PORKER said:
MRJ , Why don't you ask Flounder to give you a list of BSE tests approved for the US.
i will try and keep this short :lol:
Greetings,
YOU must first want to find BSE and or any strain of BSE in your herds, before any test will work. Plus, you must test in sufficient numbers to find. the ridiculous standards set by the OIE of some only 400 test per one million head of cattle, or there about, is the very reason why most countries that went by those weak BSE testing standards, eventually most all went down with BSE. you have to want to find it. this has not happened YET in the USA, and the verdict is still out on President Obama, on whether or not this administration wants to find BSE and or any TSE in the USA. hiding behind this 'serum toxic act' is about as stupid as an excuse as you can get, and shows just how serious the USA government has been on covering up all mad cow type disease i.e. TSE in the USA. all the while, these TSEs are spreading. just look at CWD and scrapie, out of control, and the TSE in the USA bovine, if we all knew the truth, is too probably out of control. Dr. Paul Brown, is one of there leading critics since the Texas mad cow was covered up (the second one in Texas cover-ed up). you can try to make any excuse you want, but these are the hard core facts, whether or not mrj wants to believe them or not. ...tss
NOW, for an update on future diagnostics in TSE, you will have to do some reading here on about page 139 ;
http://www.neuroprion.org/resources/pdf_docs/conferences/prion2008/abstract-book-prion2008.pdf
OR, see ;
USDA BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY ANTIGEN TEST KITS (Permits, as of September 30, 2004)
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/DOCKETS/ac/04/slides/2004-4075S1_01.ppt
BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY ANTIGEN TEST KIT, IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY
http://www.vmrd.com/docs/tk/BSE_IHC/BSE_Test_Kit_040817.pdf
(ii) US
• Rapid test + Immunohistochemical (IHC) test
• Rapid test + Western blot test (UK version)
• Immunohistochemical (IHC) test only
* Second method is performed when a sample is not appropriate for IHC.
* Third method is performed when brain tissue for the rapid test or Western
blot test (UK version) is not available.
* USDA approves the following five tests for the rapid test including the
two test kits used in Japan: IDEXX HerdCheck BSE Antigen EIA test
kit (IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., Westbrook, ME); Prionics-Check WEST
ERN (Roche Diagnosis, Indianapolis, IL); Prionics-Check LIA (Roche
Diagnosis, Indianapolis, IL); Enfer BSE (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott
Park, IL); Platelia ELISA-kit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rut61j73n3uk4212/fulltext.pdf
SOP-PL-0032 10 Protocol for BSE Contract Laboratories to Receive and Test Bovine Brain
Samples and Report Results for BSE Surveillance
PLFMA0032 1 Information on 'Initial Reactives" for TSE ELISA
SOP-PL-0043 3 Redirection of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Samples
SPSOP0005 2 Chain of Custody of ELISA BSE Samples Received from Contract
Laboratories for Confirmation
SPSOP0006 2 BSE Testing of Rabies Negative CNS Samples
GPPISOP0033 4 Quality Assurance: Proficiency Testing and Quality Monitoring of BSE
ELISA Contract Laboratories by NVSL
SOP-PS-0034 6 Confirming Inconclusive Results from Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy Testing Laboratories at the NVSL
SOP-PTS-0003 3 BSE ELISA
GPPISOP0047 1 Detection of Scrapie and Chronic Wasting Disease by
Immunohistochemistry using the Ventana NexES with ultra View Red
Detection by USDA Contract Laboratories
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/lab_info_services/downloads/ApprovedSOPList.pdf
Int´l - New IDEXX BSE Short Protocol Test Receives USDA and EU Approvals PUBLICADO: 23/02/2006 FUENTE: IDEXX Laboratories Now laboratories can complete the BSE enzyme immunoassay (EIA) protocol in less than 2.5 hours.
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. is pleased to announce that the IDEXX HerdChek® Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Antigen Test Kit received USDA and EU approvals for its new short protocol. This shorter protocol allows users to complete the EIA in less than 2.5 hours. This makes the IDEXX BSE Test Kit the fastest microtiter plate-based test available.
Nevena Djuranovic, TSE marketing manager, states, "Many TSE laboratories have already found the benefits of the IDEXX HerdChek BSE Test Kit´s ease of use and efficiency. The test´s prion-capture technology eliminates the need for complicated proteinase K sample preparation. We´ve further improved the test by reducing the sample and conjugate incubation times to as little as 45 minutes each. That´s one-and-a-half hours saved."
The IDEXX HerdChek Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Antigen Test Kit is an antigen-capture enzyme immunoassay for detection of the abnormal conformer of the prion protein (PrPSc). The kit detects abnormal prions from postmortem brain tissue from cattle with BSE. The kit is intended for veterinary use only.
IDEXX Laboratories Inc. is a leader in companion animal health, serving practicing veterinarians around the world with innovative, technology-based offerings, including a broad range of diagnostic products and services, practice-management systems and therapeutics. Our products enhance the ability of veterinarians to provide advanced medical care and to build more economically successful practices. IDEXX is also a worldwide leader in providing diagnostic tests and information for the production animal industry and tests for the quality and safety of water and milk. Headquartered in Westbrook, Maine, IDEXX Laboratories employs more than 3,000 people and offers products to customers in over 100 countries.
PUBLICADO: 23/02/2006 FUENTE: IDEXX Laboratories
http://www.engormix.com/s_news8465.htm
The Prionics Check PrioStrip and the IDEXX HerdChek BSE tests are European Union- approved BSE screening tests.
Biosafety for TSEs
4. Rapid BSE tests
Since 1997, tests have been developed to analyse BSE suspect materials rapidly. The EU and several individual countries have intensively validated these tests. Which rapid tests are licensed and approved in various countries throughout the world is variable. Tests approved in the EU (as of 14 June 2006) are given in Table 2.
All existing and licensed BSE rapid tests have several things in common. First, all tests use material from the brainstem, implying that these tests are post mortem tests. The samples must be taken from the obex region (described in section 2 of this chapter) in order to maximize sensitivity of the tests. Second, all tests are currently based on the same principles of homogenization, proteinase K digestion (with the exception of the IDEXX HerdChek BSE Antigen EIA), and detection. Although the principles of these steps are similar between tests, there are significant differences in the execution.
Performance
According to external evaluations (Moynagh and Schimmel, 1999; EU, 2006) the ten tests currently approved in the EU (Table 2) all have excellent sensitivity (100%) and specificity (100%), when IHC is taken as the reference (gold standard) method.
Table 2. BSE post mortem tests approved in the EU (as of June 2006)
Name Year of Producer P rinciple approval
Prionics Check Western 2001 Prionics, Switzerland Immunoblot Bio-Rad TeSeE 2001 Bio-rad, France Sandwich ELISA Prionics Check LIA 2003 Prionics, Switzerland Sandwich ELISA InPro CDI-5 2003 InPro, San Francisco, USA Conformation dependant immunoassay CediTect BSE 2006 Cedi diagnostics, Netherlands ELISA IDEXX HerdChek BSE Antigen Test Kit 2006 IDEXX, Maine, USA ELISA Institut Pourquier Speed`it 2006 Institut Pourquier, Montpellier, France Sandwich ELISA Roboscreen Beta Prion BSE EIA 2006 Roboscreen Leipzig, Germany Sandwich ELISA Roche Applied Science Prion Screen 2006 Roche, Basel, Switzerland Sandwich ELISA Prionics Check PrioStrip 2006 Prionics, Switzerland Lateral flow immunoassay
Special devices
Although the required materials are primarily included in the test kits, the presence of special devices and equipment in the laboratory is a prerequisite for testing for all tests. Not all tests require the same devices, and price differences among devices are considerable.
Availability of single components
All tests are primarily supplied as kits, with the required materials for conducting a certain number of tests. However, it is likely that not all materials will be used at the same rate, especially when only limited amounts of samples are analysed. The availability of single components is then an advantage and could allow a reduction in costs, though in some cases single components are not necessarily less expensive than the whole kit. The kits differ in the availability of single components.
High throughput
Laboratories that participate in a BSE surveillance programme will have to analyse relatively large amounts of samples. In this case, it is important that the test used has a high throughput potential. This potential can, for example, be increased by automating as many steps as possible in the test procedure, as each step requiring manual handling reduces the throughput potential.
Low throughput
In contrast to BSE surveillance laboratories, BSE reference laboratories have a relatively low throughput of samples. Then it is important that the test used is also suitable for a small amount of samples. The components (e.g. buffer, antibodies) should be available or should be able to be prepared in small amounts.
Time
Although all tests discussed here are rapid tests, the time needed for analysis differs among them. The shorter the time, the faster results can be reported to the customer. This is especially important when normal slaughter animals are being tested, as carcasses are often only released from the slaughterhouse after test results are negative.
Handling
In general, tests that have fewer handling steps are easier to perform and have lower risk of human error. Automation of the test steps reduces the amount of human handling. However, the type of handling is important, as some handling steps are more complicated than others.
Interpretation
The last step of the test procedure is the interpretation of the results. Computer printouts with values designated as over or below a stated cutoff value are easy to interpret. The interpretation of a western blot (WB) result needs more experience.
Conclusions
All tests currently approved in the EU are either based on WB or ELISA technology. Although there are differences between the tests, the overall performance is compara ble. Great differences can be found in the handling and the versatility for high and low throughput set-ups.
Procedure after positive test results
The procedure for handling test positive results differs between the EU and Switzerland. Within the EU, initially reactive samples can be retested in duplicate using the same test starting from the homogenate. The test cannot be repeated starting from the original brain material, since this has already been processed into homogenate. If at least one of the two duplicates has a value higher than the sample cutoff, the sample is considered to be positive and the sample will be sent to the national reference laboratory for confirmation.
In Switzerland, the initial reactive samples are not retested. The initial reactive samples are sent to the National Reference Laboratory, where confirmatory tests are performed.
New developments
Work is constantly being done on the development of new rapid tests both by companies that already provide rapid tests and by new companies. New tests can be based on the refinement of an established procedure or on the replacement of procedures by completely new concepts.
All these new tests are still based on post mortem sampling as they use brain material from the obex region. Of course, the ability to diagnose BSE ante mortem would be a huge advantage, and much research is being done in this field. Reports on possible ante mortem tests are published regularly. However, none of these tests have so far passed the validation process, and an imminent breakthrough in ante mortem testing is not foreseen.
5. References
EC, 2006. BSE diagnostic opinions, Scientific advice. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/food/ biosafety/bse/sci_advice_en.htm . Moynagh J, Schimmel H. 1999. Tests for BSE evaluated. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Nature 400(6740),105.
snip...
Diagnostics EFSA. 2006. EFSA Scientific reports on the evaluation of BSE/TSE tests.
http://www.efsa.eu.int/science/tse_assessments/bse_tse/catindex_de.html
OIE. 2005. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals, Chapter 2.3.13.
http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/A_00064.htm
Safar JG, Scott M, Monaghan J, Deering C, Didorenko S, Vergara J, Ball H, Legname G, Leclerc E, Solforosi L, Serban H, Groth D, Burton DR, Prusiner SB, Williamson RA. 2002. Measuring prions causing bovine spongiform encephalopathy or chronic wasting disease by immunoassays and transgenic mice. Nat Biotechnol 20(11): 1147-1150.
snip...end...see full text ;
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0999e/a0999e02.pdf
Updated risk for human and animal health related to the revision of the BSE monitoring regime in some Member States Question number: EFSA-Q-2008-712, EFSA-Q-2008-753
Adopted: 22 April 2009
snip...
The Panel noticed that in the context of the continuous decline of the Classical BSE epidemic, the proportion of Atypical BSE cases among the total number of detected BSE cases can be expected to increase and future risk assessments on BSE would benefit from separate reporting of Classical and Atypical BSE.
Moreover, the Panel highlighted that an age limit of 24 months in at risk animals would result in: (i) an increased sensitivity of surveillance in case of BSE re-emergence, and (ii) a possibly improved system for early detection of emerging new TSEs in cattle.
The BIOHAZ Panel recommended to monitor and report separately Classical and Atypical BSE cases, to increase knowledge on the pathogenesis and the transmission potential of Atypical BSE, to characterize and improve the ability of the tests used for the detection of Atypical BSE and to use the information gained through the previous activities as the basis for a TSE monitoring system in cattle.
snip...see
Summary (0.1Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/biohaz_op_ej1059_update_bse_monitoring_summary_en,0.pdf?ssbinary=true
Opinion (0.1Mb)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/biohaz_op_ej1059_update_bse_monitoring_en.pdf?ssbinary=true
2009
Back to the Past With New TSE Testing
Agricultural Research/May-June 2009
Back to the Past With New TSE Testing
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) are rare—but lethal— neurodegenerative disorders that affect a range of mammals, including humans. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)—or "mad cow disease"—is one TSE that has had significant economic and public health impact. The TSEs in the United States are found in sheep, goats, elk, and deer.
TSE epidemiology is complicated by the fact that a definitive diagnosis cannot be made until after an animal has died. ARS chemist Eric Nicholson and veterinary medical officer Robert Kunkle have found a way to facilitate postmortem TSE diagnoses—even when tissue samples are in short supply. Proteins called "prions" are produced in all animals. But the development of abnormal prions is believed to prompt the onset of TSE-related damage to brain tissue. If an animal dies from a TSE infection, both abnormal and healthy prions can be found in its body tissues.
Researchers check tissues for abnormal prions with either Western blotting (WB) or immunohistochemistry (IHC). WB is used for fresh or frozen tissues, and IHC is used to test formalin- fixed tissue that has never been frozen. Sometimes only formalin-fixed tissues are available for testing—a situation the BSE surveillance program faced in 2005, when an entire tissue sample was inadvertently preserved in formalin. In that instance, initial IHC results were not conclusive, but there were no other fresh or frozen tissue samples available for WB testing. Nicholson and Kunkle, who work at the National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa, wanted to help scientists avoid similar situations in the future. They found a way to extract and identify abnormal prions in formalin-fixed tissue by using a combination of mild detergent, a series of freeze-boil cycles, and enzyme digestion. Initial results indicate that the accuracy of this method begins to decline 2 years after the tissue is first preserved, and is completely lost at the end of 6 years. "With this technique, we can easily distinguish between tissues from TSE-positive and TSE-negative animals," Nicholson says. "And it requires only a minimal adaptation of existing Western blotting procedures."
Nicholson and Kunkle also devised a way to use WB to test for TSE in tissues that had been fixed in formalin and preserved in paraffin. Their results equaled—and at times even exceeded— the effectiveness of WB analysis for tissues that had only been fixed in formalin.
These combined results add to the tools animal scientists can use to study the development and spread of TSEs. Their findings will facilitate WB testing of tissue samples that were originally archived for microscopy examination and should simplify preservation of samples collected in the field.
WB and IHC analyses can also be conducted on the same preserved sample—a breakthrough that could significantly enhance ongoing TSE research in the field and in the lab.—By Ann Perry, ARS.
This research is part of Animal Health, an ARS national program (#103) described on the World Wide Web at www.nps. ars.usda.gov.
Eric M. Nicholson and Robert A. Kunkle are with the USDAARS National Animal Disease Center, 2300 Dayton Ave., Ames, IA 50010; phone (515) 663-7443 [Nicholson], (515) 663-7190 [Kunkle], fax (515) 663-7458, e-mail mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000061/!x-usc:mailto:
[email protected]. gov, mhtml:%7B33B38F65-8D2E-434D-8F9B-8BDCD77D3066%7Dmid://00000061/!x-usc:mailto:
[email protected]. ?
Chemist Eric Nicholson (left) and veterinary medical officer Robert Kunkle discuss a Western blot image from a TSE test of formalinfixed tissues.
Agricultural Research/May-June 2009
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/may09/tse0509.pdf
>>> The TSEs in the United States are found in sheep, goats, elk, and deer. <<<
QUESTIONs PLEASE ;
IS Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy i.e. TME, not a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy ?
DID the mad cow in TEXAS (the h-BSE atypical that WAS FINALLY confirmed), and the h-BSE atypical in Alabama, are these not confirmed cases of a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy ?
NOW, one could also argue that this was another cases of mad cow disease in Texas, one that was cover-up ;
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statement
May 4, 2004 Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242 Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms
On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed. FDA, which is responsible for the safety of animal feed, immediately began an investigation. On Friday and throughout the weekend, FDA investigators inspected the slaughterhouse, the rendering facility, the farm where the animal came from, and the processor that initially received the cow from the slaughterhouse. FDA's investigation showed that the animal in question had already been rendered into "meat and bone meal" (a type of protein animal feed). Over the weekend FDA was able to track down all the implicated material. That material is being held by the firm, which is cooperating fully with FDA. Cattle with central nervous system symptoms are of particular interest because cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, also known as "mad cow disease," can exhibit such symptoms. In this case, there is no way now to test for BSE. But even if the cow had BSE, FDA's animal feed rule would prohibit the feeding of its rendered protein to other ruminant animals (e.g., cows, goats, sheep, bison). FDA is sending a letter to the firm summarizing its findings and informing the firm that FDA will not object to use of this material in swine feed only. If it is not used in swine feed, this material will be destroyed. Pigs have been shown not to be susceptible to BSE. If the firm agrees to use the material for swine feed only, FDA will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs. To protect the U.S. against BSE, FDA works to keep certain mammalian protein out of animal feed for cattle and other ruminant animals. FDA established its animal feed rule in 1997 after the BSE epidemic in the U.K. showed that the disease spreads by feeding infected ruminant protein to cattle. Under the current regulation, the material from this Texas cow is not allowed in feed for cattle or other ruminant animals. FDA's action specifying that the material go only into swine feed means also that it will not be fed to poultry. FDA is committed to protecting the U.S. from BSE and collaborates closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture on all BSE issues. The animal feed rule provides crucial protection against the spread of BSE, but it is only one of several such firewalls. FDA will soon be improving the animal feed rule, to make this strong system even stronger. ####
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/new01061.html
I wouldn't doubt that the APHIS/USDA et al even try to persuade the WHO at the next meeting to exempt atypical BSE in the USA as with the Nor-98 atypical scrapie they are trying to get exempt. they are so out of touch with reality on the true extent of mad cow disease in the USA that i think they now believe their own lies. ...TSS
Saturday, May 2, 2009
APHIS AND WHO PLAN TO EXEMPT THE ATYPICAL SCRAPIE NOR-98 FROM REGULATIONS AT MEETING THIS MONTH
http://nor-98.blogspot.com/2009/05/aphis-and-who-plan-to-exempt-atypical.html
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 Nor98-like Scrapie in the United States of America
http://nor-98.blogspot.com/2009/04/nor98-like-scrapie-in-united-states-of.html
hmm, were these not Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy cases ???
snip...see full text ;
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2009/05/back-to-past-with-new-tse-testing.html
Title: Where We've Been and Where We're Going with Bse Testing in the United States
Authors
Hall, Mark - NVSL-APHIS-USDA Richt, Juergen Davis, Arthur - NVSL-APHIS-USDA Levings, Randall - NVSL-APHIS-USDA
Submitted to: American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians Publication Type: Abstract Publication Acceptance Date: September 1, 2005 Publication Date: November 3, 2005 Citation: Hall, M.S., Richt, J.A., Davis, A.J., Levings, R.L. 2005. Where we've been and where we're going with BSE testing in the United States [abstract]. 48th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians. p. 20.
Technical Abstract: A review of the laboratory aspects of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program from its beginning to the present day will be provided. Validated diagnostic tests for BSE require brain tissue. There are no ante mortem (blood/serum) tests for BSE available at present. From a historical perspective, diagnostic tests for BSE continue to evolve. The original diagnostic test method was histopathology in which sections of brain were examined under a microscope, and the classical vacuoles and spongiform change in specific areas of the brain would allow a diagnosis to be made. This method was accurate but only allowed a diagnosis to be made relatively late in the course of the disease. In the mid-1990s, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and Western blotting were developed which allow the detection of the abnormal form of the prion protein (PrPSc) and a diagnosis could be made prior to the development of spongiform changes and clinical signs. In the past decade, so-called "rapid tests" have been introduced commercially for BSE. Five commercial tests are currently licensed/permitted in the United States for BSE. These licensed tests include the Prionics Western blot, Prionics ELISA, Enfer/Abbott ELISA, IDEXX ELISA, and the BioRad ELISA. This presentation will discuss various attributes of the validated test methods available today. Both IHC and Western blot are considered confirmatory tests for BSE by the World Organisation of Animal Health (OIE). IHC provides for a specific immunological detection of PrPSc and enables the specific anatomical location to be determined. Western blot provides both immunological detection of PrPSc as well as specific molecular weight characterizations; certain Western blot procedures can be extremely sensitive due to various concentration procedures before analysis of the sample. The OIE recommended Western blot and IHC methods for confirmatory diagnosis of BSE used by USDA and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, England, will be discussed. The overall enhanced testing plan that has been used for the past 18 months will be described including changes that have occurred during this time. The USDA's BSE enhanced surveillance plan has been a very successful national surveillance testing program that has been a shared effort between state veterinary diagnostic laboratories as part of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network and the National Veterinary Services Laboratories.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=183829
2009-2010 NIAA Resolutions Emerging Diseases
Expanded Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Test
BACKGROUND:
The American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians (AAVLD) hasencouraged the United States Department of Agriculture/National Veterinary Services Laboratory(USDA/NVSL) to authorize BSE testing services at all AAVLD accredited labs. For efficiency, USDA/NVSL has preferred to set minimum test-load requirements before a lab can be considered authorized at 12,000 per year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5 13750 Meadowgrass Drive, Suite 201 | Colorado Springs, CO 80921 | Phone: 719-538-8843 | Fax: 719-538-8847Email:
[email protected] | Web Address: www.animalagriculture.orgReprinting
In light of the high epidemiological value of testing older cattle with Central Nervous System signs, the fact that these animals will enter state labs across the nation for routine diagnostic evaluations, and the close relationship between state laboratories and their clients, we request the expansion of the rapid Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) BSE test to more state diagnostic labs. In addition, holding headless animals until BSE testing has been performed has become a requirement by many renderers that serve veterinary diagnostic laboratories, and this has created significant logistical issues for our laboratories and stakeholders. RESOLUTION: The National Institute for Animal Agriculture encourages all AAVLD accredited laboratories currently authorized to conduct Chronic Wasting Disease/Scrapie prion tests also be allowed to conduct official BSE testing (rapid ELISA test) in coordination with USDA/NVSL and with no minimal test-load requirement. Adopted: 2004 | Amended: 2005 (The Expanded BSE Test resolution was also endorsed by the NIAA Cattle Health Committee.
http://www.animalagriculture.org/About%20NIAA/Resolutions/Current/Emerging%20Diseases.pdf
NOW, with all this, you can only detect a case of mad cow disease, if ;
1: you use the tests
2: you use them properly
3: you use them in sufficient numbers to find
EXAMPLE, of how NOT TO FIND BSE IN THE USA ;
-------- Original Message --------
> Subject: USA BIO-RADs INCONCLUSIVEs
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:28 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> To:
[email protected]
>
>
>
> Hello Susan and Bio-Rad,
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> I wish to ask a question about Bio-Rad and USDA BSE/TSE testing
> and there inconclusive. IS the Bio-Rad test for BSE/TSE that complicated,
> or is there most likely some human error we are seeing here?
>
> HOW can Japan have 2 positive cows with
> No clinical signs WB+, IHC-, HP- ,
> BUT in the USA, these cows are considered 'negative'?
>
> IS there more politics working here than science in the USA?
>
> What am I missing?
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: USDA: More mad cow testing will demonstrate beef's safety
> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:26:19 -0600
> From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
> snip...end
>
>
> Experts doubt USDA's mad cow results
snip...END
WELL, someone did call me from Bio-Rad about this, however it was not Susan Berg. but i had to just about take a blood oath not to reveal there name. IN fact they did not want me to even mention this, but i feel it is much much to important. I have omitted any I.D. of this person, but thought I must document this ;
Bio-Rad, TSS phone conversation 12/28/04
Finally spoke with ;
Bio-Rad Laboratories 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive Hercules, CA 94547 Ph: 510-741-6720 Fax: 510-741-5630 Email: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
at approx. 14:00 hours 12/28/04, I had a very pleasant phone conversation with XXXX XXXXX about the USDA and the inconclusive BSE testing problems they seem to keep having. X was very very cautious as to speak directly about USDA and it's policy of not using WB. X was very concerned as a Bio-Rad official of retaliation of some sort. X would only speak of what other countries do, and that i should take that as an answer. I told X I understood that it was a very loaded question and X agreed several times over and even said a political one.
my question;
Does Bio-Rad believe USDA's final determination of False positive, without WB, and considering the new atypical TSEs not showing positive with -IHC and -HP ???
ask if i was a reporter. i said no, i was with CJD Watch and that i had lost my mother to hvCJD. X did not want any of this recorded or repeated.
again, very nervous, will not answer directly about USDA for fear of retaliation, but again said X tell me what other countries are doing and finding, and that i should take it from there. "very difficult to answer"
"very political"
"very loaded question"
outside USA and Canada, they use many different confirmatory tech. in house WB, SAF, along with IHC, HP, several times etc. you should see at several talks meetings (TSE) of late Paris Dec 2, that IHC- DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NEGATIVE. again, look what the rest of the world is doing. said something about Dr. Houston stating; any screening assay, always a chance for human error. but with so many errors (i am assuming X meant inconclusive), why are there no investigations, just false positives? said something about ''just look at the sheep that tested IHC- but were positive''. ...
TSS
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Your questions
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:11 -0800
From: To:
[email protected]
Hi Terry:
............................................snip
Let me know your phone number so I can talk to you about the Bio-Rad BSE test.
Thank you
Regards
Bio-Rad Laboratories 2000 Alfred Nobel Drive Hercules, CA 94547 Ph: 510-741-6720 Fax: 510-741-5630 Email:
=================================
END...TSS
http://madcowtesting.blogspot.com/2008/11/bse-case-confirmed-in-british-columbia.html
Statement on Texas Cow With Central Nervous System Symptoms On Friday, April 30 th , the Food and Drug Administration learned that a cow with central nervous system symptoms had been killed and shipped to a processor for rendering into animal protein for use in animal feed.
snip...
I would note that the sample was taken in April, at which time the protocols allowed for a preservative to be used (protocols changed in June 2005). The sample was not submitted to us until last week, because the veterinarian set aside the sample after preserving it and simply forgot to send it in. On that point, I would like to emphasize that while that time lag is not optimal, it has no implications in terms of the risk to human health. The carcass of this animal was destroyed, therefore there is absolutely no risk to human or animal health from this animal.
snip...
Owner and Corporation Plead Guilty to Defrauding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
An Arizona meat processing company and its owner pled guilty in February 2007 to charges of theft of Government funds, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The owner and his company defrauded the BSE Surveillance Program when they falsified BSE Surveillance Data Collection Forms and then submitted payment requests to USDA for the services. In addition to the targeted sample population (those cattle that were more than 30 months old or had other risk factors for BSE), the owner submitted to USDA, or caused to be submitted, BSE obex (brain stem) samples from healthy USDA-inspected cattle. As a result, the owner fraudulently received approximately $390,000. Sentencing is scheduled for May 2007.
snip...
4 USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half
http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/sarc070619.pdf
USDA: In 9,200 cases only one type of test could be used
WASHINGTON (AP)--The U.S. Department of Agriculture acknowledged Aug. 17 that its testing options for bovine spongiform encephalopathy were limited in 9,200 cases despite its effort to expand surveillance throughout the U.S. herd.
In those cases, only one type of test was used--one that failed to detect the disease in an infected Texas cow.
The department posted the information on its website because of an inquiry from The Associated Press.
Conducted over the past 14 months, the tests have not been included in the department's running tally of BSE tests since last summer. That total reached 439,126 on Aug. 17.
"There's no secret program," the department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, said in an interview. "There has been no hiding, I can assure you of that."
Officials intended to report the tests later in an annual report, Clifford said.
These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC.
In the Texas case, officials had declared the cow free of disease in November after an IHC test came back negative. The department's inspector general ordered an additional kind of test, which confirmed the animal was infected.
Veterinarians in remote locations have used the preservative on tissue to keep it from degrading on its way to the department's laboratory in Ames, Iowa. Officials this year asked veterinarians to stop using preservative and send fresh or chilled samples within 48 hours.
The department recently investigated a possible case of BSE that turned up in a preserved sample. Further testing ruled out the disease two weeks ago.
Scientists used two additional tests--rapid screening and Western blot--to help detect BSE in the country's second confirmed case, in a Texas cow in June. They used IHC and Western blot to confirm the first case, in a Washington state cow in December 2003.
"The IHC test is still an excellent test," Clifford said. "These are not simple tests, either."
Clifford pointed out that scientists reran the IHC several times and got conflicting results. That happened, too, with the Western blot test. Both tests are accepted by international animal health officials.
Date: 8/25/05
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2005/aug05/aug29/BSEtestoptionswerelimited.cfm
""These 9,200 cases were different because brain tissue samples were preserved with formalin, which makes them suitable for only one type of test--immunohistochemistry, or IHC."
THIS WAS DONE FOR A REASON!
THE IHC test has been proven to be the LEAST LIKELY to detect BSE/TSE in the bovine, and these were probably from the most high risk cattle pool, the ones the USDA et al, SHOULD have been testing. ...TSS
USDA 2003
We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA, we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got away from it. They've recently gone back. Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS.
Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine ourselves to one area.
snip.............
Dr. Detwiler: It seems a good idea, but I'm not aware of it. Another important thing to get across to the public is that the negatives do not guarantee absence of infectivity. The animal could be early in the disease and the incubation period. Even sample collection is so important. If you're not collecting the right area of the brain in sheep, or if collecting lymphoreticular tissue, and you don't get a good biopsy, you could miss the area with the PRP in it and come up with a negative test. There's a new, unusual form of Scrapie that's been detected in Norway. We have to be careful that we don't get so set in the way we do things that we forget to look for different emerging variations of disease. We've gotten away from collecting the whole brain in our systems. We're using the brain stem and we're looking in only one area. In Norway, they were doing a project and looking at cases of Scrapie, and they found this where they did not find lesions or PRP in the area of the obex. They found it in the cerebellum and the cerebrum. It's a good lesson for us. Ames had to go back and change the procedure for looking at Scrapie samples. In the USDA, we had routinely looked at all the sections of the brain, and then we got away from it. They've recently gone back.
Dr. Keller: Tissues are routinely tested, based on which tissue provides an 'official' test result as recognized by APHIS .
Dr. Detwiler: That's on the slaughter. But on the clinical cases, aren't they still asking for the brain? But even on the slaughter, they're looking only at the brainstem. We may be missing certain things if we confine ourselves to one area.
snip...
FULL TEXT;
Completely Edited Version PRION ROUNDTABLE
Accomplished this day, Wednesday, December 11, 2003, Denver, Colorado
END...TSS
Subject: USDA VS CREEKSTONE BSE/BASE/TSE TESTING Civil Action No. 06-0544
Date: September 4, 2007 at 9:47 am PST
USDA
AUGUST 21, 2007
Mr. Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Post Office Box 42
Bacliff, Texas 77518-0042
Dear Mr. Singeltary:
This is in response to your e-mails to Secretary Johanns concerning private
testing for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and a ruling by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia involving Creekstone Farms
Premium Beef, LLC. We regret the delay in responding.
As you may know, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) filed an appeal
of the U.S. District Court's order on June 15,2007. While we recognize your
views, we cannot comment on any matters at issue in the pending litigation.
However, we can assure you that USDA remains committed to ensuring
effective, scientifically sound testing for significant animal diseases and
to protecting U.S. animal and public health from BSE.
We understand that the effects of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) are
devastating, and we are sorry to learn of the loss of your mother. Some of us at
USDA have also lost family members to CJD and other degenerative neurological
diseases. Although it is rare, the classical form of CJD does occur sporadically in the
United States and worldwide. However, no cases of vCJD-the form of BSE that can be
transmitted from animals to humans-are known to have originated in the
United States. Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services'
(HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is responsible for
addressing concerns about CJD and other human health issues, you may wish to
contact that agency directly. The address is CDC, HHS, 200 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20201.
We also wish to clarify that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 1997
ban on ruminant-to-ruminant feeding is the primary measure in place to
protect animal health with regard to BSE. Protection of public health from
BSE is achieved by the removal from the human food supply of the animal
tissues-often referred to as specified risk
Mr. Terry S. Singeltary, Sr. Page 2
materials-in which the BSE infective agent would be found if present, and by
other controls imposed at the slaughter level. These additional controls
include the Food Safety and Inspection Services' ban on nonambulatory cattle
from the human food chain; a prohibition on air-injection stunning of
slaughter cattle; the requirement of additional process controls in advanced
meat recovery systems; and, a prohibition on the use of mechanically
separated beef in human food. Additionally, protection from BSE and other
diseases is achieved by conducting antemortem inspections of slaughter
cattle and excluding any animals that display clinical signs of neurological
disease or other abnormalities.
We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns. To learn more about
USDA's BSE surveillance and safeguarding activities, please visit our Web
site at www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/index.shtml.
Sincerely,
Jere L. Dick
Associate Deputy Administrator
National Animal Health Policy and Programs Veterinary Services
============================END=========================
In Reply to: USDA VS CREEKSTONE BSE/BASE/TSE TESTING Civil Action No. 06-0544 posted by TSS on September 4, 2007 at 9:47 am:
Jere L. Dick Associate Deputy Administrator National Animal Health Policy and Programs Veterinary Services WROTE ;
> Protection of public health from BSE is achieved by the removal from the human food supply of the animal
> tissues-often referred to as specified risk
> Mr. Terry S. Singeltary, Sr. Page 2
> materials-in which the BSE infective agent would be found if present, and by
> other controls imposed at the slaughter level.
Greetings,
LIKE going back in time 25 to 30 years with the science in this reply to me from USDA on BSE.
I would kindly like to comment;
Jere L. Dick states ;
> Some of us at USDA have also lost family members to CJD
> Although it is rare, the classical form of CJD does occur sporadically in the United States and worldwide
THIS is very disturbing to me that even USDA officials family members are dying of sporadic CJD, but yet they refuse to acknowledge the science to date, instead to go by prehistoric science dating back some 3 decades. IN short, there is much more to this sad story than that of the UKBSEnvCJD ONLY hypothesis/myth. Evidently, USDA did not even read the most up to date science i submitted to them, or just chose to ignore it. we now know that the sporadic CJD may not be as sporadic or spontaneous as these officials would have us to believe. THE USA has had two cases of atypical BSE i.e. BASE, which is more similar to some sporadic CJD, than that of the nvCJD, plus, there are some questions pertaining to the potential of some of these sCJD case being tied to either CWD in deer and or elk, and to the scrapie in sheep and goats, and there's other science showing that friendly fire from these sources i.e. iCJD is a very real threat. ...tss
Jere L. Dick states ;
> Protection of public health from BSE is achieved by the removal from the human food supply of the animal
> tissues-often referred to as specified risk materials-in which the BSE infective agent would be found if present,
> and by other controls imposed at the slaughter level.
EXACTLY, and this policy has failed terribly, see recalls of 1,000's of TONS of these banned products that is suppose to protect us from all strains of mad cow disease, that are being fed out in commerce as we speak ;
10,000,000+ LBS. of PROHIBITED BANNED MAD COW FEED I.E. BLOOD LACED MBM IN COMMERCE USA 2007
Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST
RECALLS AND FIELD CORRECTIONS: VETERINARY MEDICINES -- CLASS II
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Bulk cattle feed made with recalled Darling's 85% Blood Meal, Flash Dried, Recall # V-024-2007
CODE
Cattle feed delivered between 01/12/2007 and 01/26/2007
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Pfeiffer, Arno, Inc, Greenbush, WI. by conversation on February 5, 2007.
Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON
Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross- contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
42,090 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
WI
___________________________________
PRODUCT
Custom dairy premix products: MNM ALL PURPOSE Pellet, HILLSIDE/CDL Prot- Buffer Meal, LEE, M.-CLOSE UP PX Pellet, HIGH DESERT/ GHC LACT Meal, TATARKA, M CUST PROT Meal, SUNRIDGE/CDL PROTEIN Blend, LOURENZO, K PVM DAIRY Meal, DOUBLE B DAIRY/GHC LAC Mineral, WEST PIONT/GHC CLOSEUP Mineral, WEST POINT/GHC LACT Meal, JENKS, J/COMPASS PROTEIN Meal, COPPINI - 8# SPECIAL DAIRY Mix, GULICK, L-LACT Meal (Bulk), TRIPLE J - PROTEIN/LACTATION, ROCK CREEK/GHC MILK Mineral, BETTENCOURT/GHC S.SIDE MK-MN, BETTENCOURT #1/GHC MILK MINR, V&C DAIRY/GHC LACT Meal, VEENSTRA, F/GHC LACT Meal, SMUTNY, A- BYPASS ML W/SMARTA, Recall # V-025-2007
CODE
The firm does not utilize a code - only shipping documentation with commodity and weights identified.
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Rangen, Inc, Buhl, ID, by letters on February 13 and 14, 2007. Firm initiated recall is complete.
REASON
Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
9,997,976 lbs.
DISTRIBUTION
ID and NV
END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR MARCH 21, 2007
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/enforce/2007/ENF00996.html
NEW URL
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/2007/ucm120446.htm
Thursday, March 19, 2009 MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF MAD COW FEED IN COMMERCE USA WITH ONGOING 12 YEARS OF DENIAL NOW, WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE TO TALK ABOUT THIS ANYMORE $$$
http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2009/03/millions-and-millions-of-pounds-of-mad.html
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM LANTOS. CALIFORNIA MAJOR R OWENS. NEW YORK EDOLPHUS TOWNS, NEW YORK PAUL E KANJORSKI PENNSYLVANIA CAROLYN B MALONEY, NEW YORK ELIJAH E CUMMINGS MARYLAND DENNIS J KUCINICH OHIO DANNY K DAVIS ILLINOIS JOHN F TIERNEY MASSACHUSETTS WM LACY CLAY MISSOURI DIANE E WATSON CALIFORNIA STEPHEN F LYNCH MASSACNUSETS CHRIS VAN HOLLEN MARYLAND LINDAT SANCHEZ CALIFORNIA CA DUTCHRUPPERSBERGER MARYLAND ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JIM COOPER TENNESSEE
BERNARD SANDERS VERMONT INDEPENDENT
May 13,2004
The Honorable Ann M. Veneman Secretary of Agriculture Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 202.50
Dear Madam Secretary:
I am writing to express concern that the recent failure of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to test a Texas cow with neurological syrnptoms for bovine spongifonn encephalopathy (BSE) may reflect wider problems in the surveillance program. USDA apparently does not keep track of how many cows condemned for central nervous system symptoms are tested for BSE nor does it require that suspect carcasses be held pending testing. Effective surveillance and control of BSE in the United States require a reliable system for ensuring that potentially infected cows are tested and that no infected materials enter the animal or human food supply.
Under USDA regulations, any cow that exhibits signs of central nervous system (CNS) problems must be condemned by Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) personnel at the plant.1 According to a 1997 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (NHIS) Memorandum, brain samples all of such animals should be sent for BSE testing.2 The memorandum notes that "
t is essential that brain specimens be collected from adult cattle condemned for CNS signs as part of our national surveillance of BSE."
The cow slaughtered at the Lone Star Beef slaughterhouse last week staggered and fell, and was condemned ante mortem by FSIS personnel.4 Despite a request from APHIS personnel at the plant to conduct BSE testing, however, an APHIS supervisor in Austin reportedly refused the test and instructed the plant to send the carcass for rendering.5
This sequence of events is troubling, and it raises the question of whether this is an isolated incident. In 1997, USDA noted a major gap between the number of cattle condemned for CNS symptoms and the number of these cows actually tested for mad cow disease. The Department found:
Based on information provided by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the number of adult cattle (2 years of age or greater) condemned at slaughter due to CNS signs is much greater than the number whose brains have been collected for testing.6
Despite recognizing the problem more than six years ago, however, USDA apparently did not adopt procedures to ensure that these samples would be collected. In March 2004, the Government Reform Committee asked USDA to provide, for each of the last five years, the number of BSE tests performed on cattle condemned by FSIS inspectors on the basis of CNS symptoms.7 In response, USDA provided information on the numbers of cattle condemned for CNS symptoms by FSIS, but replied that "[ilt is not possible to determine, from the data we currently collect, how many of these cattle were tested by APHIS for BSE."' It thus appears that not only does USDA not routinely track the gap between the number of condemned and tested cattle, but that USDA could not even calculate this gap when requested to do so by Congress.
There also appears to be a lack of clarity regarding the disposition of cattle with CNS symptoms while BSE tests are pending. In the past, companies could send cattle awaiting BSE testing results for rendering, which would allow their remains to be used in feed for animals other than ruminants, such as pigs and chickens. After this incident, both FDA and USDA policy appear to have changed - in different ways.
USDA policy has apparently shifted to requesting that companies not send cattle to rendering while awaiting test results. A May 5,2004 memo from APHIS states, "it is requested - though not required - that [the cattle] not go to inedible rendering until the sample comes back negative."9 here is no explanation of why this course of action is requested, but not required.
FDA policy also appears to have shifted towards prohibiting the use of carcasses of cattle with CNS symptoms and indeterminate BSE status in certain types of animal feed. On April 30, FDA requested that the rendering company holding the remains of the Texas cow either destroy them or use them exclusively in swine feed. In the case that the remains are included in swine feed, FDA "will track the material all the way through the supply chain from the processor to the farm to ensure that the feed is properly monitored and used only as feed for pigs."10
Any confusion over what to do with cattle condemned for CNS symptoms awaiting testing for BSE seems unnecessary. The obvious approach is to require companies either to destroy the carcasses or hold them until test results become available. Such a policy would avoid any need for complicated traceback procedures after the discovery of a positive result. According to the information provided to the Committee by USDA, the FSIS has condemned only 200 to 250 cows per year because of signs of central nervous system damage." Mandating the destruction or holding of their carcasses would have minimal economic impact.
The experience with the BSE-infected cow in Washington State illustrates the prudence of waiting for the results of BSE tests. Prior to December 2003, USDA permitted cattle that were sampled as part of the BSE surveillance program to enter commerce even while BSE tests were pending. As a result, when the BSE-infected cow was discovered, it had already entered the food supply. This led to a complicated and partially successful traceback procedure in which hundreds of thousands of pounds of beef had to be destroyed. Because of this debacle, USDA quickly developed a new policy to require holding all carcasses from the human food chain during BSE testing.
I appreciate that you have taken steps to enhance the safety of the U.S. food supply since the discovery of BSE in the United States. I urge you to consider the lessons of this latest Memo from John R. Clifford, Acting Deputy Administrator, Veterinary Services, and William Smith, Assistant Administrator, Office of Field Operations, Food Safety and Inspection Service, to VSMT, Regional Directors, Area Veterinarians in Charge, and Veterinary Services, Subject: Policy Statement Regarding BSE Sampling of Condemned Cattle at Slaughter Plants - for Immediate Implementation (May 5,2004) (online at http://\;vww.aphis.usda.gov/lpa~issues/ bse/BSE-APHIS-FSIS.pdf).
snip...please see full text and references ;
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040607142914-86912.pdf
FDA CERTIFIED MAD COW PROTEIN IN COMMERECE 2006
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0705&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=20055
Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL,TN, AND WV
Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702&L=sanet-mg&D=1&P=7860
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0611&L=sanet-mg&P=3715
http://www.microbes.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=373
Subject: USDA FSIS SRM TSE QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT UPDATE
Date: February 17, 2007 at 7:03 pm PST
Greetings,
I thought I might update you on the USDA FSIS QUARTERLY REPORTS ON THE TOPIC OF SRMs and MAD COW DISEASE I.E. BSE/BASE ETC.
see laundry list of SRM violations ;
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0702&L=sanet-mg&P=10713
Subject: USDA OIG SEMIANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS FY 2007 1st Half (bogus BSE
sampling FROM HEALTHY USDA CATTLE)
Date: June 21, 2007 at 2:49 pm PST
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0706&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=9430
18 January 2007 - Draft minutes of the SEAC 95 meeting (426 KB) held on 7
December 2006 are now available.
snip...
64. A member noted that at the recent Neuroprion meeting, a study was
presented showing that in transgenic mice BSE passaged in sheep may be more
virulent and infectious to a wider range of species than bovine derived BSE.
Other work presented suggested that BSE and bovine amyloidotic spongiform
encephalopathy (BASE) MAY BE RELATED. A mutation had been identified in the
prion protein gene in an AMERICAN BASE CASE THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A
MUTATION FOUND IN CASES OF SPORADIC CJD.
snip...
http://www.seac.gov.uk/minutes/95.pdf
3:30 Transmission of the Italian Atypical BSE (BASE) in Humanized Mouse
Models Qingzhong Kong, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology, Case Western Reserve
University
Bovine Amyloid Spongiform Encephalopathy (BASE) is an atypical BSE strain
discovered recently in Italy, and similar or different atypical BSE cases
were also reported in other countries. The infectivity and phenotypes of
these atypical BSE strains in humans are unknown. In collaboration with
Pierluigi Gambetti, as well as Maria Caramelli and her co-workers, we have
inoculated transgenic mice expressing human prion protein with brain
homogenates from BASE or BSE infected cattle. Our data shows that about half
of the BASE-inoculated mice became infected with an average incubation time
of about 19 months; in contrast, none of the BSE-inoculated mice appear to
be infected after more than 2 years.
***These results indicate that BASE is transmissible to humans and suggest that BASE is more virulent than
classical BSE in humans.***
6:30 Close of Day One
http://www.healthtech.com/2007/tse/day1.asp
SEE STEADY INCREASE IN SPORADIC CJD IN THE USA FROM
1997 TO 2006. SPORADIC CJD CASES TRIPLED, with phenotype
of 'UNKNOWN' strain growing. ...
http://www.cjdsurveillance.com/resources-casereport.html
There is a growing number of human CJD cases, and they were presented last
week in San Francisco by Luigi Gambatti(?) from his CJD surveillance
collection.
He estimates that it may be up to 14 or 15 persons which display selectively
SPRPSC and practically no detected RPRPSC proteins.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/1006-4240t1.htm
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4240t1.pdf
Jere L. Dick states ;
> and Inspection Services' ban on nonambulatory cattle from the human food chain;
Subject: FINAL REGULATIONS FOR NON-AMBULATORY DISABLED CATTLE AND SPECIFIED
RISK MATERIALS (SRMs)
Date: August 31, 2007 at 9:21 am PST
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0708&L=sanet-mg&T=0&F=&S=&P=27862
IS THERE A SCRAPIE-LIKE DISEASE IN CATTLE ?
YOU BET THERE IS, AND HAS BEEN, AND WE BEEN FEEDING THE MOST HIGH RISK I.E. DEAD STOCK DOWNER COWS TO OUR CHILDREN FOR DECADES, who will follow these children for human TSE from mad cow disease here in the USA in the years, decades to come, and how many will they expose from the 'pass it forward' friendly fire modes ???
http://downercattle.blogspot.com/2008/12/evaluation-of-fsis-management-controls.html
http://downercattle.blogspot.com/
ALL in all, the USDA's response to my submission on USDA VS CREEKSTONE, is simply not acceptable, and is true to the nature of the Industry's grip on Washington and the USDA, God save the Industry at all cost, including human health, mentality. ...TSS
SEE MY SUBMISSION TO USDA IN FULL ;
USDA Fights Court Decision
Approving BSE Tests
From Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
[email protected]
5-30-7
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected].; [email protected];
[email protected];[email protected] [email protected].
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:07 PM
Subject: USDA VS CREEKSTONE BSE/BASE/TSE TESTING Civil Action No. 06-0544
(JR)
SEE FULL TEXT ;
http://www.bloodindex.com/view_news_zone.php?id=610&heading=USDA%20VS%20CREEKSTONE%20BSE/BASE/TSE%20TESTING%20Civil%20Action%20No.%2006-0544%20(JR)
http://www.microbes.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=417
http://www.microbes.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=418&pid=532&st=0&#entry532
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0707&L=sanet-mg&P=29337
https://lists.aegee.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0705&L=BSE-L&T=0&F=&S=&X=34D6D460631211D4A1&Y=flounder9%40verizon.net&P=6485
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
To:
Cc: ; ; ; ;
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:07 PM Subject: USDA VS CREEKSTONE BSE/BASE/TSE TESTING Civil Action No. 06-0544 (JR)
May 27, 2007
Honorable Michael Johanns Secretary of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture Room 200 Jamie Whitten Federal Building Washington, D.C. 20250
CC
Honorable Judge James Robertson U.S. District Court 333 Constitution Ave. North West Washington, D. C. 20001
Subject: Request to let the Creekstone vs. USDA court decision stand.
Ref: Letter from United States Animal Health Association, dated May 22, 2007
Dear Mr. Secretary et al :
I am requesting that you allow the court decision in the Creekstone vs. USDA to stand so that Creekstone may begin testing the beef they process for BSE and or BASE and or any other TSE phenotype there of. WE must let them test since the USDA et al refuse to do so properly. This is not to say that there should be no strict TSE testing protocols. IF testing is to take place privately, there must be strict TSE testing protocol to assure the most up to date, sensitive, and validated tests are used, and used properly. These tests must be announced to the public in a timely manner at every step of the way, validated and confirmed by the federal government, Weybridge, and an independent third party consumer organization and there TSE expert of choice, in my opinion.
My mother died from a exceedingly rare strain of sporadic CJD i.e. the Heidenhain Variant of CJD. My neighbors mother also lost his mother to a form of sporadic CJD exactly one year previously from the day my mother died. BOTH cases were confirmed by autopsy. There is new data out about the BASE atypical BSE, which pathologically is more related to a phenotype of sporadic CJD, than the nvCJD in humans from the UK. To continue to ignore these scientific findings with the old UKBSEnvCJD only theory is not justified by science anymore. It is not logical.
The logic behind the reasons not to let test for TSE in the USA because of The Virus Serum Toxin Act of 1913 and or because of the recent letter from the USAHA (see letter below) bring forth, are totally bogus. NO one could screw the testing up any worse than the USDA has done in the past. The OIG and the GAO has shown this time and time again. The 2004 Enhanced BSE surveillance program where some 275,000+ cattle were tested for BSE was proven to be terribly flawed from the beginning. This documented time and time again. Even Paul Brown, known and respected TSE scientist, former TSE expert for the CDC said he had ''absolutely no confidence in USDA tests before one year ago'', and this was on March 15, 2006 ;
"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, .