R-CALF on new rule

[Sandhusker]

Will somebody please show me where I have expressed any confidence in the USDA?

While you're at it, show me how R-CALF and Dorgan are wrong about the possibility of importing BSE from Canada under the new rule. I'm still waiting for that....

 

[flounder]

Stanley Prusiner Nobel Peace Prize winner on Prions

''nobody has ever ask us to comment''

''they don't want us to comment''

''they never ask''

i tried to see Venemon, after Candian cow was discovered with BSE...

went to see lyle...

after talking with him...

absolute ignorance...

then thought i should see Venemon...

it was clear his entire policy was to get cattle boneless beef prods across the border...

nothing else mattered...

that's all that mattered...

his aids confirmed this...

5 times i tried to see Venemon, never worked...

eventually met with carl rove the political...

he is the one that arranged meeting with Venemon...

just trying to give you a sense of the distance...

demonstated threat to health and public safety...

was never contacted...

yes i believe that prions are bad to eat and you can die from them...END

Dr. Stan bashing Ann Veneman - 3 minutes

http://maddeer.org/video/embedded/08snip.ram

 

[RobertMac]

You use the same procedures we do - use a rapid test and then IHC on inconclusives. We also test the same population, with the US throwing in 20,000 healthy looking old cows for a "what if".

if you believe usda has had a credible testing program you're at the very least wilfully ignorant or maybe certifiably insane. you make a farce out of every serious discussion you get in on.

Don, Phyllis Fong uncovered ONE cover-up...if there were as many BSE cattle as some of you Canadians want the USA to have, don't you think she would have found more?????????????????????? I've had close contact with several 'field level' FSIS personal and have found none that would stand for a BSE cover-up. My point being that you need to look at the number of people that would have to be "in on it" to cover-up the number of cases you want to claim we have! Sorry, but I don't see where the USDA has the ability to make your conspiracy happen.

 

[Mike]

I believe there was the possibilty of a BSE testing cover up in the U.S.

Points to ponder:


1- The USDA waited until after the Washington cow to approve any rapid testing technology. The heat was on by then to test more animals. In fact, Creekstone had approached rapid testing technology before the USDA did.
More tests=more possibles.

2-The Washington cow was detected/confirmed (later sent to England) by the USDA using the Prionics test. When the Texas cow was caught with a rapid test, they refused to use the Prionics test, instead they used an "experimental" version of the IHC to call it negative. With pressure from Consumer Groups, Phyllis called the USDA's bluff.

3-There were several "inconclusives" that were caught using rapid tests.
The USDA used the same severely subjective IHC (GOLD STANDARD :lol: ) test to questionably pronouce these inconclusives as negative.

4- Thousands and thousands of older animals with central nervous problems were not/have not been tested that should have been.

5- Why is it that the USDA does not allow private testing for BSE but the human medical profession uses nearly 100% private labs for human test use?

We have a USDA that is bought out by the conglomerates.


I put nothing past them. :lol:

 

[QUESTION]

How many people have to be involved to allow the cover up and spread of BSE in the US . The answers is 1 to start with. One guy having a positive and put her down and had her hauled to the rendering plant. The MBM fed to thousands of cattle again ,oops loophole in feed ban.again a single producer finds the same thing a animal showing clinical signs of BSE they act and dispose the carcass the same way, it keeps on expanding exponentially. Especially when cows going to the rendering plant are not tested. And even cattle being tested are not the proper animal population but UTM cattle then claimed as OTM's. As for the officals,they have no cedibility the fact of a possible outbreak of FAM being KEPT QUIET ( AKA- coverup ) demonstrates that the officals do what they are told and if they are told do not warn the public that is how they act. so do they react the same for bse and FaM. As far as there being so many people "in on it" just go and talk to Dave Louthan or Mike Schowcert and see what they have to say. Maybe you will believe a former packing plant employee and USDA vet that have seen thousands of cattle in the US that show neurological signs as well as wasting, basically showing clinical symptoms of BSE and not even being tested before going into the foodchain. They are the same type of whistleblowers that helped expose big tobacco.

 

[Sandhusker]

If you think there is a conspiracy and a coverup, you need to be stumping your government to close the border yourselves. Are you doing that?

 

[Silver]

I believe there was the possibilty of a BSE testing cover up in the U.S.

Points to ponder:


1- The USDA waited until after the Washington cow to approve any rapid testing technology. The heat was on by then to test more animals. In fact, Creekstone had approached rapid testing technology before the USDA did.
More tests=more possibles.

2-The Washington cow was detected/confirmed (later sent to England) by the USDA using the Prionics test. When the Texas cow was caught with a rapid test, they refused to use the Prionics test, instead they used an "experimental" version of the IHC to call it negative. With pressure from Consumer Groups, Phyllis called the USDA's bluff.

3-There were several "inconclusives" that were caught using rapid tests.
The USDA used the same severely subjective IHC (GOLD STANDARD :lol: ) test to questionably pronouce these inconclusives as negative.

4- Thousands and thousands of older animals with central nervous problems were not/have not been tested that should have been.

5- Why is it that the USDA does not allow private testing for BSE but the human medical profession uses nearly 100% private labs for human test use?

We have a USDA that is bought out by the conglomerates.


I put nothing past them. :lol:

Thankyou Mike, that pretty much sums up the point I was so clumslily trying to make.
If memory serves me correctly, it is Sandhusker who is once again either misinformed or maliciously misinforming. I believe the test used in Canada following an inconclusive was the Western Blot Test, the USDA used the unfortunately named 'Gold Standard'.
I don't know whether or not there was a cover up, that is for you guys to discover for yourselves. I'm just saying that there were major differences in the testing procedures from one side of the border to the other, enough difference so as to make it impossible to make a fair comparison between herds.

 

[Sandhusker]

"Maliciously misinforming" my fat arse. From the CFIA (the "C" is for "Canada") website;

No validated live animal test for BSE currently exists. Accordingly, testing for BSE can only be done on the brains of dead animals. Brain samples are screened using rapid tests that accurately and quickly detect a true BSE positive sample nearly 100% of the time. Rapid tests can, in rare cases, react when a sample is not infected with BSE. These are known as "inconclusive" results.

All samples that yield inconclusive results using a rapid test are sent to the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg - Canada's national BSE reference laboratory - for confirmatory testing. There they are tested using either the immunohistochemistry (IHC), or in the case of poor quality samples and IHC negative suspect tests, the SAF immunoblot, both internationally recognized confirmatory test for BSE.

Looks to me that you're the one who is misinformed or maliciously misinforming. There's no flippin difference. The comparisons are fair.

 

[QUESTION]

SandH when insiders from the USDA vet service and packing industry start coming forward of their own free will and admit that thousands of animals they have seen have exhibited clinical signs of BSE were put into the foodchain and never tested it truely concerns me. It shows that the US does not really know the extent of BSE in the US today. The washington cow that came from canada was exhibiting no clinical signs and that is why she was tested acchording employee Dave Louthan who signed the recieving sheet for that particular cow and chased her and her loadmates to their pen prior to slaughter. So how long until r-calf starts to believe whistleblowers from inside the industry? Or are they going to keep up their long held position that they only support those who support their position. SandH personally i think the US should not be allowed to export a single pound of beef let alone a live animal until it tests every animal and prove they are not spreading BSE to the rest of the world. But profit seems more important than society's welfare. Testing all animals slaughtered in north america would ensure there is no more spread of the disease. But the big US based multinational packers won't allow it as it will decrease the profits and that is what they are concerned about. Maybe socialism has it's merits as does capitalism but they must be balanced and until the US follows the lead of Canada we won't solve this BSE problem. So any argument with a r-calfer is a waste of time as they want any excuse to not allow imports but still have unfettered acess to the rest of the world . Maybe think about what will be left for your grand kids instead of how many dollars can be put in your pockets so you can be buried in a gold inlayed casket :roll:

 

[flounder]

"Maliciously misinforming" my fat arse. From the CFIA (the "C" is for "Canada") website;

No validated live animal test for BSE currently exists. Accordingly, testing for BSE can only be done on the brains of dead animals. Brain samples are screened using rapid tests that accurately and quickly detect a true BSE positive sample nearly 100% of the time. Rapid tests can, in rare cases, react when a sample is not infected with BSE. These are known as "inconclusive" results.

All samples that yield inconclusive results using a rapid test are sent to the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg - Canada's national BSE reference laboratory - for confirmatory testing. There they are tested using either the immunohistochemistry (IHC), or in the case of poor quality samples and IHC negative suspect tests, the SAF immunoblot, both internationally recognized confirmatory test for BSE.

Looks to me that you're the one who is misinformed or maliciously misinforming. There's no flippin difference. The comparisons are fair.

BSE BASE MAD COW TESTING TEXAS, USA, AND CANADA, A REVIEW OF SORTS


http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/


tss

 

[Mike]

I don't know whether or not there was a cover up, that is for you guys to discover for yourselves. I'm just saying that there were major differences in the testing procedures from one side of the border to the other, enough difference so as to make it impossible to make a fair comparison between herds.

Let me get this straight. You must believe that there was a coverup in the USA, but not in Canada?

I believe a certain amount of covering up has been an international (that means everywhere :lol: ) phenomenon, to a certain degree.

England tried to hide it, the Swiss and Germans tried to hide it, France tried to hide it, the Japs tried to hide it. And yes, I believe the USA and Canada tried to hide it.

I just think the guys down here were better at hiding it than your guys were. :lol:

 

[Sandhusker]

SandH when insiders from the USDA vet service and packing industry start coming forward of their own free will and admit that thousands of animals they have seen have exhibited clinical signs of BSE were put into the foodchain and never tested it truely concerns me. It shows that the US does not really know the extent of BSE in the US today. The washington cow that came from canada was exhibiting no clinical signs and that is why she was tested acchording employee Dave Louthan who signed the recieving sheet for that particular cow and chased her and her loadmates to their pen prior to slaughter. So how long until r-calf starts to believe whistleblowers from inside the industry? Or are they going to keep up their long held position that they only support those who support their position. SandH personally i think the US should not be allowed to export a single pound of beef let alone a live animal until it tests every animal and prove they are not spreading BSE to the rest of the world. But profit seems more important than society's welfare. Testing all animals slaughtered in north america would ensure there is no more spread of the disease. But the big US based multinational packers won't allow it as it will decrease the profits and that is what they are concerned about. Maybe socialism has it's merits as does capitalism but they must be balanced and until the US follows the lead of Canada we won't solve this BSE problem. So any argument with a r-calfer is a waste of time as they want any excuse to not allow imports but still have unfettered acess to the rest of the world . Maybe think about what will be left for your grand kids instead of how many dollars can be put in your pockets so you can be buried in a gold inlayed casket :roll:

Seems to me that the biggest problem you and others have with my and R-CALF's positions is that you don't know what our positions are! :lol: You say, "So how long until r-calf starts to believe whistleblowers from inside the industry?" Just where the heck did you ever see R-CALF downplaying any whistleblower? When has R-CALF bragged on the USDA's testing? When has R-CALF demanded unfetterd access to the world? You guys are dreaming up R-CALF's positions and just making crap up! Get your facts straight.

While you're talking about making countries test to make sure they're not spreading disease and lining caskets with gold, why are you pointing the fingers at others when you're just as guilty. I have repeatedly asked you to explain who the new rule wouldn't spread BSE, and you can't do it - yet you redicule those that raise that concern - and I'll bet it's because of money coming your way.....

 

[QUESTION]

Well sandH the denial of BSE problem in the US is the root of the problem.The point so many are trying to make is that people are coming forward and it is common knowledge that in the US there is BSE circulating within the beef herd and with the loopholes in your feedban it will continue to spread it. All people are saying is stop being so bull headed and admit it then the problem so it can be dealt with properly. As for my questions they were satyrical, trying to show how inflexible and myopic the R group is. Are you saying you think the US should be banned from exporting beef until it can be proven that there are no animals with bse running around the US. Mike even you admit a BSE problem in the US. You guys don't seem to get it , in Canada primary producers are taking the hit but also taking the lead we are not digging holes or trying to cover up animals were are open and honest and that is plain to see most of the positives were brought forward by their owners voulenteering samples. Sorry but the US doesn't have a leg to stand on regauding this. In Canada a rancher comes forward and submits a sample from a debilitated animal and it gets tested it is called a presumptive positive until proven negative as opposed to the US where a sample once obtained is tested and called a non-negative until confirmed bse or atypical bse where a sample can sit on a shelf for 6 months or more it has occured that possible positives have sat on the shelf waiting to be tested and degraded to the point where they couldn't be tested that is fact check with afis. Personally i think those samples should be counted as positives after all one sample sitting on the shelf and it is a possible positive and nobody can get around to testing it for more than half a year :roll:
You guys all know my position on testing and even a mass kill of otms. But US producers don't have the will or stones to do a deal with Canada to do this so we have to keep on playing this silly game. And unimformed people try to keep the border closed and say prove canadian cattle won't infect our herd with BSE. If contamination is a problem it must be proven that the US herd is completely clear of BSE before the contamination question can be considered legit. The old chicken and egg thing. How long until someone says we have no positives in the US look we haven't found any so we must be clear. :lol: :???: Maybe test at the same levels and poputaions of high risk animal :roll: this is getting tiring anyways. Hopefully Old GW will shove rule 2 down your throats and use his veto power making all this moot after all he knows that the US economy must be stimulated and that is more important than some goof who wants to play games.

 

[Sandhusker]

Question, "Well sandH the denial of BSE problem in the US is the root of the problem.The point so many are trying to make is that people are coming forward and it is common knowledge that in the US there is BSE circulating within the beef herd and with the loopholes in your feedban it will continue to spread it."

If it's common knowledge that BSE is circulating within our herd, why are you pushing for an open border? Don't you realize that exposes your herd?

Question, " All people are saying is stop being so bull headed and admit it then the problem so it can be dealt with properly."

I KNOW we have problems! I've pointed them out 98, 439 times! Those problems are exactly why we shouldn't be taking cattle and beef that will exploit our problems!


Question, " Are you saying you think the US should be banned from exporting beef until it can be proven that there are no animals with bse running around the US."

Where did I ever come close to saying that? I've said time and time again that the person who has the checkbook decides.

 

[Silver]

"Maliciously misinforming" my fat arse. From the CFIA (the "C" is for "Canada") website;

No validated live animal test for BSE currently exists. Accordingly, testing for BSE can only be done on the brains of dead animals. Brain samples are screened using rapid tests that accurately and quickly detect a true BSE positive sample nearly 100% of the time. Rapid tests can, in rare cases, react when a sample is not infected with BSE. These are known as "inconclusive" results.

All samples that yield inconclusive results using a rapid test are sent to the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg - Canada's national BSE reference laboratory - for confirmatory testing. There they are tested using either the immunohistochemistry (IHC), or in the case of poor quality samples and IHC negative suspect tests, the SAF immunoblot, both internationally recognized confirmatory test for BSE.

Looks to me that you're the one who is misinformed or maliciously misinforming. There's no flippin difference. The comparisons are fair.

Now carefully read what you wrote (copied). Then read it again. If you are careful and think about it you will see the CFIA uses 2 tests, including the western blot (SAF).
If you do your research you will find the USDA didn't do this until mid 2005. :roll:

 

[flounder]

"Maliciously misinforming" my fat arse. From the CFIA (the "C" is for "Canada") website;

No validated live animal test for BSE currently exists. Accordingly, testing for BSE can only be done on the brains of dead animals. Brain samples are screened using rapid tests that accurately and quickly detect a true BSE positive sample nearly 100% of the time. Rapid tests can, in rare cases, react when a sample is not infected with BSE. These are known as "inconclusive" results.

All samples that yield inconclusive results using a rapid test are sent to the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg - Canada's national BSE reference laboratory - for confirmatory testing. There they are tested using either the immunohistochemistry (IHC), or in the case of poor quality samples and IHC negative suspect tests, the SAF immunoblot, both internationally recognized confirmatory test for BSE.

Looks to me that you're the one who is misinformed or maliciously misinforming. There's no flippin difference. The comparisons are fair.

Now carefully read what you wrote (copied). Then read it again. If you are careful and think about it you will see the CFIA uses 2 tests, including the western blot (SAF).
If you do your research you will find the USDA didn't do this until mid 2005. :roll:

detwiler tried to tell them this at a bse roundtable in 2003, but the warnings were ignored. in other words, they knew exactly what they were doing, missing bse cases with there bogus bse testing, surveillance protocols. ...tss

 

[Sandhusker]

"Maliciously misinforming" my fat arse. From the CFIA (the "C" is for "Canada") website;

No validated live animal test for BSE currently exists. Accordingly, testing for BSE can only be done on the brains of dead animals. Brain samples are screened using rapid tests that accurately and quickly detect a true BSE positive sample nearly 100% of the time. Rapid tests can, in rare cases, react when a sample is not infected with BSE. These are known as "inconclusive" results.

All samples that yield inconclusive results using a rapid test are sent to the National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease in Winnipeg - Canada's national BSE reference laboratory - for confirmatory testing. There they are tested using either the immunohistochemistry (IHC), or in the case of poor quality samples and IHC negative suspect tests, the SAF immunoblot, both internationally recognized confirmatory test for BSE.

Looks to me that you're the one who is misinformed or maliciously misinforming. There's no flippin difference. The comparisons are fair.

Now carefully read what you wrote (copied). Then read it again. If you are careful and think about it you will see the CFIA uses 2 tests, including the western blot (SAF).
If you do your research you will find the USDA didn't do this until mid 2005. :roll:

Maybe you should read it again. Rapid test first, then the IHC on inconclusives - NOT the blot as you claimed.

Your post, "I believe the test used in Canada following an inconclusive was the Western Blot Test, the USDA used the unfortunately named 'Gold Standard'."

 

[flounder]

Section 2. Testing Protocols and Quality Assurance Controls

In November 2004, USDA announced that its rapid screening test, Bio-Rad Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), produced an inconclusive BSE test result as part of its enhanced BSE surveillance program. The ELISA rapid screening test performed at a BSE contract laboratory produced three high positive reactive results.40 As required,41 the contract laboratory forwarded the inconclusive sample to the APHIS National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) for confirmatory testing. NVSL repeated the ELISA testing and again produced three high positive reactive results.42 In accordance with its established protocol, NVSL ran its confirmatory test, an immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, which was interpreted as negative for BSE. In addition, NVSL performed a histological43 examination of the tissue and did not detect lesions44 consistent with BSE.

Faced with conflicting results, NVSL scientists recommended additional testing to resolve the discrepancy but APHIS headquarters officials concluded no further testing was necessary because testing protocols were followed. In our discussions with APHIS officials, they justified their decision not to do additional testing because the IHC is internationally recognized as the "gold standard." Also, they believed that conducting additional tests would undermine confidence in USDA's established testing protocols.


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-10-KC.pdf


NOW, what did Dr. Detwiler try to tell them back a few years ago, around about the time before she ........ retired



USDA 2003

We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that
we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip.............


Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it.
Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives
do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the
disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important.
If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if
collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you
could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test.
There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We
have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we
forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten
away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain
stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a
project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did
not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the
cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go
back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA,
we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got
away from it. They've recently gone back.

Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an
'official' test result as recognized by APHIS
.

Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't
they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking
only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine
ourselves to one area.


snip...


FULL TEXT;


Completely Edited Version
PRION ROUNDTABLE


Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado


2005


National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Testing Summary

The BSE enhanced surveillance program involves the use of a rapid screening test, followed by confirmatory testing for any samples that come back "inconclusive." The weekly summary below captures all rapid tests conducted as part of the enhanced surveillance effort. It should be noted that since the enhanced surveillance program began, USDA has also conducted approximately 9,200 routine IHC tests on samples that did not first undergo rapid testing.


http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/issues/bse_testing/test_results.html


TSS

 

[Tex]

Faced with conflicting results, NVSL scientists recommended additional testing to resolve the discrepancy but APHIS headquarters officials concluded no further testing was necessary because testing protocols were followed. In our discussions with APHIS officials, they justified their decision not to do additional testing because the IHC is internationally recognized as the "gold standard." Also, they believed that conducting additional tests would undermine confidence in USDA's established testing protocols.




This is concerning. APHIS is saying that even if they couldn't get it right, you should trust them or they will look like they can't get things right.

THIS IS AN AGENCY OUT OF CONTROL.




Flounder, I read in the archives that there were rapid (live) tests for bse even with small amounts of infectivity (at least in live cattle) that could be accomplished. Is the government hiding or not approving these kind of tests just so the government will be "credible" ?

 

[flounder]

Faced with conflicting results, NVSL scientists recommended additional testing to resolve the discrepancy but APHIS headquarters officials concluded no further testing was necessary because testing protocols were followed. In our discussions with APHIS officials, they justified their decision not to do additional testing because the IHC is internationally recognized as the "gold standard." Also, they believed that conducting additional tests would undermine confidence in USDA's established testing protocols.




This is concerning. APHIS is saying that even if they couldn't get it right, you should trust them or they will look like they can't get things right.

THIS IS AN AGENCY OUT OF CONTROL.




Flounder, I read in the archives that there were rapid (live) tests for bse even with small amounts of infectivity (at least in live cattle) that could be accomplished. Is the government hiding or not approving these kind of tests just so the government will be "credible" ?

nothing this administration does can make them credible, they are just trying to save face, i.e. continue to cover up the TSE cases in USA bovine$

IF they were to test to find, it would be a disaster, and they know it. so they will continue to point there gold finger to the north i.e. and blame it on Canada.


smoke and mirrors folks, and save the industry at all cost. ...tss