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

Ridley Agrees to Settlement in Canadian BSE Lawsuit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
I don't think I could back the 2003 date because they're using a moving number, in this case latest positive birth date + 6 mos. That's just a guess and doesn't address the reasons behind the positive animal. What are they going to do when an animal born in 2004 is found - go back and push back the date? That could happen a number of times.

I would prefer a methodology considering under what circumstances the animal was reared under and what has changed since then and when. In this case, nothing had changed from the birthdate of that animal until last July when the enhanced feed ban was implemented - UNLESS it can be pointed out that the latest animal was an anomoly for some reason.
 
Yanuck thanks for posting the CFIA links. Case 10 was stated as born in late 2001 and the case 9 bull born in early 2000. SH Where are your cases from 02? The second to last SH said was born in 02 , that would be the bull get your facts straight. I know you want to keep changing things to fit your argument. But the facts are exactly that and can't be changed unless you have a time machine. :lol2: OT maybe you need some remedial classes in reading and math. Because the last positive was born in 01 at the end of 08 she would be a seven year olds. But You r-calfers can keep on arguing about the peas when i want to talk about the steak. Why doesn't r-calf buy an bunch of culls from canada and do a trial to prove your accusations, if you think there are so many BSE positive OTM cattle going south, you don't even have to be picky on age it you expect positives from the 06 calf crop if the feedban wasn't working. Afterall BSE has been found in cattle as young as 20 months so it should be easy. And you can get the border shut permanently. :lol2:
 
Sandhusker said:
Are you telling us that you didn't have a BSE positive that was born in 2002?
Read the link I posted before.........
The positive animal was a registered Holstein cow born on November 10, 2001, and it was 66 months of age at the time of death. The animal was born, raised and had spent its entire life on the same farm.
 
Yanuck said:
Sandhusker said:
Are you telling us that you didn't have a BSE positive that was born in 2002?
Read the link I posted before.........
The positive animal was a registered Holstein cow born on November 10, 2001, and it was 66 months of age at the time of death. The animal was born, raised and had spent its entire life on the same farm.

Boy, Q's got me there - that changes everything! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Oldtimer said:
Yanuck said:
Sandhusker I have a question for you and/or anyone else who doesn't want the border open, USCA says that they would have liked to have the "born after date" to be 2003 instead of 1999 for OTM cattle, if that was the date the Gov't had gone with, would you be okay with the border opening?
Here's the links to the CFIA website concerning the BSE cases
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/ab2007/9investe.shtml

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/bccb2007/10investe.shtml

Personally Yanuck-- I would prefer nothing born before 2007-- since the CFIA has admitted that the Canadian feedban prior to the new one that was implemented in July 2007 was a complete failure-and did not work/was not working-and that they have an unknown quantity of cattle still manifesting the disease in Canada (CFIA says 20+-- the Canadian TSE expert says 50-- the US CDC says 26 times more than the US).....

And the fact that over half the cattle found in Canada already were born POST 1997 feedban....

Whatsamatter OVI. Are you forgetting that the US still hasn't even implemented a feed ban that is equal to Canada's? Canada's may have had its flaws but it is still far, far superior than y'aaaaaaaaaalls.
 
I hate to jump in here, but seems like Canada doesn't know when she was born. So did they just pick a date they liked? :???:

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/ab2006/7investe.shtml

Animal Investigation
The positive cow was confirmed to be a purebred dairy animal born on April 22, 2002, and was 50 months old at the time of death. It was born and lived its entire life on the index premises. The producer reported the duration of illness was two days, during which the animal displayed signs of toxic mastitis, and, despite treatment, became non-ambulatory (downer) and died. The following day, a private practitioner attended the premises to perform a post-mortem examination, which revealed the likely cause of death was toxic septicaemia attributable to the acute mastitis. Because the animal met the inclusion criteria of Canada's National BSE Surveillance Program, arrangements were made to forward appropriate samples for laboratory evaluation.

The investigation revealed that the positive cow had one male calf born during the two years prior to her death (born March 17, 2005). Based on advances in science, the OIE (Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2006) no longer recommends regulatory action with respect to calves of BSE positive cows. The hypothesized increased risk to calves born within 24 months of the onset of clinical signs in dams with BSE is not supported by ongoing research and analysis of data. Therefore, the CFIA has amended its policy regarding such calves and will no longer require their destruction. However, the CFIA will trace calves born to a positive female in respect of current export certification requirements requested by importing countries.
 
How many cows are we talking about here? I guess the important thing is that there is no way cattle that age can be BSE positive and make it into the US. :roll: Q and don can prove it, they've got the test results of the tests that didn't happen to prove it. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
I don't often get involved in these BSE debates anymore, but I thought I'd fire this one out there: Sandhusker, you may wanna check on your CDC's history of accuracy. It ain't stunning, especially since they repeatedly err WAY on the side of caution with regards to prevalence and disease proliferation. I think they've cried wolf so much that no-one is paying attention anymore. I think I'd choose the USDA's numbers, if I were you. ;)

Rod
 
I wondered how long it was going to take until some one proved your ignorance and ineptitude. I baited you countless times to show me case 7 a cow born in 2002 and it took someone else who is intellegent to do so. Your statement that cattle OTM beef cattle born in canada on or after 2001 are unsafe is flawed and you are either to dim or too prejudice to acknowledge that. But here are some of the flaws everyone else without an adgenda can see with your hypothesis that OTM beef canadian cattle born on or after 2001 are a risk to the US cowherd. First off they were all downers and thus illegal to transport in canada thus they could not be exported to the US let alone transported with in canada. Secondly they are all holstein or holstein cross thus not even beef cattle. As dairy cattle are raised differently and fed differently which would support the CFIA's conclusion that the animals have aquired the infect thru infected feed. That being accepted how can a beef animal aquire an infection from a feed they never even see? I could go on and on but this game isn't entertaining me anymore. Next time you form a hypothesis maybe get facts before hand so you do appear to be such a ignorant, inept, prejudice fool.
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
I don't often get involved in these BSE debates anymore, but I thought I'd fire this one out there: Sandhusker, you may wanna check on your CDC's history of accuracy. It ain't stunning, especially since they repeatedly err WAY on the side of caution with regards to prevalence and disease proliferation. I think they've cried wolf so much that no-one is paying attention anymore. I think I'd choose the USDA's numbers, if I were you. ;)

Rod

One thing you're overlooking with your "err on the side of caution" hypothesis; If they always err on the side of caution, they would of erred the same for both countries. Thus the margin would remain the same.
 
Sandhusker said:
One thing you're overlooking with your "err on the side of caution" hypothesis; If they always err on the side of caution, they would of erred the same for both countries. Thus the margin would remain the same.

C'mon Sandhusker, the CDC is a government agency, governed by the same politics as the USDA. Of course they're going to say the US's prevalence is lower. Besides, like I said before, they were working off old numbers and I haven't seen them re-release anything since what, 2003? 2004? Our testing numbers are radically different now than they were then.

Sorry man, the CDC doesn't wash any cleaner than the USDA or any other government agency.

Rod
 
Questionable, here is the stupidity of this debate. Forcing OTM cattle back into the USA market simply puts the Canadian cattle industry back under the thumb of two USA packers...Tyson and Cargill. Canadian producers will leave producers like Randy Kaiser hung out without any support. Randy's goal (and what should be the goal of all Canadian producers) is to make Canadian beef acceptable to the world market...the USA market should be the last place Canadian producers should be looking...who controls that trade?????
Putting all your eggs in one basket is why Canadian producers hurt so bad with BSE! STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Q, "I wondered how long it was going to take until some one proved your ignorance and ineptitude. I baited you countless times to show me case 7 a cow born in 2002 and it took someone else who is intellegent to do so. "

Whatever, Q, so I couldn't find the exact date of the 2002 cow. I knew it happened - we all knew it happened. That changes what? Making this a point shows the weakness of our arguements.

Q, ""Your statement that cattle OTM beef cattle born in canada on or after 2001 are unsafe is flawed and you are either to dim or too prejudice to acknowledge that. But here are some of the flaws everyone else without an adgenda can see with your hypothesis that OTM beef canadian cattle born on or after 2001 are a risk to the US cowherd. First off they were all downers and thus illegal to transport in canada thus they could not be exported to the US let alone transported with in canada. "

A month before they are downers, they are healthy appearing BSE positive cows.


Q, "Secondly they are all holstein or holstein cross thus not even beef cattle. As dairy cattle are raised differently and fed differently which would support the CFIA's conclusion that the animals have aquired the infect thru infected feed. That being accepted how can a beef animal aquire an infection from a feed they never even see?"

All your cases weren't dairy cows. Obviously, some beef cattle also got that feed that "they never even see".

I could go on and on but this game isn't entertaining me anymore. Next time you form a hypothesis maybe get facts before hand so you do appear to be such a ignorant, inept, prejudice fool.

See my comments above. They point out who the fool is.

My facts are straight. All your cases were NOT dairy, every BSE positive animal appears healthy until shortly before full-blown BSE, and positives have been found in the age group you're sending down here. Since positives were being born 5 years after the ban that was supposed to stop them, it's only logical to assume positives were being born all the while that ban was in effect. You're the one to prejeduced to see it. The USDA even admits they are importing positive animals, and they've twisted and turned all they can to work for you - they should be renamed the CDA because they sure as hell aren't working for the US.
 
In this context, a word is in order about the US testing program. After the discovery of the first (imported) cow in 2003, the magnitude of testing was much increased, reaching a level of >400,000 tests in 2005 (Figure 4). Neither of the 2 more recently indigenously infected older animals with nonspecific clinical features would have been detected without such testing, and neither would have been identified as atypical without confirmatory Western blots. Despite these facts, surveillance has now been decimated to 40,000 annual tests (USDA news release no. 0255.06, July 20, 2006) and *** invites the accusation that the United States will never know the true status of its involvement with BSE***.

In short, a great deal of further work will need to be done before the phenotypic features and prevalence of atypical BSE are understood. More than a single strain may have been present from the beginning of the epidemic, but this possibility has been overlooked by virtue of the absence of widespread Western blot confirmatory testing of positive screening test results; or these new phenotypes may be found, at least in part, to result from infections at an older age by a typical BSE agent, rather than neonatal infections with new "strains" of BSE. Neither alternative has yet been investigated.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no12/06-0965.htm


CDC DR. PAUL BROWN TSE EXPERT COMMENTS 2006


The U.S. Department of Agriculture was quick to assure the public earlier
this week that the third case of mad cow disease did not pose a risk to
them, but what federal officials have not acknowledged is that this latest
case indicates the deadly disease has been circulating in U.S. herds for at
least a decade.

The second case, which was detected last year in a Texas cow and which USDA
officials were reluctant to verify, was approximately 12 years old.

These two cases (the latest was detected in an Alabama cow) present a
picture of the disease having been here for 10 years or so, since it is
thought that cows usually contract the disease from contaminated feed they
consume as calves. The concern is that humans can contract a fatal,
incurable, brain-wasting illness from consuming beef products contaminated
with the mad cow pathogen.

"The fact the Texas cow showed up fairly clearly implied the existence of
other undetected cases," Dr. Paul Brown, former medical director of the
National Institutes of Health's Laboratory for Central Nervous System
Studies and an expert on mad cow-like diseases, told United Press
International. "The question was, 'How many?' and we still can't answer
that."

Brown, who is preparing a scientific paper based on the latest two mad cow
cases to estimate the maximum number of infected cows that occurred in the
United States, said he has "absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before
one year ago" because of the agency's reluctance to retest the Texas cow
that initially tested positive.

USDA officials finally retested the cow and confirmed it was infected seven
months later, but only at the insistence of the agency's inspector general.

"Everything they did on the Texas cow makes everything USDA did before 2005
suspect," Brown said. ...snip...end


http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060315-055557-1284r


CDC - Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt ...
Dr. Paul Brown is Senior Research Scientist in the Laboratory of Central
Nervous System ... Address for correspondence: Paul Brown, Building 36, Room
4A-05, ...


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no1/brown.htm




PAUL BROWN COMMENT TO ME ON THIS ISSUE

Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:10 AM


"Actually, Terry, I have been critical of the USDA handling of the mad cow issue for some years,
and with Linda Detwiler and others sent lengthy detailed critiques and recommendations to both the
USDA and the Canadian Food Agency."


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0703&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=8125


Volume 12, Number 12–December 2006


PERSPECTIVE

On the Question of Sporadic

or Atypical Bovine SpongiformEncephalopathy and

Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

Paul Brown,* Lisa M. McShane,† Gianluigi Zanusso,‡ and Linda Detwiler§


A link between BSE and

sporadic CJD has been suggested on the basis of laboratory

studies but is unsupported by epidemiologic observation.

Such a link might yet be established by the discovery

of a specific molecular marker or of particular combinations

of trends over time of typical and atypical BSE and various

subtypes of sporadic CJD, as their numbers are influenced

by a continuation of current public health measures that

exclude high-risk bovine tissues from the animal and

human food chains.


SNIP...



Sporadic CJD
The possibility that at least some cases of apparently sporadic CJD might be due to infection by sporadic cases of BSE cannot be dismissed outright. Screening programs needed to identify sporadic BSE have yet to be implemented, and we know from already extant testing programs that at least a proportion of infected animals have no symptoms and thus would never be identified in the absence of systematic testing. Thus, sporadic BSE (or for that matter, sporadic disease in any mammalian species) might be occurring on a regular basis at perhaps the same annual frequency as sporadic CJD in humans, that is, in the range of 1 case per million animals.

Whether humans might be more susceptible to atypical forms of BSE cannot be answered at this time. Experimentally transmitted BASE shows shorter incubation periods than BSE in at least 1 breed of cattle, bovinized transgenic mice, and Cynomolgus monkeys (12,13). In humanized transgenic mice, BASE transmitted, whereas typical BSE did not transmit (13). Paradoxically, the other major phenotype (H) showed an unusually long incubation period in bovinized transgenic mice (12).

The limited experimental evidence bearing on a possible relationship between BSE and sporadic CJD is difficult to interpret. The original atypical BASE strain of BSE had a molecular protein signature very similar to that of 1 subtype (type 2 M/V) of sporadic CJD in humans (5). In another study, a strain of typical BSE injected into humanized mice encoding valine at codon 129 showed a glycopattern indistinguishable from the same subtype of sporadic CJD (15). In a third study, the glycopatterns of both the H and L strains of atypical BSE evidently did not resemble any of the known sporadic CJD subtypes (12).

To these molecular biology observations can be added the epidemiologic data accumulated during the past 30 years. The hypothesis that at least some cases of apparently sporadic CJD are due to unrecognized BSE infections cannot be formally refuted, but if correct, we might expect by now to have some epidemiologic evidence linking BSE to at least 1 cluster of apparently sporadic cases of CJD. Although only a few clusters have been found (and still fewer published), every proposed cluster that has been investigated has failed to show any common exposure to bovines. For that matter, no common exposure has been shown to any environmental vehicles of infection, including the consumption of foodstuffs from bovine, ovine, and porcine sources, the 3 livestock species known to be susceptible to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. Additional negative evidence comes from several large case-control studies in which no statistically significant dietary differences were observed between patients with sporadic CJD and controls (16,17).

On the other hand, the difficulty of establishing a link between BSE and CJD may be compounded by our ignorance of the infectious parameters of a sporadic form of BSE (e.g., host range, tissue distribution of infectivity, route of transmission, minimum infectious dose for humans, whether single or multiple). Presumably, these parameters would resemble those of variant CJD; that is, high infectivity central nervous system and lymphoreticular tissues of an infected cow find their way into products consumed by humans. Transmissions that might have occurred in the past would be difficult to detect because meat products are generally not distributed in a way that results in detectable geographic clusters.

Barring the discovery of a specific molecular signature (as in variant CJD), the most convincing clue to an association will come from the observation of trends over time of the incidence of typical and atypical BSE and of sporadic and variant CJD. With 4 diseases, each of which could have increasing, unchanging, or decreasing trends, there could be 81 (34) possible different combinations. However, it is highly likely that the trends for typical BSE and variant CJD will both decrease in parallel as feed bans continue to interrupt recycled contamination. The remaining combinations are thus reduced to 9 (32), and some of them could be highly informative.

For example, if the incidence of atypical BSE declines in parallel with that of typical BSE, its candidacy as a sporadic form of disease would be eliminated (because sporadic disease would not be influenced by current measures to prevent oral infection). If, on the other hand, atypical BSE continues to occur as typical BSE disappears, this would be a strong indication that it is indeed sporadic, and if in addition at least 1 form of what is presently considered as sporadic CJD (such as the type 2 M/V subtype shown to have a Western blot signature like BASE) were to increase, this would suggest (although not prove) a causal relationship (Figure 5).

Recognition of the different forms of BSE and CJD depends upon continuing systematic testing for both bovines and humans, but bovine testing will be vulnerable to heavy pressure from industry to dismantle the program as the commercial impact of declining BSE cases ceases to be an issue. Industry should be aware, however, of the implications of sporadic BSE. Its occurrence would necessitate the indefinite retention of all of the public health measures that exclude high-risk bovine tissues from the animal and human food chains, whereas its nonoccurrence would permit tissues that are now destroyed to be used as before, once orally acquired BSE has disappeared.


SNIP...



PLEASE READ FULL TEXT ;


http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no12/06-0965.htm?s_cid=eid06_0965_e


THE SEVEN SCIENTIST REPORT ***


http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/02n0273/02n-0273-EC244-Attach-1.pdf



full text ;

http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2006/08/bse-atypical-texas-and-alabama-update.html


Thursday, January 31, 2008

Evaluation of the Human Transmission Risk of an Atypical Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy Prion Strain

J. Virol. doi:10.1128/JVI.02561-07
Copyright (c) 2008, American Society for Microbiology and/or the Listed
Authors/Institutions.
All Rights Reserved.



Thursday, January 31, 2008
Evaluation of the Human Transmission Risk of an Atypical Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy Prion Strain
J. Virol. doi:10.1128/JVI.02561-07
Copyright (c) 2008, American Society for Microbiology and/or the Listed
Authors/Institutions. All Rights Reserved.

Evaluation of the Human Transmission Risk of an Atypical Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy Prion Strain

Qingzhong Kong*, Mengjie Zheng, Cristina Casalone, Liuting Qing, Shenghai
Huang, Bikram Chakraborty, Ping Wang, Fusong Chen, Ignazio Cali, Cristiano
Corona, Francesca Martucci, Barbara Iulini, Pierluigi Acutis, Lan Wang,
Jingjing Liang, Meiling Wang, Xinyi Li, Salvatore Monaco, Gianluigi Zanusso,
Wen-Quan Zou, Maria Caramelli, and Pierluigi Gambetti*
Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
44106, USA; CEA, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale, 10154 Torino, Italy;
Department of Neurological and Visual Sciences, University of Verona, 37134
Verona, Italy



* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected].
[email protected].


Abstract


Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the prion disease in cattle, was
widely believed to have only one strain (BSE-C). BSE-C causes the fatal
prion disease named new variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in humans. Two
atypical BSE strains, BASE (or BSE-L) and BSE-H, have been discovered in
several countries since 2004; their transmissibility and phenotypes in
humans are unknown. We investigated the infectivity and human phenotype of
BASE by inoculating transgenic (Tg) mice expressing the human prion protein
with brain homogenates from two BASE-affected cattle. Sixty percent of the
inoculated Tg mice became infected after 20-22 months incubation, a
transmission rate higher than those reported for BSE-C. A quarter of
BASE-infected Tg mice, but none of the Tg mice infected with a sporadic
human prion disease, showed presence of pathogenic prion protein isoforms in
the spleen, indicating that the BASE prion is intrinsically lymphotropic.
The pathological prion protein isoforms in BASE-infected humanized Tg mouse
brains are different from those of the original cattle BASE or sporadic
human prion disease. Minimal brain spongiosis and long incubation time are
observed in the BASE-infected Tg mice. These results suggest that, in
humans, BASE is a more virulent BSE strain and likely lymphotropic.


http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/JVI.02561-07v1?papetoc



for those interested, further into this study, it gets very interesting ;

http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/evaluation-of-human-transmission-risk.html



PLEASE SEE !


P02.35 Molecular Features of the Protease-resistant Prion Protein (PrPres) in H- type BSE

Biacabe, A-G1; Jacobs, JG2; Gavier-Widén, D3; Vulin, J1; Langeveld, JPM2; Baron, TGM1 1AFSSA, France; 2CIDC-Lelystad, Netherlands; 3SVA, Sweden

Western blot analyses of PrPres accumulating in the brain of BSE- infected cattle have demonstrated 3 different molecular phenotypes regarding to the apparent molecular masses and glycoform ratios of PrPres bands. We initially described isolates (H-type BSE) essentially characterized by higher PrPres molecular mass and decreased levels of the diglycosylated PrPres band, in contrast to the classical type of BSE. This type is also distinct from another BSE phenotype named L-type BSE, or also BASE (for Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy), mainly characterized by a low representation of the diglycosylated PrPres band as well as a lower PrPres molecular mass. Retrospective molecular studies in France of all available BSE cases older than 8 years old and of part of the other cases identified since the beginning of the exhaustive surveillance of the disease in 20001 allowed to identify 7 H- type BSE cases, among 594 BSE cases that could be classified as classical, L- or H-type BSE. By Western blot analysis of H-type PrPres, we described a remarkable specific feature with antibodies raised against the C-terminal region of PrP that demonstrated the existence of a more C-terminal cleaved form of PrPres (named PrPres#2 ), in addition to the usual PrPres form (PrPres #1). In the unglycosylated form, PrPres #2 migrates at about 14 kDa, compared to 20 kDa for PrPres #1. The proportion of the PrPres#2 in cattle seems to by higher compared to the PrPres#1. Furthermore another PK–resistant fragment at about 7 kDa was detected by some more N-terminal antibodies and presumed to be the result of cleavages of both N- and C- terminal parts of PrP. These singular features were maintained after transmission of the disease to C57Bl/6 mice. The identification of these two additional PrPres fragments (PrPres #2 and 7kDa band)
*** reminds features reported respectively in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and in Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker (GSS) syndrome in humans.


FC5.5.1 BASE Transmitted to Primates and MV2 sCJD Subtype Share PrP27-30 and PrPSc C-terminal Truncated Fragments


Zanusso, G1; Commoy, E2; Fasoli, E3; Fiorini, M3; Lescoutra, N4; Ruchoux, MM4; Casalone, C5; Caramelli, M5; Ferrari, S3; Lasmezas, C6; Deslys, J-P4; Monaco, S3 1University of Verona, of Neurological and Visual Sciences, Italy; 2CEA, IMETI/SEPIA, France; 3University of Verona, Neurological and Visual Sciences, Italy; 4IMETI/SEPIA, France; 5IZSPLVA, Italy; 6The Scripps Research Insitute, USA

The etiology of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD), the most frequent human prion disease, remains still unknown. The marked disease phenotype heterogeneity observed in sCJD is thought to be influenced by the type of proteinase K- resistant prion protein, or PrPSc (type 1 or type 2 according to the electrophoretic mobility of the unglycosylated backbone), and by the host polymorphic Methionine/Valine (M/V) codon 129 of the PRNP. By using a two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) and imunoblotting we previously showed that in sCJD, in addition to the PrPSc type, distinct PrPSc C-terminal truncated fragments (CTFs) correlated with different sCJD subtypes. Based on the combination of CTFs and PrPSc type, we distinguished three PrPSc patterns: (i) the first was observed in sCJD with PrPSc type 1 of all genotypes,;

(ii) the second was found in M/M-2 (cortical form); (iii) the third in amyloidogenic M/V- 2 and V/V-2 subtypes (Zanusso et al., JBC 2004) . Recently, we showed that sCJD subtype M/V-2 shared molecular and pathological features with an atypical form of BSE, named BASE, thus suggesting a potential link between the two conditions. This connection was further confirmed after 2D-PAGE analysis, which showed an identical PrPSc signature, including the biochemical pattern of CTFs. To pursue this issue, we obtained brain homogenates from Cynomolgus macaques intracerebrally inoculated with brain homogenates from BASE. Samples were separated by using a twodimensional electrophoresis (2D-PAGE) followed by immunoblotting. We here show that the PrPSc pattern obtained in infected primates is identical to BASE and sCJD MV-2 subtype.
*** These data strongly support the link, or at least a common ancestry, between a sCJD subtype and BASE.

This work was supported by Neuroprion (FOOD-CT-2004-506579)

************************************************** *****

USA MAD COW CASES IN ALABAMA AND TEXAS

***PLEASE NOTE***

USA BASE CASE, (ATYPICAL BSE), AND OR TSE (whatever they are calling it today), please note that both the ALABAMA COW, AND THE TEXAS COW,both were ''H-TYPE'', personal communication Detwiler et al Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:52 PM. ...TSS

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=19779


************************************************** *****

FC5.5.2 Transmission of Italian BSE and BASE Isolates in Cattle Results into a Typical BSE Phenotype and a Muscle Wasting Disease

Zanusso, G1; Lombardi, G2; Casalone, C3; D'Angelo, A4; Gelmetti, D2; Torcoli, G2; Barbieri, I2; Corona, C3; Fasoli, E1; Farinazzo, A1; Fiorini, M1; Gelati, M1; Iulini, B3; Tagliavini, F5; Ferrari, S1; Monaco, S1; Caramelli, M3; Capucci, L2 1University of Verona, Neurological and Visual Sciences, Italy; 2IZSLER, Italy; 3IZSPLVA, Italy; 4University of Turin, Animal Pathology, Italy; 5Isituto Carlo Besta, Italy

The clinical phenotype of bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been extensively reported in early accounts of the disorder. Following the introduction of statutory active surveillance, almost all BSE cases have been diagnosed on a pathological/molecular basis, in a pre-symptomatic clinical stage. In recent years, the active surveillance system has uncovered atypical BSE cases, which are characterized by distinct conformers of the PrPSc, named high-type (BSE-H) and low-type (BSE-L), whose clinicopathological phenotypes remain unknown. We recently reported two Italian atypical cases with a PrPSc type similar to BSE-L, pathologically characterized by PrP amyloid plaques. Experimental transmission to TgBov mice has recently disclosed that BASE is caused by a distinct prion strain which is extremely virulent. A major limitation of transmission studies to mice is the lack of reliable information on clinical phenotype of BASE in its natural host. In the present study, we experimentally infected Fresian/Holstein and Alpine/Brown cattle with Italian BSE and BASE isolates by i.c. route. BASE infected cattle showed survival times significantly shorter than BSE, a finding more readily evident in Fresian/Holstein, and in keeping with previous observations in TgBov mice. Clinically, BSE-infected cattle developed a disease phenotype highly comparable with that described in field BSE cases and in experimentally challenged cattle. On the contrary, BASE-inoculated cattle developed an amyotrophic disorder accompanied by mental dullness. The molecular and neuropathological profiles, including PrP deposition pattern, closely matched those observed in the original cases. This study further confirms that BASE is caused by a distinct prion isolate and discloses a novel disease phenotype in cattle, closely resembling the phenotype previous reported in scrapie-inoculated cattle
*** and in some subtypes of inherited and sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

Oral Abstracts 14



snip...



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 v CJD 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


Subject: Aspects of the Cerebellar Neuropathology in Nor98

Date: September 26, 2007 at 4:06 pm PST

P03.141

Aspects of the Cerebellar Neuropathology in Nor98

Gavier-Widén, D1; Benestad, SL2; Ottander, L1; Westergren, E1 1National Veterinary Insitute, Sweden; 2National Veterinary Institute, Norway

Nor98 is a prion disease of old sheep and goats. This atypical form of scrapie was first described in Norway in 1998. Several features of Nor98 were shown to be different from classical scrapie including the distribution of disease associated prion protein (PrPd) accumulation in the brain. The cerebellum is generally the most affected brain area in Nor98. The study here presented aimed at adding information on the neuropathology in the cerebellum of Nor98 naturally affected sheep of various genotypes in Sweden and Norway. A panel of histochemical and immunohistochemical (IHC) stainings such as IHC for PrPd, synaptophysin, glial fibrillary acidic protein, amyloid, and cell markers for phagocytic cells were conducted. The type of histological lesions and tissue reactions were evaluated. The types of PrPd deposition were characterized. The cerebellar cortex was regularly affected, even though there was a variation in the severity of the lesions from case to case. Neuropil vacuolation was more marked in the molecular layer, but affected also the granular cell layer. There was a loss of granule cells. Punctate deposition of PrPd was characteristic. It was morphologically and in distribution identical with that of synaptophysin, suggesting that PrPd accumulates in the synaptic structures. PrPd was also observed in the granule cell layer and in the white matter.
*** The pathology features of Nor98 in the cerebellum of the affected sheep showed similarities with those of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.

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


SEE FULL TEXT ;

Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease Delaware UPDATE

http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/creutzfeldt-jakob-disease-delaware.html


Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease Texas

http://cjdtexas.blogspot.com/


USDA CERTIFIED H-BASE MAD COW SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM


http://cjdmadcowbaseoct2007.blogspot.com/2008/02/usda-certified-h-base-mad-cow-school.html



TSS
 
Keep on cherry picking parts of post and articles and you will never understand the post re-read and re-read the ENTIRE post. :roll: I served it up on a plate and you still don't get it :o My point was that you hear something and don't get the full story and can't remember what you have said in the past. There are 10 cases of BSE in Canada and you freak out about it for a week with every new one then can't remember a thing about it when all you have to do is to go to the CFIA website and check facts. Is that soooo hard? :oops:
Check the CFIA web site - ALL cases born on or after 2001 were in fact holsteins or holstein crosses AKA dairy cattle. Check the CFIA website you will see this is what they reported. You cannot agure the facts or are you saying the CFIA is lying again :roll: If you look at dairy calves they are fed completely differntly than beef calves. that makes total sense why the cases born on or after 01 are dairy cattle. do i have to explain it again . It also makes sense the 2k bull could have gotten dairy ration as a baby because he was off a first calf heifer. Maybe try drawing a conclusion that is LOGICAL for once.
I found it entertaining how you add or subtract details or change dates depending on what suit you. If they were honest misatake you would admit it but you veimately defend what you do so that tells people that you do intentionally.
As for my point about the average age of cull cattle, do you get it - look at the date the number of animals found are near or at the end of their productive life and the life cycle of a producing cow will evenually eliminate BSE in conjunction with our feed ban. Why do you think the USCA wants 2003 as the cut off, they are thinking. They know this is true as well.
I was going to use a can of calf claim at a neighbors this morning after helping him pull a calf and the mother didn't want it. But after reading the labed ingredients didn't think it worth the risk as it listed blood and bone meal the manufatured date was 04 and expiry was 09 in Austin texas. So that tells me it is still Ok to use MBM from cows to feed to cows SRMs in the US :shock: from a state which has BASE :shock: I thought you guys had a decent feed ban. And you are complaining about canadian OTM cattle bringing in BSE. Make sure your grass is cut before telling your neighbor his lawn needs cutting. This is complete hypocracy. People in your country know you have BASE and still think it is OK to feed cows to cows. OMG maybe that is a little more important than bringing in mininal risk cattle. Maybe you and r-calf need to get things staightened out in your so-called feed ban before belittleing a more stingent system.
I am sure you are going to make a personal attack on me or the canadian system but it comes down to the the USDA is a government department , a government that you help elect, if you want change you can do it, but you don't seem to want to you would rather complain than be active and iniciate change from within the system . So keep on complaining rather than doing something real, make lawyers rich and the r-calf executive well traveled on the backs of cattlemen.
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
One thing you're overlooking with your "err on the side of caution" hypothesis; If they always err on the side of caution, they would of erred the same for both countries. Thus the margin would remain the same.

C'mon Sandhusker, the CDC is a government agency, governed by the same politics as the USDA. Of course they're going to say the US's prevalence is lower. Besides, like I said before, they were working off old numbers and I haven't seen them re-release anything since what, 2003? 2004? Our testing numbers are radically different now than they were then.

Sorry man, the CDC doesn't wash any cleaner than the USDA or any other government agency.

Rod

I've never seen the CDC recommend lowering standards just to accomodate trade. I've also not forgotten the USDA's inability to define what "low" was and their claim your feed ban was effective even though multiple post-ban cases were showing up. The feed ban being effective and the low chances were the foundation of their arguements, and they completely blew both of them. How can you say they are more credible than anybody when they made statements like that? What has the CDC ever done to show themselves half as foolish?
 
QUESTION said:
Keep on cherry picking parts of post and articles and you will never understand the post re-read and re-read the ENTIRE post. :roll: I served it up on a plate and you still don't get it :o My point was that you hear something and don't get the full story and can't remember what you have said in the past. There are 10 cases of BSE in Canada and you freak out about it for a week with every new one then can't remember a thing about it when all you have to do is to go to the CFIA website and check facts. Is that soooo hard? :oops:
Check the CFIA web site - ALL cases born on or after 2001 were in fact holsteins or holstein crosses AKA dairy cattle. Check the CFIA website you will see this is what they reported. You cannot agure the facts or are you saying the CFIA is lying again :roll: If you look at dairy calves they are fed completely differntly than beef calves. that makes total sense why the cases born on or after 01 are dairy cattle. do i have to explain it again . It also makes sense the 2k bull could have gotten dairy ration as a baby because he was off a first calf heifer. Maybe try drawing a conclusion that is LOGICAL for once.
I found it entertaining how you add or subtract details or change dates depending on what suit you. If they were honest misatake you would admit it but you veimately defend what you do so that tells people that you do intentionally.
As for my point about the average age of cull cattle, do you get it - look at the date the number of animals found are near or at the end of their productive life and the life cycle of a producing cow will evenually eliminate BSE in conjunction with our feed ban. Why do you think the USCA wants 2003 as the cut off, they are thinking. They know this is true as well.
I was going to use a can of calf claim at a neighbors this morning after helping him pull a calf and the mother didn't want it. But after reading the labed ingredients didn't think it worth the risk as it listed blood and bone meal the manufatured date was 04 and expiry was 09 in Austin texas. So that tells me it is still Ok to use MBM from cows to feed to cows SRMs in the US :shock: from a state which has BASE :shock: I thought you guys had a decent feed ban. And you are complaining about canadian OTM cattle bringing in BSE. Make sure your grass is cut before telling your neighbor his lawn needs cutting. This is complete hypocracy. People in your country know you have BASE and still think it is OK to feed cows to cows. OMG maybe that is a little more important than bringing in mininal risk cattle. Maybe you and r-calf need to get things staightened out in your so-called feed ban before belittleing a more stingent system.
I am sure you are going to make a personal attack on me or the canadian system but it comes down to the the USDA is a government department , a government that you help elect, if you want change you can do it, but you don't seem to want to you would rather complain than be active and iniciate change from within the system . So keep on complaining rather than doing something real, make lawyers rich and the r-calf executive well traveled on the backs of cattlemen.

FACT: You have had beef cow BSE cases. Obviously, they were fed the BSE carrying agents you claim that only dairy is fed. You tell me what changed where they were fed that then, but not now?

You had the same feed ban a year ago that you had for half of your cases. It was changed because it wasn't working. If it was working in 2006, it wouldn't of been changed in 2007. You tell me why a calf born in 2006 or before - under the same feed ban that allowed the others to contract the disease - will be BSE free.

We know our feed ban isn't good enough. Jeeeze, Q, we've pointed it out time and time again. That's why we're afraid of importing BSE, because it will spread because of our feed ban! We've got the same one that you had - that was proven inadequate!

You need to pay attention to what R-CALF has said about your new ban and our ban. Bullard is on record as applauding yours, and he's also on record calling to close our loopholes. You have a history of not knowing what R-CALF has said or done - and then making silly arguements and accusations based on your lack of knowledge.

What makes you think that I'm not doing what I can through the electoriat process. Ask Chuck Hagel what I told him. :lol:
 
:shock: Change the subject again :roll: Still cherry picking!!! LOOK at the dates after 2001 how many beef animals!!! Is the anyone who can speak r-crap i need a translator so this guy can understand what i am saying. By the way SH way to go i though M-COOL was in the 04 farm bill and you said coming in 08 now it is 09 at the earliest says your government :oops: :oops: :P :P :roll: :roll: :lol2: :lol2:
Is M-COOL ever going to be a reality? Why the delay? Just something else for Sh to lament :P :P :oops: :oops:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top