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

Warning- Not for Tam and Maxine!!

A

Anonymous

Guest
Another Canadian human "MAD COW" story that has to be helping consumer demand- that Tam and Maxine don't want to know about :roll: :( :mad:

--------------------------------------------------

Human version of mad cow hits Manitoba

Three cases suspected from same area in province




The Canadian Press

The Edmonton Journal

Published: Friday, December 08, 2006



BRANDON, Man. - Three people in Manitoba, including prominent provincial curler Neil Andrews, are suspected of being infected with a degenerative and fatal brain disease, health officials confirmed Thursday.



Doctors from the Brandon Health Region said they have referred three suspected cases of Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, or CJD, for further testing.



CJD infects about one person in every million.



Dr. Charles Penner, vice-president of medical services for the Brandon Regional Health Authority, doesn't believe the cases are linked, although a cluster of cases is even rarer than the disease.



"For the province to have three cases in one corner of the province, I suppose that would be unusual," he said.



Andrews, a two-time senior provincial men's curling champion, was actually diagnosed with a suspected case of CJD in September. Andrews, 58, noticed something was wrong when he had trouble keeping his balance during his curling delivery.



After a weeklong stay at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., doctors told him he likely had CJD.



"(The curlers) knew I couldn't curl and some of them thought that before," he said, laughing, while at a curling club in Brandon in October. "And almost every guy took the time and stopped and talked to me and talked to me openly about the disease and that was good.



"They tried to understand. I'm one of the unfortunate ones who's going to die but they considered themselves lucky."



Typically, one in three suspected cases turns out to be classical CJD, which can lead to rapid brain deterioration, dementia and mobility trouble.



Unlike variant CJD, which has been linked to beef contaminated by mad cow disease, classical CJD cases most often appear sporadically and affect people between 45 and 75. A total of 14 confirmed cases has been reported in Manitoba in the last decade.



Doctors use MRI scans and spinal taps to test for the presence of an abnormal protein to help diagnose a suspected case. But physicians can't confirm anything until an autopsy on brain tissue is performed.



Most people infected with CJD die within a year of the onset of symptoms.



Dr. Michael Coulthard, director of host genetics and prion disease at the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg, said the results of the suspected case are still pending. He said there has only been one cluster of cases reported worldwide -- in Switzerland -- in the last five years.





canada.com
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
If this is not reason enough to "FAST TRACK MCOOL" what is ? I dont wish any bad luck on anyone, but it's obvious there are some serious health concerns in Canada..............good luck
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Looks to me like there is a lot of people in Canada concerned about the human form of "mad cow"-- or at least a lot of the press that are worried about it...

Might be a good reason for Canada to go to "BSE testing all" that is slaughtered...Definitely looks like consumer/press worries-- and the press loves to play to the public......Just imagine what the articles will be when the first native born Canadian origin vCJD case shows up :???:
 

Sandy

Well-known member
Most culers have trouble with their balance but it's usually from spending to much time at the bar before the game.
 

fedup2

Well-known member
I hope some consumers start reading & learning the difference between these things. Last night I was reading in one room while my wife was listening to a talk show host in another. I don’t know which show it was. (not Leno) The idiot was making fun of the e-coli problem at Taco Johns. (which I believe they connected to the green onions).
The guy made the remark, “Can’t you see all these people standing around T J’s shaking their heads and going Moooooooooo! :shock:

Why does anyone think it would be better if these idiots stayed uninformed? :???: :roll: :roll:
 

elwapo

Well-known member
What about the cluster at the race track in new york........ oh right...... swept under the rug.
OT and haymaker, you should look in the mirror while you sing that duet.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
elwapo said:
What about the cluster at the race track in new york........ oh right...... swept under the rug.
OT and haymaker, you should look in the mirror while you sing that duet.

elwapo, these things should not be swept under the rug. They should be dealt with in an intelligent manner. When people want to sweep it under the rug, the intelligence leaves the equation.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Quote (from the article)-
Unlike variant CJD, which has been linked to beef contaminated by mad cow disease, classical CJD cases most often appear sporadically and affect people between 45 and 75. A total of 14 confirmed cases has been reported in Manitoba in the last decade.


Pay attention Oldtimer, and re-read your post.
There is not even a "suspected" link between "classic" CJD and beef consumption. The article is very clear on this.
The theoretical "link" between "variant" CJD and beef is circumstantial, at best.
You do know what "circumstantial" means don't you Sheriff Dick??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TimH said:
Quote (from the article)-
Unlike variant CJD, which has been linked to beef contaminated by mad cow disease, classical CJD cases most often appear sporadically and affect people between 45 and 75. A total of 14 confirmed cases has been reported in Manitoba in the last decade.


Pay attention Oldtimer, and re-read your post.
There is not even a "suspected" link between "classic" CJD and beef consumption. The article is very clear on this.
The theoretical "link" between "variant" CJD and beef is circumstantial, at best.
You do know what "circumstantial" means don't you Sheriff Dick??

Timmy-- Did I say anything about them getting it from beef? EH

But did you read the headline that your Edmonton newspaper put it under:

Human version of mad cow hits Manitoba

Three cases suspected from same area in province


It appears to me that either you have some journalists that are hyping things to sell newspapers- that I thought maybe Canadian cattlemen would be interested in trying to do something about :? (You can thank me later for bringing this to your attention- since I know you are not one that would want to remain ignorant :wink: :lol:)
Or you have some awful nervous folks in Canada that are just waiting for it to be tied together...Either way it doesn't look like it could be helping demand...

Did you also read this section:

Unlike variant CJD, which has been linked to beef contaminated by mad cow disease, classical CJD cases most often appear sporadically and affect people between 45 and 75. A total of 14 confirmed cases has been reported in Manitoba in the last decade.



Doctors use MRI scans and spinal taps to test for the presence of an abnormal protein to help diagnose a suspected case. But physicians can't confirm anything until an autopsy on brain tissue is performed.

From this it appears they won't be able to confirm sCJD or vCJD until after death and thru a postmortem exam....And from everything I see now in all writings, its pretty much accepted science that BSE is tied to/causes vCJD-- and there are some studies that now are showing a connection between BSE and sCJD...

Remember Tiny Timmy-- Sheriff Dick has seen lots of folks go to the electric chair or been hung from just "circumstantial evidence" :wink: :lol: :lol:
 

TimH

Well-known member
Oldtimer wrote-
Remember Tiny Timmy-- Sheriff Dick has seen lots of folks go to the electric chair or been hung from just "circumstantial evidence"

I honestly hope you were merely joking on this one OT. I have seen people serving a life sentence be released from prison after many years because the "circumstantial" evidence that convicted them was later proven wrong by modern science.
I guess it sucks to be any of the possibly innocent people that your circumstantial evidence executed.
Please tell me you were just being a [email protected] , Sheriff (and partime Judge ) Dick. :shock:

Oh ya..... and Thanks for bringing this media hype to my attention. Next thing you know they will be taking out misleading full-page ads in The Washington Post.........or something retarded like that......Oh, wait a minute..... R-Calf USA already did that, didn't they???? Are you still sending them money Dick??? :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tim- Most evidence in a murder is circumstantial evidence-- fingerprints, hair samples, DNA, blood analysis, phone records, handwriting samples, possession of stolen property, bullet/gun or blade/wound analysis, etc. etc....You less often get "direct evidence" such as a witness or confession-- and its even argumentative as to whether some eyewitnesses are direct evidence--- as even if they saw the gun shot- but did they see the bullet actually leave the gun- travel to and strike and enter the victim? NO- unless you have ~SH~'s powers :wink: :lol:

Everything against OJ was circumstantial evidence.....

Defense Attorneys and TV shows like Perry Mason just made it popular to believe someone wasn't quilty because it was only "circumstantial evidence"-- where actually circumstantial evidence can/and often is very strong evidence....More folks are convicted in a trial on circumstantial evidence than anything else...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TimH said:
R-Calf USA already did that, didn't they???? Are you still sending them money Dick??? :)

Actually I don't think I have to-- your Canadian journalists are doing a better job for me on showing how Canadian imports are affecting demand...I've just been sending copies of these articles to my Senators and Congressman- to fast track COOL- and if USDA doesn't close the feedban loopholes, to again go over them and throw out the Final Rule on OTM's.....
 

TimH

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tim- Most evidence in a murder is circumstantial evidence-- fingerprints, hair samples, DNA, blood analysis, phone records, handwriting samples, possession of stolen property, etc. etc....You less often get "direct evidence" such as a witness or confession-- and its even argumentative as to whether some eyewitnesses are direct evidence--- as even if they saw the gun shot- but did they see the bullet actually leave the gun- travel to and strike and enter the victim? NO- unless you have ~SH~'s powers :wink: :lol:

Everything against OJ was circumstantial evidence.....

Defense Attorneys and TV shows like Perry Mason just made it popular to believe someone wasn't quilty because it was only "circumstantial evidence"-- where actually circumstantial evidence can/and often is very strong evidence....More folks are convicted in a trial on circumstantial evidence than anything else...

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Did you just say that DNA, fingerprint and blood evidence is "circumstantial"???? And then go on to imply that "eyewitness testimony" is considered more reliable???? :shock: :shock: :shock:
I'm sure glad I don't live in your jursdiction, Dick!!! :shock: :shock: WOW!!! :shock: :shock:

Have you sent any money to an organization(R-Calf) that tries to capitalize on media hype over BSE fears(IE full page ads in the Washington Post) lately??? :D :D :D
 

Econ101

Well-known member
On the OJ trial,

When the detective took OJ's blood sample from him prior to documenting the blood samples from the crime scene I knew they made a totally amateur move. The LAPD was totally incompetent in their handling of the evidence. OJ walked because of it and the lack of credibility the LAPD had with the people.

I remember when the detective put OJ's sample in his pocket prior to the crime scene's blood documentation. It was the crux of the defense for OJ.

Even real evidence has to be handled properly for it to be credible.

With respect to Agman, the same holds true.
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
OT- Dont get too carried away pointing the finger at Canadian beef causing this problem. I dont live far from Brandon and I know that alot of beef that is sold in the city is from the US. There is a retailer in the city that is well known for selling US beef at "value" prices. Could these people have contracted this so called" human form of Mad cow disease" from the beef they ate?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TimH said:
Oldtimer said:
Tim- Most evidence in a murder is circumstantial evidence-- fingerprints, hair samples, DNA, blood analysis, phone records, handwriting samples, possession of stolen property, etc. etc....You less often get "direct evidence" such as a witness or confession-- and its even argumentative as to whether some eyewitnesses are direct evidence--- as even if they saw the gun shot- but did they see the bullet actually leave the gun- travel to and strike and enter the victim? NO- unless you have ~SH~'s powers :wink: :lol:

Everything against OJ was circumstantial evidence.....

Defense Attorneys and TV shows like Perry Mason just made it popular to believe someone wasn't quilty because it was only "circumstantial evidence"-- where actually circumstantial evidence can/and often is very strong evidence....More folks are convicted in a trial on circumstantial evidence than anything else...

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Did you just say that DNA, fingerprint and blood evidence is "circumstantial"???? And then go on to imply that "eyewitness testimony" is considered more reliable???? :shock: :shock: :shock:
I'm sure glad I don't live in your jursdiction, Dick!!! :shock: :shock: WOW!!! :shock: :shock:

Have you sent any money to an organization(R-Calf) that tries to capitalize on media hype over BSE fears(IE full page ads in the Washington Post) lately??? :D :D :D

A good definition of "circumstantial evidence":

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
TimH said:
Oldtimer said:
Tim- Most evidence in a murder is circumstantial evidence-- fingerprints, hair samples, DNA, blood analysis, phone records, handwriting samples, possession of stolen property, etc. etc....You less often get "direct evidence" such as a witness or confession-- and its even argumentative as to whether some eyewitnesses are direct evidence--- as even if they saw the gun shot- but did they see the bullet actually leave the gun- travel to and strike and enter the victim? NO- unless you have ~SH~'s powers :wink: :lol:

Everything against OJ was circumstantial evidence.....

Defense Attorneys and TV shows like Perry Mason just made it popular to believe someone wasn't quilty because it was only "circumstantial evidence"-- where actually circumstantial evidence can/and often is very strong evidence....More folks are convicted in a trial on circumstantial evidence than anything else...

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Did you just say that DNA, fingerprint and blood evidence is "circumstantial"???? And then go on to imply that "eyewitness testimony" is considered more reliable???? :shock: :shock: :shock:
I'm sure glad I don't live in your jursdiction, Dick!!! :shock: :shock: WOW!!! :shock: :shock:

Have you sent any money to an organization(R-Calf) that tries to capitalize on media hype over BSE fears(IE full page ads in the Washington Post) lately??? :D :D :D

A good definition of "circumstantial evidence":

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.

I've taken the liberty of BOLDING the operative words.

Yep........ Pretty good definition of "circumstantial" evidence there, Dick. Thanks for proving my point. :D :D
You can understand what you read, can't you??? :D :D

Sent any money to an org. that spreads misinformation about BSE lately??? :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TimH said:
Oldtimer said:
TimH said:
:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Did you just say that DNA, fingerprint and blood evidence is "circumstantial"???? And then go on to imply that "eyewitness testimony" is considered more reliable???? :shock: :shock: :shock:
I'm sure glad I don't live in your jursdiction, Dick!!! :shock: :shock: WOW!!! :shock: :shock:

Have you sent any money to an organization(R-Calf) that tries to capitalize on media hype over BSE fears(IE full page ads in the Washington Post) lately??? :D :D :D

A good definition of "circumstantial evidence":

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.

The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.

I've taken the liberty of BOLDING the operative words.

Yep........ Pretty good definition of "circumstantial" evidence there, Dick. Thanks for proving my point. :D :D
You can understand what you read, can't you??? :D :D

Sent any money to an org. that spreads misinformation about BSE lately??? :D

Yep- you would have fit in perfectly in OJ's liberal California jury :roll:

The only thing I know that is absolute is death and taxes......
 

TimH

Well-known member
Oldtimer wrote-
Yep- you would have fit in perfectly in OJ's liberal California jury

The only thing I know that is absolute is death and taxes......

:D :D :D :D :D

Oldtimer, you should have left everything after "the only thing I know" blank. :D :D
Did you help pay for any BSE fear mongering ads in the national media,lately?? :D :D :D :D :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TimH said:
Oldtimer wrote-
Yep- you would have fit in perfectly in OJ's liberal California jury

The only thing I know that is absolute is death and taxes......

:D :D :D :D :D

Oldtimer, you should have left everything after "the only thing I know" blank. :D :D
Did you help pay for any BSE fear mongering ads in the national media,lately?? :D :D :D :D :D

I guess you missed my answer earlier in the thread on the other page- so here it is again for you.....

Actually I don't think I have to-- your Canadian journalists are doing a better job for me on showing how Canadian imports are affecting demand...I've just been sending copies of these articles to my Senators and Congressman- to fast track COOL- and if USDA doesn't close the feedban loopholes, to again go over them and throw out the Final Rule on OTM's.....
 
Top