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

REPORT INVESTIGATION 11TH CASE BSE CANADA 'ATYPICAL'

flounder

Well-known member
REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE ELEVENTH CASE OF BOVINE SPONGIFORM
ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) IN CANADA

Background

On December 9, 2007 a cow located on a commercial beef farm in East Central
Alberta was destroyed following an illness of approximately three and a half
months duration. A private practitioner sampled the animal on December 9,
2007 under Canada's National BSE Surveillance Program. On December 11, 2007,
brain samples were received by the National BSE Reference Laboratory in
Lethbridge, AB, where they were screened for BSE using a Prionics-check
priostrip test. The result of this preliminary test did not rule out BSE. In
accordance with the prescribed testing protocol, the test was repeated and
produced a second reaction that day. Additional rapid screening tests
(Prionics-Check Western, Bio-Rad Elisa and Hybrid Western Blot) conducted at
the National BSE Reference Laboratory, were positive on December 12, 2007
and December 13, 2007, respectively. The Scrapie Associated Fibril
Immunoblot was positive on December 14, 2007 and on December 17, 2007, the
immunohistochemistry procedure was positive. The carcass was secured at the
sampling site, and was subsequently transferred to the CFIA Laboratory in
Lethbridge for incineration. No part of the carcass entered the human food
supply or animal feed chain.

The CFIA immediately initiated an epidemiological investigation based on the
most recent recommended BSE guidelines of the World Organisation for Animal
Health, referred to as OIE. Specifically, the CFIA followed the recommended
guidelines for a country with controlled BSE risk status and investigated:

the feed cohort, comprising all cattle which, during their first year of
life, were reared with the BSE cases during their first year of life, and
which investigation showed consumed the same potentially contaminated feed
during that period, or
the birth cohort, comprising all cattle born in the same herd as, and within
12 months of the birth of, the BSE cases, if the above cannot be identified.
Animal Investigation
The positive animal was an unregistered Hereford cow born on March 15, 1994
and was 165 months of age at the time of death. The age of the animal
complicated the investigation because it exceeded the normal information
retention period of the commercial enterprises involved (for example,
auction records are normally kept for seven years). However, farm records
were extensive and indicated the case animal was born, raised and had spent
its entire life on the same farm. The producer reported that the cow had
been ill for approximately three and a half months and that prior to death
was lame and had an abnormal posture. The producer determined that the
animal should be destroyed, and a private veterinary practitioner attended
the premises to determine if the animal met the inclusion criteria of
Canada's National BSE Surveillance Program. Since the inclusion criteria of
Canada’s National BSE Surveillance Program were met, arrangements were made
to forward appropriate samples for laboratory evaluation. A post-mortem
examination was conducted, abdominal adhesions were observed, and a
presumptive diagnosis of peritonitis was made by the submitting
practitioner.

The case premises is a beef cow-calf operation. The operation has both a
purebred and commercial component. The birth cohort was determined to
comprise 357 animals, which, along with the case animal, were born on the
birth farm. This includes male and female animals born from March 15, 1993
to March 15, 1995. Both sexes were included as they had access to the same
commercially prepared feeds and may have been exposed to the same
potentially contaminated feed as the case animal. During the time period of
interest, no animals one year of age or less were purchased. All
replacements were sourced from the producer’s own calf crop. Therefore,
there were no additional feed cohorts.

The trace-out investigation of the cohort located eight live animals on the
premises and in one other herd. The eight animals have been humanely
destroyed, and their carcasses were disposed of along with the case animal’s
by incineration, in accordance with OIE recommendations.

Because the cohort cattle would now be 13-15 years of age, most had
previously been slaughtered or died of natural causes. The following is the
disposition of the remaining 349 animals:

81 animals were traced and confirmed to have died or been slaughtered,
254 animals were traced and presumed to have died or been slaughtered,
14 animals were determined to be untraceable due to incomplete records.
The investigation revealed that the case animal had two calves born within
the previous two years. The CFIA no longer requires the destruction of
calves of BSE positive cows born within 24 months of the development of
clinical signs, in accordance with the current Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy Chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (2007).
However, the CFIA continues to trace calves born to a positive female in
respect of the current export certification requirements of some importing
countries. The 2006 progeny was confirmed to have been slaughtered and the
2007 progeny was located on the case farm and was humanely destroyed to
ensure Canada’s continued compliance with current export certification
requirements. Its carcass was incinerated at the CFIA Lethbridge Laboratory.

Feed Investigation

The feed investigation yielded limited records specific to the animal’s
first year of life. A probable feeding regime was identified through
recollection of standard feeding practices and an index of feed products
used was developed based on invoices available for the period when the
animal was 10 - 20 months of age. These records provided the basis for
determining the types of products used and the feed suppliers with which a
business relationship existed.

Review of the information identified feeding practices consistent with an
operation of this type. The case animal was reported to have remained with
its dam from time of birth through to weaning at approximately eight months
of age. Prior to weaning, the animal was kept on community pasture and had
access to mineral feed products. At the time of weaning, the animal was
removed from pasture and fed farm-harvested forage as well as a farm-mixed
ration comprised of farm-grown grains, commercial protein supplement, and/or
mineral feed products. Feeding of this type of product continued through to
approximately 13 months of age.

Other feed products identified on the farm but not directly linked to the
subject animal included milk replacer and commercially prepared complete
feed. Commercial feed products (minerals, milk replacers, protein
supplements, complete rations) were purchased from a variety of suppliers
and represented all identified businesses within the trading area.

The period of interest of this feed investigation, pre-dates the
implementation of Canada’s initial ruminant feed ban in August of 1997. The
age of the animal further limited the investigation as the time period
exceeded normal information retention periods. As a result trace back
inspections at the suppliers and manufacturers of commercial feeds
distributed to the birth farm did not yield specific distribution records or
mixing formulas for the time frame of interest. Three of four possible
manufacturers supplying a protein supplement likely fed to the animal could
have included meat and bone meal (MBM) as an ingredient in its formulation.
One of these manufacturers was able to confirm usage of meat and bone meal
in supplements and confirm a source of MBM to be one common to previous BSE
investigations. This information is consistent with the commercial feed
industry’s practice of using of meat and bone meal as a source of protein in
livestock feeds at the time (prior to the 1997 Feed Ban).

A review of the common feeding and manufacturing practices indicates
probable exposure to infectious material through a commercial feed
supplement containing meat and bone meal.

Investigation Overview

Canada’s eleventh case of BSE has been attributed to a less prevalent,
atypical strain of BSE which has also been reported in Europe. This is the
second case of BSE in Canada that has involved an atypical strain. A common
feature of atypical BSE cases is that the affected animals are of an
advanced age at the time of diagnosis (for example, both of Canada’s
atypical cases involved cattle that were over 13 years of age at the time
BSE was confirmed). This is in contrast to Canada’s classical BSE cases
where the average age has been approximately 6 years.

The identification of these atypical strains of BSE is a reflection of an
increased global awareness of the potential for multiple strains of the BSE
agent to exist, continuous advancements in diagnostic test methods and is a
direct result of the enhanced BSE surveillance activities occurring
worldwide.

Since the confirmation of BSE in a native-born animal in May 2003, Canada
has significantly increased its targeted testing of cattle in high-risk
categories advocated by the OIE. This effort is directed at determining the
level of BSE in Canada, while monitoring the effectiveness of the suite of
risk-mitigating measures in place. Canada’s National BSE Surveillance
Program continues to demonstrate an extremely low level of BSE in Canada,
with 11 positive animals detected.

With respect to BSE, the safety of beef produced in Canada is assured by
public health measures enacted in 2003, following the first detection of BSE
in a native-born animal in Canada. The removal of specified risk material
(SRM)-those tissues that have been demonstrated to have the potential to
harbour BSE infectivity-from all animals slaughtered for human consumption
is the most effective single measure to protect consumers in Canada and
importing countries from exposure to BSE infectivity in meat products.

As demonstrated by the surveillance system, the feed ban implemented in 1997
is effectively preventing the amplification of BSE in Canada’s feed system.
Additional regulations to enhance Canada’s feed ban were enacted on July 12,
2007. The most important change is the removal of SRM from all animal feeds,
pet food and fertilizer. The enhancement will significantly accelerate
progress toward eradicating BSE from the national cattle herd by preventing
more than 99 per cent of potential BSE infectivity from entering the
Canadian feed system. These measures are effectively minimizing the risk of
transmitting BSE.

On May 22, 2007, Canada was officially categorized under the OIE’s
science-based system as a controlled BSE risk country. This status clearly
recognizes the effectiveness of Canada’s surveillance, mitigation and
eradication measures, and acknowledges the work done by all levels of
government, the cattle industry, veterinarians and ranchers to effectively
manage and eventually eradicate BSE in Canada.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/ab2007/11investe.shtml


Sunday, March 16, 2008

MAD COW DISEASE terminology UK c-BSE (typical), atypical BSE H or L, and or
Italian L-BASE

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2008/03/mad-cow-disease-terminology-uk-c-bse.html



TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
"Three of four possible manufacturers supplying a protein supplement likely fed to the animal could have included meat and bone meal (MBM) as an ingredient in its formulation. One of these manufacturers was able to confirm usage of meat and bone meal in supplements and confirm a source of MBM to be one common to previous BSE investigations."




USA AND CANADA IMPORTS OF UK CATTLE BETWEEN 1981 - 1989

USA = 496

CANADA = 198

*add 14 to 198 as last UK import to Canada, 14 in 1990

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/ahra/bseris/bserise.pdf



HERE is another look at all the imports for both the USA and Canada of UK
live cattle and greaves exports ;


UK Exports of Live Cattle by Value 1986-96

USA 697 LIVE CATTLE

CANADA 299 LIVE CATTLE

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11f/tab11.pdf


UK TABLE of Exports of meal of meat and meat offal; greaves 1979 - 1995

USA 24 TONS

CANADA 83 TONS

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m12/tab12.pdf


HOWEVER, my files show 44 tons of greaves for USA. ...TSS


Subject: Re: exports from the U.K. of it's MBM to U.S.???
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:03:16 +0000
To: [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (Non Receipt
Notification Requested)

Terry Meat and bonemeal is not specifically classified for overseas trade
purposes. The nearest equivalent is listed as flours and meals of meat or
offals (including tankage), unfit for human consumption; greaves. UK exports
of this to the US are listed below:
Country Tonnes

1980
1981 12
1982
1983
1984 10
1985 2
1986
1987
1988
1989 20
1990

Data for exports between 1975 and 1979 are not readily available. These can
be obtained (at a charge) from data retailers appointed by HM Customs and
Excise: BTSL (Tel: 01372 463121) or Abacus (01245 252222). Best wishes Simon
Pearsall Overseas trade statistics Stats (C&F)C

============ END...TSS...2008============




P04.27

Experimental BSE Infection of Non-human Primates: Efficacy of the Oral Route


Holznagel, E1; Yutzy, B1; Deslys, J-P2; Lasmézas, C2; Pocchiari, M3; Ingrosso, L3;
Bierke, P4; Schulz-Schaeffer, W5; Motzkus, D6; Hunsmann, G6; Löwer, J1
1Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Germany; 2Commissariat à l´Energie Atomique, France;
3Instituto Superiore di Sanità, Italy; 4Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease
control, Sweden; 5Georg August University, Germany; 6German Primate Center,
Germany


Background:

In 2001, a study was initiated in primates to assess the risk for humans
to contract BSE through contaminated food. For this purpose, BSE brain was
titrated in cynomolgus monkeys.


Aims:

The primary objective is the determination of the minimal infectious dose (MID50)
for oral exposure to BSE in a simian model, and, by in doing this, to assess the risk for
humans. Secondly, we aimed at examining the course of the disease to identify
possible biomarkers.


Methods:


Groups with six monkeys each were orally dosed with lowering amounts of
BSE brain: 16g, 5g, 0.5g, 0.05g, and 0.005g. In a second titration study,
animals were intracerebrally (i.c.) dosed (50, 5, 0.5, 0.05, and 0.005 mg).


Results:


In an ongoing study, a considerable number of high-dosed macaques already
developed simian vCJD upon oral or intracerebral exposure or are at the
onset of the clinical phase. However, there are differences in the clinical course
between orally and intracerebrally infected animals that may influence the detection of
biomarkers.


Conclusions:


Simian vCJD can be easily triggered in cynomolgus monkeys on the oral
route using less than 5 g BSE brain homogenate. The difference in the incubation
period between 5 g oral and 5 mg i.c. is only 1 year (5 years versus 4 years). However,
there are rapid progressors among orally dosed monkeys that develop simian vCJD as
fast as intracerebrally inoculated animals.


The work referenced was performed in partial fulfilment of the study “BSE in
primates“ supported by the EU (QLK1-2002-01096).


http://www.prion2007.com/pdf/Prion%20Book%20of%20Abstracts.pdf


look at the table and you'll see that as little as 1 mg (or 0.001 gm) caused
7% (1 of 14) of the cows to come down with BSE;


Risk of oral infection with bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent in
primates

Corinne Ida Lasmézas, Emmanuel Comoy, Stephen Hawkins, Christian Herzog,
Franck Mouthon, Timm Konold, Frédéric Auvré, Evelyne Correia, Nathalie
Lescoutra-Etchegaray, Nicole Salès, Gerald Wells, Paul Brown, Jean-Philippe
Deslys Summary The uncertain extent of human exposure to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE)--which can lead to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
(vCJD)--is compounded by incomplete knowledge about the efficiency of oral
infection and the magnitude of any bovine-to-human biological barrier to
transmission. We therefore investigated oral transmission of BSE to
non-human primates. We gave two macaques a 5 g oral dose of brain homogenate
from a BSE-infected cow. One macaque developed vCJD-like neurological
disease 60 months after exposure, whereas the other remained free of disease
at 76 months. On the basis of these findings and data from other studies, we
made a preliminary estimate of the food exposure risk for man, which
provides additional assurance that existing public health measures can
prevent transmission of BSE to man.


snip...


BSE bovine brain inoculum

100 g 10 g 5 g 1 g 100 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0·1 mg 0·01 mg

Primate (oral route)* 1/2 (50%)

Cattle (oral route)* 10/10 (100%) 7/9 (78%) 7/10 (70%) 3/15 (20%) 1/15 (7%)
1/15 (7%)

RIII mice (ic ip route)* 17/18 (94%) 15/17 (88%) 1/14 (7%)

PrPres biochemical detection

The comparison is made on the basis of calibration of the bovine inoculum
used in our study with primates against a bovine brain inoculum with a
similar PrPres concentration that was

inoculated into mice and cattle.8 *Data are number of animals
positive/number of animals surviving at the time of clinical onset of
disease in the first positive animal (%). The accuracy of

bioassays is generally judged to be about plus or minus 1 log. ic
ip=intracerebral and intraperitoneal.

Table 1: Comparison of transmission rates in primates and cattle infected
orally with similar BSE brain inocula


Published online January 27, 2005

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa



It is clear that the designing scientists must

also have shared Mr Bradley’s surprise at the results because all the dose

levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s145d.pdf




6. It also appears to me that Mr Bradley’s answer (that it would take less than
say 100 grams) was probably given with the benefit of hindsight; particularly if one
considers that later in the same answer Mr Bradley expresses his surprise that it
could take as little of 1 gram of brain to cause BSE by the oral route
within the same species. This information did not become available until the
"attack rate"

experiment had been completed in 1995/96. This was a titration experiment
designed to ascertain the infective dose. A range of dosages was used to
ensure that the actual result was within both a lower and an upper limit within the
study and the designing scientists would not have expected all the dose levels to
trigger infection. The dose ranges chosen by the most informed scientists at that
time ranged from 1 gram to three times one hundred grams. It is clear that the
designing scientists must have also shared Mr Bradley’s surprise at the results
because all the dose levels right down to 1 gram triggered infection.


http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/ws/s147f.pdf



TSS
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
But the US has a different strain of BSE than Canada :roll: :oops: or so some of the R-CALFer's say.This is the second case of the BASE strain detected in canada. But that must just be a fluke :roll: It couldn't be that MBM from the US could be infecting canadian cattle :???: or people in the US that are dying of vCJD aren't being infected by contaminated beef. Maybe time to start taking this seriously!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
But the US has a different strain of BSE than Canada :roll: :oops: or so some of the R-CALFer's say.This is the second case of the BASE strain detected in canada. But that must just be a fluke :roll: It couldn't be that MBM from the US could be infecting canadian cattle :???: or people in the US that are dying of vCJD aren't being infected by contaminated beef. Maybe time to start taking this seriously!!

How many cases of "typical" BSE has been found in indiginous US cattle?

Have you noticed that the atypical cases in both countries came from old cows?
 

flounder

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
QUESTION said:
But the US has a different strain of BSE than Canada :roll: :oops: or so some of the R-CALFer's say.This is the second case of the BASE strain detected in canada. But that must just be a fluke :roll: It couldn't be that MBM from the US could be infecting canadian cattle :???: or people in the US that are dying of vCJD aren't being infected by contaminated beef. Maybe time to start taking this seriously!!

How many cases of "typical" BSE has been found in indiginous US cattle?

Have you noticed that the atypical cases in both countries came from old cows?


IT'S hard to find something when your not looking properly.

and

the old atypical BSE is just BSE in old cattle theory does not hold water.
IF so, then sporadic CJD of old people is nothing more than nvCJD. ...tss


p.s.

posted February 19, 2004 (March 8, 2004 issue)
The Junk Science of George W. Bush

The Bush Administration has so violated and corrupted the institutional culture of government agencies charged with scientific research that it could take a generation for them to recover their integrity even if Bush is defeated this fall. Says Princeton University scientist Michael Oppenheimer, "If you believe in a rational universe, in enlightenment, in knowledge and in a search for the truth, this White House is an absolute disaster."



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040308/kennedy

http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/rfk.asp


Moreover, the UCS report is neither the first of its kind nor comprehensive. Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman released a similar report last August with many overlapping charges as well as some that go entirely unmentioned by the UCS. The most significant difference between the two reports, however, may be that the Bush administration is actually bothering to respond to the UCS document. When The New York Times reported on Waxman's document last August 8th, by contrast, White House press secretary Scott McClellan simply stated, "The only one who is playing politics about science is Congressman Waxman. His report is riddled with distortion, inaccuracies, and omissions." McClellan didn't provide any specific rebuttal at the time, however, and according to Waxman's office, the administration hasn't bothered to do so since then either. This lackluster response in and of itself suggests that the White House cares little about protecting the integrity of science.

And besides the Waxman and UCS reports, there are still other analyses documenting the Bush administration's abuses of science. For example, consider www.scienceinpolicy.org, a Web site that focuses exclusively on the environmental arena. The site details distortions and misrepresentations on issues ranging from climate change to debates on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Along with policy analyses, it contains the following statement:

The Bush administration justifies environmental policies by misusing and misrepresenting science. The administration's harmful positions on climate change, pollution, forest management, and resource extraction ignore widely accepted scientific evidence. When the administration invokes science, it relies on research at odds with the scientific consensus, and contradicts, undermines, or suppresses the research of its own scientists. Furthermore, the administration cloaks environmentally damaging policies under misleading program names like "clear skies" and "healthy forests." As a result, the public and the media often wrongly believe that this administration uses sound science to help promote a healthy environment. In reality, the best available science indicates that President Bush's policies will cause and exacerbate damage to the natural systems on which we all depend.
This statement has been signed, when last I checked, by 1,225 scientists, ranging from graduate students to distinguished professors.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars/



February 18, 2004

Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science
Nobel Laureates, National Medal of Science Recipients, and Other Leading Researchers Call for End to Scientific Abuses


Call (2MB mp3)
Washington, D.C.—Today, more than 60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels.
“Across a broad range of issues, the administration has undermined the quality of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel,” said Dr. Kurt Gottfried, emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University and Chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Whether the issue is lead paint, clean air or climate change, this behavior has serious consequences for all Americans.”

“Science, to quote President Bush's father, the former president, relies on freedom of inquiry and objectivity,” said Russell Train, head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon and Ford, who joined the scientists in calling for action. “But this administration has obstructed that freedom and distorted that objectivity in ways that were unheard of in any previous administration.”

The statement notes that while scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective. However, the administration of George W. Bush has disregarded this principle.

“The Earth system follows laws which scientists strive to understand,” said Dr. F. Sherwood Rowland a Nobel laureate in chemistry. “The public deserves rational decisionmaking based on the best scientific advice about what is likely to happen, not what political entities might wish to happen.”

“We are not simply raising warning flags about an academic subject of interest only to scientists and doctors,” said Dr. Neal Lane, a former director of the National Science Foundation and a former Presidential Science Advisor. “In case after case, scientific input to policymaking is being censored and distorted. This will have serious consequences for public health.”

In conjunction with the statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists today released a report Scientific Integrity in Policymaking that investigates numerous allegations in the scientists’ statement involving censorship and political interference with independent scientific inquiry at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Interior and Defense.

One example cited in the statement and report involves the suppression of an EPA study that found the bipartisan Senate Clear Air bill would do more to reduce mercury contamination in fish and prevent more deaths than the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act. “This is akin to the White House directing the National Weather Service to alter a hurricane forecast because they want everyone to think we have clear skies ahead,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists “The hurricane is still coming, but without factual information no one will be ready for it.”

Comparing President Bush with his father, George H.W. Bush and former president Richard M. Nixon, the statement warned that had these former presidents similarly dismissed science in favor of political ends, over 200,000 deaths and millions of respiratory and cardiovascular disease cases would not have been prevented with the signing of the original Clean Air Act and the 1990 amendments to that Act.

The statement demands that the Bush administration’s “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease” and calls for Congressional oversight hearings, guaranteed public access to government scientific studies and other measures to prevent such abuses in the future. The statement further calls on the scientific, engineering and medical communities to work together to reestablish scientific integrity in the policymaking process.

# # #
Among the statement signers are:

Philip W. Anderson*†
David Baltimore*†
Paul Berg*†
Lewis Branscomb
Thomas Eisner*
Jerome Friedman†
Richard Garwin*
Walter Kohn*†
Neal Lane
Leon Lederman*†
Mario Molina†
W.H.K. Panofsky*
F. Sherwood Rowland†
J. Robert Schrieffer*†
Richard Smalley†
Harold E. Varmus†
Steven Weinberg*†
E.O Wilson*

* National Medal of Science
† Nobel laureate


http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/preeminent-scientists-protest-bush-administrations-misuse-of-science.html
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Terry, "the old atypical BSE is just BSE in old cattle theory does not hold water. IF so, then sporadic CJD of old people is nothing more than nvCJD. ...tss "

Until a young animal is found to have atypical, you can't ignore the possible link.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Terry, "the old atypical BSE is just BSE in old cattle theory does not hold water. IF so, then sporadic CJD of old people is nothing more than nvCJD. ...tss "

Until a young animal is found to have atypical, you can't ignore the possible link.


maybe so, but what's good for the goose, is food for the gander,
therefore, sporadic CJD is nothing more than nvCJD in old people.
why else would these atypical BSE pathology be so similar to the
sporadic CJD, and not the nvCJD ???



TSS
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
SandH tell it to the families of people who have vCJD who have never left their home state. I am sure they will accept your excuses and denial that they are going to die from contaminated US born, raised and processed beef. The time it here to step up to the plate and accept the reality.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
SandH tell it to the families of people who have vCJD who have never left their home state. I am sure they will accept your excuses and denial that they are going to die from contaminated US born, raised and processed beef. The time it here to step up to the plate and accept the reality.


10 million people could be diagnosed with vCJD today and you couldn't prove a single case came from beef that was born, raised and processed in the US.

Tell them that Canada is "catching them all" when those trucks cross the border.

Who needs to accept reality?
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Poeple are starting to die from a preventable disease and you still are in denial and blame everyone else. MAN UP!!!!!!!!!!!! :x
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
QUESTION said:
SandH tell it to the families of people who have vCJD who have never left their home state. I am sure they will accept your excuses and denial that they are going to die from contaminated US born, raised and processed beef. The time it here to step up to the plate and accept the reality.


10 million people could be diagnosed with vCJD today and you couldn't prove a single case came from beef that was born, raised and processed in the US.

Tell them that Canada is "catching them all" when those trucks cross the border.

Who needs to accept reality?
Actually its you,its pretty pitiful if you say 10 million in your country could be diagnosed with vCJD and you'd STILL deny it COULD be from beef born and raised in the US. You've said alot of silly things before SH but man you blew brainless out of the water with that statement.That just proves no matter what no matter the outcome you'd still find a way to blame Canada.Its about time you face up to realityJust because you deny it and cover it up doesn't mean it isn't a fact :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: .
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Sandhusker said:
QUESTION said:
SandH tell it to the families of people who have vCJD who have never left their home state. I am sure they will accept your excuses and denial that they are going to die from contaminated US born, raised and processed beef. The time it here to step up to the plate and accept the reality.


10 million people could be diagnosed with vCJD today and you couldn't prove a single case came from beef that was born, raised and processed in the US.

Tell them that Canada is "catching them all" when those trucks cross the border.

Who needs to accept reality?
Actually its you,its pretty pitiful if you say 10 million in your country could be diagnosed with vCJD and you'd STILL deny it COULD be from beef born and raised in the US. You've said alot of silly things before SH but man you blew brainless out of the water with that statement.That just proves no matter what no matter the outcome you'd still find a way to blame Canada.Its about time you face up to realityJust because you deny it and cover it up doesn't mean it isn't a fact :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: .

Read what I wrote again. I'm not denying it could come from the US. I'm saying it couldn't be proven that it came from US cattle. That was a response to Q singling out " US born, raised and processed beef."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Poeple are starting to die from a preventable disease and you still are in denial and blame everyone else. MAN UP!!!!!!!!!!!! :x

This coming from somebody who claims Canada is catching them all and that it would have to be proven that you have any more cases? Somebody who claims to know more about disease incidence than the CDC? "MAN UP"? :lol: :lol: :lol:

You need to practice what you preach.
 

hillsdown

Well-known member
IT'S hard to find something when your not looking properly.

Exactly can you say:
LOOK TO FIND PEOPLE LOOK TO FIND!!!!!!!!!

It sounds like they are looking like my husband does, when he wants something in the refrigerator. :lol:

The only thing that will end this debate and ensure the safety of the beef eating population is TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!!!
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
QUESTION said:
But the US has a different strain of BSE than Canada :roll: :oops: or so some of the R-CALFer's say.This is the second case of the BASE strain detected in canada. But that must just be a fluke :roll: It couldn't be that MBM from the US could be infecting canadian cattle :???: or people in the US that are dying of vCJD aren't being infected by contaminated beef. Maybe time to start taking this seriously!!

How many cases of "typical" BSE has been found in indiginous US cattle?

Have you noticed that the atypical cases in both countries came from old cows?

Found or announced Sadhusker? We all know how many have been announced.

I guess we will never truly know why it took some extra tail twisting from the OIG to finally admit to the A-typical ones.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
SandH your ignorance knows no bounds. :p You are calling me out :shock: when i have previously stated on many occaisions do what needs to be done to elininate BSE completely so we can move on . Even if that means killing every bovine born after 2003 and test every one of them and have no material from them be rendered into the animal food chain. I consistantly propose playing hard ball to get rid of this scurge. And all you respond is it can't be done? :roll: Full of excuses and ready to blame everyone else. Nice to see a leapard doesn't change his spots and when you see you are losing a debate you start name calling and changing the subject. Maybe one day they will drop for you!! :oops: :p :oops: :p
As for that dead horse you keep flogging the CDC numbers are based on the numbers actually found and reported. Canada isn't trying hide positives and report the numbers that are true. The texas cow is a prime example that the US isn't willing to report positives unless forced to. Let in foreign inspectors to choose what animals should be tested and see what happens. The CFIA allows the USDA to be involved in our postives so the process is open and transparent. So no i do not claim to know more than the CDC rather i point out the possible flaw in the logic of the report. :roll: :roll: :roll: This horse is powdered time to give it up.
As for the statement about the newest case of vCJD that person has never left her state once in her life. So it makes sense she at primarily US beef.
I await your excuse or fairytale where the infective material came from. Oh wait maybe the personal attack or some name calling. May i suggest adding to your list of names called - my 4 year old nefew told me one of the kids he goes to preschool with called another kid a poopy head maybe you can add that one if it isn't too advanced for you :oops: :p :oops: :p :D :p :oops: :p :D
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Q, "Even if that means killing every bovine born after 2003 and test every one of them and have no material from them be rendered into the animal food chain."

Why would you do that when your government says that "We're catching them all?"

Q, "And all you respond is it can't be done?"

Where did I ever say that?

Q, "As for that dead horse you keep flogging the CDC numbers are based on the numbers actually found and reported."

You're kidding me.... :shock: Of course those figures are taken into account! Everything having to do with the situation is taken into account. However, they didn't just look at the testing results and do a 2 minute back-of-the-napkin guess. You bring up their figures and show me their errors.

Q, "As for the statement about the newest case of vCJD that person has never left her state once in her life. So it makes sense she at primarily US beef."

And that would eliminiate the disease being contracted from any of the 40 or so countries that we import beef from such as , say.... Canada, how?
 

flounder

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
snip...
As for the statement about the newest case of vCJD that person has never left her state once in her life. So it makes sense she at primarily US beef.


hey there question, that SUSPECT case of nvCJD in a 22 year old HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED. and until an autopsy is done, it could be any one of a number of these illnesses ;

Degenerative dementias as rapidly progressive dementias

Prion diseases
Typically chronic degenerative dementias
Autoimmune encephalopathies (paraneoplastic and nonparaneoplastic)
Vascular etiologies of rapidly progressive dementia
Infectious Etiologies
Malignancies causing rapidly progressive dementia
Toxic-metabolic conditions
Nonorganic (psychiatric) causes of rapidly progressive dementia

WE will have to wait and see what they call this case. since the victim died last week, it should only take a week or two for autopsy results, but a reality check says it will probably be more like one or two months, and then IF it is a TSE, it will be anything but nvCJD. probably some atypical sporadic CJD.

there is also another SUSPECT nvCJD case that is 26 years old.

NOW, as far as comparing apples and oranges i.e. canada and usa bse (typical or atypical), here are the latest comments from the PRION UNIT in America ;



snip...


Prion surveillance in cattle has been reduced by 90% (from about 470,000 to 40,000 in the U.S. in 2007 out of about 35 million cattle slaughtered).
Termination of human prion surveillance would therefore remove the second line of surveillance, thereby eliminating prion surveillance in the U.S. entirely. This development would be extremely worrisome in view of recent reports that precautions to limit the spread of the prion infectious agent may not have been followed in some slaughter houses in the U.S.
Cattle affected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) continue to be discovered in Canada, which has more rigorous BSE surveillance than the U.S. At the same time, Canada imposes few limitations in the trade of potentially prion-infectious cattle with the U.S.

snip...

Atypical forms of BSE have emerged which, although rare, appear to be more virulent than the classical BSE that causes vCJD.


Sincerely,
Pierluigi Gambetti, MD
Director, National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center

Stephen M. Sergay, MB, BCh
President, American Academy of Neurology


http://www.aan.com/news/?event=read&article_id=4397&page=72.45.45


please see full text with additional comments and links @ ;


http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/


TSS
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
SandH :roll: :roll: :roll: Mass cull gets rid of every animal, thus GET RID OF POSSIBLE POSITIVES AND ELIMINATE THE DISEASE. That is why a mass kill is done. Do you understand the concept of elimination?
When ever i bring up the do what it takes to eliminate the disease you post some excuse like the USDA won't test every animal it is too expensive or they won't allow private testing. The reality is that you are going into an election year and if made a huge election issue you could get major changes done. But that is too much work so you are content to post complaints and then do nothing, then complain nobody is doing anything so the border should be closed.
The flaw is the CDC is taking all the positives found and reported in canada and figure out the incedence rate then comparing it to a system not even remotely similar using different methodology, different rates of testing , different protocalls for testing. The CDC is comparing apples and coconuts. Do you get that? Now if the the USDA used canadian protocall and tested everthing at the same rate and same high risk animals using the same protocalls the comparision would then be accurate.
How many countries do you import from have BSE other than canada?
Next time bring something that isn't so weak. :oops:
TSS true we will have to wait until the autopsy for confirmation, but that appears to be the most likely outcome.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
SandH :roll: :roll: :roll: Mass cull gets rid of every animal, thus GET RID OF POSSIBLE POSITIVES AND ELIMINATE THE DISEASE. That is why a mass kill is done. Do you understand the concept of elimination?
When ever i bring up the do what it takes to eliminate the disease you post some excuse like the USDA won't test every animal it is too expensive or they won't allow private testing. The reality is that you are going into an election year and if made a huge election issue you could get major changes done. But that is too much work so you are content to post complaints and then do nothing, then complain nobody is doing anything so the border should be closed.
The flaw is the CDC is taking all the positives found and reported in canada and figure out the incedence rate then comparing it to a system not even remotely similar using different methodology, different rates of testing , different protocalls for testing. The CDC is comparing apples and coconuts. Do you get that? Now if the the USDA used canadian protocall and tested everthing at the same rate and same high risk animals using the same protocalls the comparision would then be accurate.
How many countries do you import from have BSE other than canada?
Next time bring something that isn't so weak. :oops:
TSS true we will have to wait until the autopsy for confirmation, but that appears to be the most likely outcome.

IF the CDC just looked at total positives found from the population, they would of come the conlusion that Canada was 45 times higher (2 cases in 90 million US and 12 cases in 12 million Canada).

Do you honestly think the CDC doesn't know who tested what and how? Do you think that they don't know how to adjust for any discrepancies? Why don't you bring up their calculations and point out where they went wrong? Let's see your formula. You have no idea how the CDC came up with their figures. You just don't like the conclusions.
 
Top