Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
How many cows have you tested for BSE?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="flounder" data-source="post: 219323" data-attributes="member: 3519"><p>SEC WROTE;</p><p></p><p></p><p>I get lost reading the dribble. I believe there is good info inside of it, it's to hard to stare and read that much. </p><p></p><p>What does the summary say?</p><p>=======================</p><p></p><p>summary = Deja Vu</p><p></p><p></p><p>NOW, sec might ask, 'terry, what do you mean Deja VU?</p><p></p><p></p><p>so, i must try and summarize with more data :shock: </p><p></p><p></p><p>i'll keep it as short as possible here folllks, we been lied to. it started long ago, the USDA tried to perfect, but shot both feet as we have seen with the infamous 'june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up in the USA', all documented here several times, so i will not waste space for that, only the very blind and very very dumb could not see that, but here is where this nightmare began. USDA tried to keep it at the ukbsenvcjd only, but the many different strains of TSE in many species caught up with them. now, USA holds the title of the country with the 'most documented TSE', all of which were rendered and fed back to humans and animals for human consumption.........</p><p></p><p>now, don't you wish you didn't ask........</p><p></p><p>i wish i never heard of the cr@p...........but i am vested, for life...TSS</p><p></p><p></p><p>NOW, for the dribble of it;</p><p></p><p></p><p>IN CONFIDENCE ;</p><p></p><p></p><p>.42 On 15 May Mr Bradley sent a minute to Dr Watson, Dr Shreeve, Dr Roberts, Mr Wells and Mr Mike Dawson noting that, 'by agreement with the Director', the proposed Vision article would now be circulated as a separate Directive to VICs in England and Wales only.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/05/15001001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 001001.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>IN CONFIDENCE</p><p></p><p></p><p>It has been agreed that a joint/co-ordinated CVL-VIS publication will be produced in due course. Meanwhile, because of the nature of the disorder, its political implications and possible effects on exports it is essential that VIS staff must not, at this stage, discuss it with or consult workers at Research Institutes and University Departments. Furthermore, any statements for publication or discussions at meetings must be cleared by the respective Directors of the Services.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/05/22002001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 002001.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>2.44 On 27 May Dr Peter Dawson succeeded Dr Williams as the ACVO and Head of the VI Service, and Dr Richard Cawthorne succeeded Dr Peter Dawson as Head of the Veterinary Investigation Section (VI Section) at Tolworth.</p><p></p><p>2.45 The final version of Mr Wells's article, entitled 'A Novel Bovine Neurological Disorder?', was eventually circulated on 8 June 1987 to Superintending Veterinary Investigation Officers in England and Wales. The document was headed 'urgent' and 'in confidence'. It described the nature, symptoms and pathology of the new disease and gave instructions for the submission of pathological material to the CVL. It included the following directions:</p><p></p><p>Similar clinical cases are of interest to VI Section, Tolworth, and the Pathology and Virology Departments at CVL. Such cases must be notified initially only to SVO(HQ), VI Section, Tolworth and Neuropathology Section, Pathology Department, CVO. At this stage VI staff should not consult workers at Research Institutes or University Departments . . . </p><p>A co-ordinated VIS/CVL publication on this subject is proposed. All statements for publication, or discussion at meetings MUST BE CLEARED by respective Directors of Services.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/06/08001001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 001001.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is essential not to refer to the condition as bovine scrapie. While the clinical and pathological changes may provide evidence of its similarity to diseases caused by unconventional infectious agents such as scrapie in sheep, it is important to emphasise that the aetiological basis of BSE remains unknown and no connection with encephalopathies in other species, including scrapie in sheep, has been established.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/10/27003001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 003001.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>. . . the fact that it so far appears to be a uniquely British disorder could prejudice our cattle exports if it is publicised in inaccurate or exaggerated terms. It would be particularly misleading if it were to be described as 'scrapie in cattle'. Scrapie is a disease of sheep, the existence of which in British flocks is an impediment to our export trade, but although it is also an encephalopathy there is no evidence that BSE is attributable to the same cause as scrapie and it is important to distinguish between the two conditions . . .</p><p>A point to emphasise, if you are pressed on numbers of cases, is that while it may be suspected in over 100 herds and distributed over a wide area, it has been confirmed in only 25 animals, out of a total UK cattle population of just over 12.5 million. Moreover, cases tend to be in individual animals rather than whole herds being affected. There is no evidence that it is transmissible to humans or that the meat or milk from animals with BSE are affected.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/10/30001001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 001001.pdf</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>12/10/76</p><p>AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL</p><p>REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTE ON SCRAPIE</p><p>Office Note</p><p>CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR PETER WILDY </p><p></p><p>snip... </p><p></p><p>A The Present Position with respect to Scrapie</p><p>A] The Problem </p><p></p><p>Scrapie is a natural disease of sheep and goats. It is a slow</p><p>and inexorably progressive degenerative disorder of the nervous system</p><p>and it ia fatal. It is enzootic in the United Kingdom but not in all</p><p>countries. </p><p></p><p>The field problem has been reviewed by a MAFF working group</p><p>(ARC 35/77). It is difficult to assess the incidence in Britain for</p><p>a variety of reasons but the disease causes serious financial loss;</p><p>it is estimated that it cost Swaledale breeders alone $l.7 M during</p><p>the five years 1971-1975. A further inestimable loss arises from the</p><p>closure of certain export markets, in particular those of the United</p><p>States, to British sheep. </p><p></p><p>It is clear that scrapie in sheep is important commercially and</p><p>for that reason alone effective measures to control it should be</p><p>devised as quickly as possible. </p><p></p><p>Recently the question has again been brought up as to whether</p><p>scrapie is transmissible to man. This has followed reports that the</p><p>disease has been transmitted to primates. One particularly lurid</p><p>speculation (Gajdusek 1977) conjectures that the agents of scrapie,</p><p>kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and transmissible encephalopathy of</p><p>mink are varieties of a single "virus". The U.S. Department of</p><p>Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit</p><p>scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed</p><p>for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)"</p><p>The problem is emphasised by the finding that some strains of scrapie</p><p>produce lesions identical to the once which characterise the human</p><p>dementias" </p><p></p><p>Whether true or not. the hypothesis that these agents might be</p><p>transmissible to man raises two considerations. First, the safety</p><p>of laboratory personnel requires prompt attention. Second, action</p><p>such as the "scorched meat" policy of USDA makes the solution of the</p><p>acrapie problem urgent if the sheep industry is not to suffer</p><p>grievously. </p><p></p><p>snip... </p><p></p><p>76/10.12/4.6 </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12004001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 004001.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995 </p><p></p><p>snip... </p><p></p><p>To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed </p><p>compounders. </p><p></p><p>To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse publicity. </p><p></p><p>To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by </p><p>maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw </p><p>material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any </p><p>changes which may be required. </p><p></p><p>snip... </p><p></p><p>THE FUTURE </p><p></p><p>4.......... </p><p></p><p>MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at </p><p>handling potentially explosive issues. </p><p></p><p>5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which </p><p>contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive </p><p>test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly </p><p>supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible. </p><p></p><p>6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed </p><p>compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct </p><p>linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases, </p><p>the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ... </p><p></p><p>SEE full text ; </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 002001.pdf</a> </p><p></p><p></p><p>TSS</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="flounder, post: 219323, member: 3519"] SEC WROTE; I get lost reading the dribble. I believe there is good info inside of it, it's to hard to stare and read that much. What does the summary say? ======================= summary = Deja Vu NOW, sec might ask, 'terry, what do you mean Deja VU? so, i must try and summarize with more data :shock: i'll keep it as short as possible here folllks, we been lied to. it started long ago, the USDA tried to perfect, but shot both feet as we have seen with the infamous 'june 2004 enhanced bse cover-up in the USA', all documented here several times, so i will not waste space for that, only the very blind and very very dumb could not see that, but here is where this nightmare began. USDA tried to keep it at the ukbsenvcjd only, but the many different strains of TSE in many species caught up with them. now, USA holds the title of the country with the 'most documented TSE', all of which were rendered and fed back to humans and animals for human consumption......... now, don't you wish you didn't ask........ i wish i never heard of the cr@p...........but i am vested, for life...TSS NOW, for the dribble of it; IN CONFIDENCE ; .42 On 15 May Mr Bradley sent a minute to Dr Watson, Dr Shreeve, Dr Roberts, Mr Wells and Mr Mike Dawson noting that, 'by agreement with the Director', the proposed Vision article would now be circulated as a separate Directive to VICs in England and Wales only. [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/05/15001001.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 001001.pdf[/url] IN CONFIDENCE It has been agreed that a joint/co-ordinated CVL-VIS publication will be produced in due course. Meanwhile, because of the nature of the disorder, its political implications and possible effects on exports it is essential that VIS staff must not, at this stage, discuss it with or consult workers at Research Institutes and University Departments. Furthermore, any statements for publication or discussions at meetings must be cleared by the respective Directors of the Services. [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/05/22002001.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 002001.pdf[/url] 2.44 On 27 May Dr Peter Dawson succeeded Dr Williams as the ACVO and Head of the VI Service, and Dr Richard Cawthorne succeeded Dr Peter Dawson as Head of the Veterinary Investigation Section (VI Section) at Tolworth. 2.45 The final version of Mr Wells's article, entitled 'A Novel Bovine Neurological Disorder?', was eventually circulated on 8 June 1987 to Superintending Veterinary Investigation Officers in England and Wales. The document was headed 'urgent' and 'in confidence'. It described the nature, symptoms and pathology of the new disease and gave instructions for the submission of pathological material to the CVL. It included the following directions: Similar clinical cases are of interest to VI Section, Tolworth, and the Pathology and Virology Departments at CVL. Such cases must be notified initially only to SVO(HQ), VI Section, Tolworth and Neuropathology Section, Pathology Department, CVO. At this stage VI staff should not consult workers at Research Institutes or University Departments . . . A co-ordinated VIS/CVL publication on this subject is proposed. All statements for publication, or discussion at meetings MUST BE CLEARED by respective Directors of Services. [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/06/08001001.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 001001.pdf[/url] It is essential not to refer to the condition as bovine scrapie. While the clinical and pathological changes may provide evidence of its similarity to diseases caused by unconventional infectious agents such as scrapie in sheep, it is important to emphasise that the aetiological basis of BSE remains unknown and no connection with encephalopathies in other species, including scrapie in sheep, has been established. [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/10/27003001.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 003001.pdf[/url] . . . the fact that it so far appears to be a uniquely British disorder could prejudice our cattle exports if it is publicised in inaccurate or exaggerated terms. It would be particularly misleading if it were to be described as 'scrapie in cattle'. Scrapie is a disease of sheep, the existence of which in British flocks is an impediment to our export trade, but although it is also an encephalopathy there is no evidence that BSE is attributable to the same cause as scrapie and it is important to distinguish between the two conditions . . . A point to emphasise, if you are pressed on numbers of cases, is that while it may be suspected in over 100 herds and distributed over a wide area, it has been confirmed in only 25 animals, out of a total UK cattle population of just over 12.5 million. Moreover, cases tend to be in individual animals rather than whole herds being affected. There is no evidence that it is transmissible to humans or that the meat or milk from animals with BSE are affected. [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1987/10/30001001.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 001001.pdf[/url] 12/10/76 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTE ON SCRAPIE Office Note CHAIRMAN: PROFESSOR PETER WILDY snip... A The Present Position with respect to Scrapie A] The Problem Scrapie is a natural disease of sheep and goats. It is a slow and inexorably progressive degenerative disorder of the nervous system and it ia fatal. It is enzootic in the United Kingdom but not in all countries. The field problem has been reviewed by a MAFF working group (ARC 35/77). It is difficult to assess the incidence in Britain for a variety of reasons but the disease causes serious financial loss; it is estimated that it cost Swaledale breeders alone $l.7 M during the five years 1971-1975. A further inestimable loss arises from the closure of certain export markets, in particular those of the United States, to British sheep. It is clear that scrapie in sheep is important commercially and for that reason alone effective measures to control it should be devised as quickly as possible. Recently the question has again been brought up as to whether scrapie is transmissible to man. This has followed reports that the disease has been transmitted to primates. One particularly lurid speculation (Gajdusek 1977) conjectures that the agents of scrapie, kuru, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and transmissible encephalopathy of mink are varieties of a single "virus". The U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that it could "no longer justify or permit scrapie-blood line and scrapie-exposed sheep and goats to be processed for human or animal food at slaughter or rendering plants" (ARC 84/77)" The problem is emphasised by the finding that some strains of scrapie produce lesions identical to the once which characterise the human dementias" Whether true or not. the hypothesis that these agents might be transmissible to man raises two considerations. First, the safety of laboratory personnel requires prompt attention. Second, action such as the "scorched meat" policy of USDA makes the solution of the acrapie problem urgent if the sheep industry is not to suffer grievously. snip... 76/10.12/4.6 [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1976/10/12004001.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 004001.pdf[/url] STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL 25, AUGUST 1995 snip... To minimise the risk of farmers' claims for compensation from feed compounders. To minimise the potential damage to compound feed markets through adverse publicity. To maximise freedom of action for feed compounders, notably by maintaining the availability of meat and bone meal as a raw material in animal feeds, and ensuring time is available to make any changes which may be required. snip... THE FUTURE 4.......... MAFF remains under pressure in Brussels and is not skilled at handling potentially explosive issues. 5. Tests _may_ show that ruminant feeds have been sold which contain illegal traces of ruminant protein. More likely, a few positive test results will turn up but proof that a particular feed mill knowingly supplied it to a particular farm will be difficult if not impossible. 6. The threat remains real and it will be some years before feed compounders are free of it. The longer we can avoid any direct linkage between feed milling _practices_ and actual BSE cases, the more likely it is that serious damage can be avoided. ... SEE full text ; [url=http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1995/08/24002001.pdf]http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/yb/1 ... 002001.pdf[/url] TSS [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
NCBA, R-CALF, COOL, USDA (No Politics!)
How many cows have you tested for BSE?
Top