny guy, SH. :lol:


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker (quoting me)..........

SH (previous): "I may have wrongly statedResults". I could be wrong on that aspect.

I never used the word "results", where the hell did that come from????

More of your vivid imagination I guess.


Sandhusker: "I guess Mike proving to you those tests you claimed were used weren't even invented yet is "nothing" But hold it, you just said you "may be" and "could be wrong". If there was no proof, how could you "may be" or "could be wrong"?"

Mike never offered proof. MIKE MADE A STATEMENT! If you considered every statement anyone made that supports your bias as proof, USDA would actually not care about food safety and Canadian beef would actually be contaminated.

Because I have not taken the time to thoroughly reasearch this issue, nor do I have the time, I am willing to admit that I might have been wrong on that because Mike seems convinced.


SH (previous): "Gosh that could be the second time I was wrong in almost a month of posting."

Sandhusker: "What Now you are wrong? Holy flip flop, Batman. I'm confused. First you "may be" and "could be wrong". Then there was no proof that you were wrong, followed by "I may be wrong" again. Then comes "I was wrong". What a telling window of your MO on your posts on this board. You're a funny guy, SH."

That is a lie!

Nowhere did I say "I WAS WRONG". Why the hell would I admit that I was wrong WHEN I WASN'T PROVEN WRONG?????

Your desperation to peg something on me is nothing short of incredible and I can only take it as complimentary.


If I am wrong, I will admit that I am wrong but I sure as hell won't take your word for it considering how many times you have claimed to be right when you were proven wrong.

All you've done here is assume that Mike's "STATEMENT" is right. You have done no reasearch on your own nor have you provided anything to suggest that Mike is right.

"But, but Mike said that Rapid Diagnostic tests......."

"But, but Mike provided proof where the Japanese government said....."

RAH! RAH!

You're pathetic!

Allow me to introduce you to yourself. In your haste to peg something on me, you lied by claiming that I said, "I was wrong". The fact that you lied about that is not even debatable, yet you will divert around it like the R-CALF follower you are while you feed on the fact that I was willing to admit that I could be wrong about the Rapid Diagnostic Tests.

That's the difference between you and I.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

[


SH, "Mike never offered proof. MIKE MADE A STATEMENT! If you considered every statement anyone made that supports your bias as proof, USDA would actually not care about food safety and Canadian beef would actually be contaminated."

Fine, you want to make a bet on Mike's statement? We both know Soapweed to be a fair individual. You send him $100 and I'll do the same.
He can give the cash to either based on if Mike is proved wrong or right.

SH, "Because I have not taken the time to thoroughly reasearch this issue, nor do I have the time, I am willing to admit that I might have been wrong on that because Mike seems convinced."

Well, I'm glad you have admitted for all to see that you post without researching! :lol: :lol: :lol: That sure brings all of your other posts into a different light.

 

[Anonymous]

What about your lie Sandhusker?????

YOU DIVERTED THAT!!!

SH (previous): "Gosh that could be the second time I was wrong in almost a month of posting."

Sandhusker (in response): "Sandhusker: "What Now you are wrong?"

I never said "I was wrong". I said, "that COULD BE the second time I was wrong in almost a month".

YOU LIED! You changed what I said to what you wanted me to say.

Why not admit it to your deceptive R-CALF ways????

Because you don't have the integrity, that's why!


Why would I bet $100 that I was right after I stated that I could be wrong??? That's real bright!


Sandhusker: "Well, I'm glad you have admitted for all to see that you post without researching! That sure brings all of your other posts into a different light."

Of course! Rather than proving me wrong on anything, you try to discredit everything I present because I failed to adequately research ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE.

Typical of your R-CALF ways. Divert, deny, discredit, deceive!

Give that R-CALF turbin another wrap Sandhusker, it's obvious you are bought and paid for.

You are one pathetic individual.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

What about your lie Sandhusker?????

YOU DIVERTED THAT!!!

SH (previous): "Gosh that could be the second time I was wrong in almost a month of posting."

Sandhusker (in response): "Sandhusker: "What Now you are wrong?"

I never said "I was wrong". I said, "that COULD BE the second time I was wrong in almost a month".

YOU LIED! You changed what I said to what you wanted me to say.

Why not admit it to your deceptive R-CALF ways????

Because you don't have the integrity, that's


Why would I bet $100 that I was right after I stated that I could be wrong??? That's real bright!


Sandhusker: "Well, I'm glad you have admitted for all to see that you post without researching! That sure brings all of your other posts into a different light."

Of course! Rather than proving me wrong on anything, you try to discredit everything I present because I failed to adequately research ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE.

Typical of your R-CALF ways. Divert, deny, discredit, deceive!

Give that R-CALF turbin another wrap Sandhusker, it's obvious you are bought and paid for.

You are one pathetic individual.



~SH~

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me. You "COULD BE" wrong. SH, why not butch up and admit you ARE wrong? You were just flapping your lips. We can all see it. We all know it. Show a little class and fess up instead of going on personal attacks.

Now, do you have enough confidence in your posts , er this "one particular issue" to send Soapweed that $100? In Nebraska, we call it "putting your money where your mouth is." I promise I won't keep your money, I'll donate it to a good cause in your name, R-CALF.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "You "COULD BE" wrong. SH, why not butch up and admit you ARE wrong?"

I'll admit I was wrong, when I am proven wrong. I sure as heck wouldn't take your word for it.

Why don't you admit you falsely accused me of saying something I never said? You don't have the integrity, that's why!



Sandhusker: "You were just flapping your lips. We can all see it. We all know it."

"WE CAN"? "WE ALL"?

Who the hell are you the spokesman for???

You know nothing about BSE testing procedures.

You are merely a cheerleader on this issue.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker: "You "COULD BE" wrong. SH, why not butch up and admit you ARE wrong?"

I'll admit I was wrong, when I am proven wrong. I sure as heck wouldn't take your word for it.

Why don't you admit you falsely accused me of saying something I never said? You don't have the integrity, that's why!



Sandhusker: "You were just flapping your lips. We can all see it. We all know it."

"WE CAN"? "WE ALL"?

Who the hell are you the spokesman for???

You know nothing about BSE testing procedures.

You are merely a cheerleader on this issue.



~SH~

SH, "You know nothing about BSE testing procedures"

Then take my $100! Perhaps you're not certain enough about what you post to actually back it up with something? I say you're dead wrong. You say you "might be" , "could be" yadayadayada. Here's a poll for you;

Will you take me up on the aformentioned $100 bet offer?

A) YES, I am confident that what I post is factual enough to actually back it with more than words.

B) NO, I got caught flapping my lips in an attempt to discredit a poster who has an opposing point of view. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker,

The only reason you are confident enough to bet me $100 is because I stated that "I could be wrong". Considering my volume of posts on a variety of cattle/beef industry topics and how seldom I have been proven wrong let alone admitted possibly being wrong, you gain your confidence from that. You don't have any idea whether you are right or not. LOL! Too funny!

You are nothing more than a R-CALF cheerleader and a follower. The depth of your debate techniques is bringing other's opinions to the table that support your USDA blaming bias.

Why would I bet you $100 on an issue that I believe I could be wrong about???

Does that make sense in your world?


Again,

Why don't you admit you falsely accused me of saying something I never said?


Which R-CALF tactic will be used this time........

(hums Jeoprody tune..........)



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker,

The only reason you are confident enough to bet me $100 is because I stated that "I could be wrong". Considering my volume of posts on a variety of cattle/beef industry topics and how seldom I have been proven wrong let alone admitted possibly being wrong, you gain your confidence from that. You don't have any idea whether you are right or not. LOL! Too funny!

You are nothing more than a R-CALF cheerleader and a follower. The depth of your debate techniques is bringing other's opinions to the table that support your USDA blaming bias.

Why would I bet you $100 on an issue that I believe I could be wrong about???

Does that make sense in your world?


Again,

Why don't you admit you falsely accused me of saying something I never said?


Which R-CALF tactic will be used this time........

(hums Jeoprody tune..........)



~SH~

SH, the preceeding exchange is exactly why I quit answering your posts a while back and why I think I'll follow that policy again. You accuse others of diverting, yet you are the diversion master. You call others "blamers", yet virtually every post of yours is full of blame. The depth of your debates always decends to the level of a schoolyard brat with name calling and preteen torts. It is just not in you to debate in a civil manner.

SH, "Why don't you admit you falsely accused me of saying something I never said?[/b]"

I'd better address this or you'll bring it up for 30 years.... You said "that would be the second time I was wrong", or something like that. Are you telling me that the interpretation of that statement was not that you were wrong? What exactly does "I was wrong" mean? Talk about diverting - you're simply picking the fly specs out of the pepper diverting from the fact that you were simply full of crap with your post to Mike. I challenge you to either put up the $100 and back your nonsense. I'll sign off of the topic for now and allow you to have the last word and opportunity to claim victory as is your custom. Just remember, everybody else can read this entire sordid exchange and judge for themselves.

 

[rancher]

Just remember, everybody else can read this entire sordid exchange and judge for themselves.

We can't make the judgement or we are called cheerleaders. :???: