Re: thoughts on eating/killing animals

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/20/2004 2:42:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

dmurr58@... writes:

However, we can certainly focus on buying meat from humane sources

I have always looked at harvest whether it be plant or animal as a gift for

my survival. Mistreatment of animals should never be tolerated.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/21/2004 6:45:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

opernschulebgzb@... writes:

wow - you really have the idea that plants and animals just live to feed you

?

or did I misunderstand ?

It is the cycle of nature. I believe that I must eat to live just like all

animals and plants do and to do that plants and animals must die. That is the

nature of nature. Plants live and thrive by receiving nutrients from the soil

that is made up of decomposing plants and animals (and people).

It doesn't mean that I don't regret taking life to save life. As a child I

was in a very large, poor family and we had some really rough winters.

Whenever meat came along, alive or not, we were thankful and it helped to put

things

in persective.

The idea is to treat animals with respect and to slaughter quickly and

humanely. It is interesting that with our antiseptic processing and packaging

of

meat and animal products, we are not exposed to the behind-closed-door slaughter

of animals. If we were, we might do a better job of demanding better

treatment of animals.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/21/2004 7:03:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

furryboots@... writes:

I also read your and Max's posts and my sense of fairness and

respect for others got zapped.

Thank you for your support Irene but before we drag out the weapons of mass

destruction let's realize that for many on this list, English is a second

language and misunderstandings will happen. Emails tend to be cryptic anyway

and

may come off as harsher than they were meant to be. We all come from different

countries and backgrounds and, being Os, we have strong opinions. I don't

think I've ever met a wishy washy O in my life. No whiners here. It is a

tribute to the group and our respect for each other that we don't torch each

other

more often. I think I would rather find out if someone thinks I'm an idiot

than for them to say nothing and believe I'm an idiot. It is also nice to find

out that people will come to your defense if they feel you've been slighted.

[Guest guest]

wow - you really have the idea that plants and animals just live to feed you

?

or did I misunderstand ?

Re: thoughts on eating/killing animals

> In a message dated 9/20/2004 2:42:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> dmurr58@... writes:

> However, we can certainly focus on buying meat from humane sources

>

> I have always looked at harvest whether it be plant or animal as a gift

for

> my survival. Mistreatment of animals should never be tolerated.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Opernschule BGZ, Y.Zollikofer wrote:

> wow - you really have the idea that plants and animals just live to feed you

> ?

> or did I misunderstand ?

Intentionally perhaps?

- That was not called for - as Max said which you quoted

but seemed not to have read:

" Mistreatment of animals should never be tolerated. "

What you claim is in total contradiction. I respect you seem to be

against the idea of following what we were designed to do as part of the

food chain - but it is not an excuse to twist the words of those with a

different view. We do read *your* ideas as you like and intend them to

be read and wihtout twisting them - can you do the same with those of us

whose ideas are different from yours? Please? Less is not respectful.

The rest of Max's email commentary was also very understanding of the

natural respect needed for other species.

I also read your and Max's posts and my sense of fairness and

respect for others got zapped. The words for your " interpretation " just

were not there, and I would like to think that kind of twisting of words

should not be happening no matter how different people's opinions may be.

Namaste,

Irene

> Re: thoughts on eating/killing animals

>

>

>

>>In a message dated 9/20/2004 2:42:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

>>dmurr58@... writes:

>>However, we can certainly focus on buying meat from humane sources

>>

>>I have always looked at harvest whether it be plant or animal as a gift

>

> for

>

>>my survival. Mistreatment of animals should never be tolerated.

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

yes, interesting thoughts ...

could be true -

and humans eating humans ? does that belong to the natural foodchain aswell

? if no - why not ? if yes - who could say so ?

I don't know the truth - I just think I can feel it - but it's my truth and

others might feel it different

love

Re: thoughts on eating/killing animals

> In a message dated 9/21/2004 6:45:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> opernschulebgzb@... writes:

> wow - you really have the idea that plants and animals just live to feed

you

> ?

> or did I misunderstand ?

> It is the cycle of nature. I believe that I must eat to live just like

all

> animals and plants do and to do that plants and animals must die. That is

the

> nature of nature. Plants live and thrive by receiving nutrients from the

soil

> that is made up of decomposing plants and animals (and people).

>

> It doesn't mean that I don't regret taking life to save life. As a child

I

> was in a very large, poor family and we had some really rough winters.

> Whenever meat came along, alive or not, we were thankful and it helped to

put things

> in persective.

>

> The idea is to treat animals with respect and to slaughter quickly and

> humanely. It is interesting that with our antiseptic processing and

packaging of

> meat and animal products, we are not exposed to the behind-closed-door

slaughter

> of animals. If we were, we might do a better job of demanding better

> treatment of animals.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I also read your and Max's posts and my sense of fairness and

> respect for others got zapped.

> Thank you for your support Irene but before we drag out the weapons of

mass

> destruction let's realize that for many on this list, English is a second

> language and misunderstandings will happen.

yes, possible that I didn't understand everything right ...

[Guest guest]

Opernschule BGZ, Y.Zollikofer wrote:

> yes, interesting thoughts ...

> could be true -

> and humans eating humans ? does that belong to the natural foodchain aswell

> ? if no - why not ? if yes - who could say so ?

It has to do with how the food chain is *designed*. No human could do

such an awesome design.

It is designed to stay in balance with not to few or too many of any

species, and so that each species does survive and has suitable food to

eat. Everything is inter-related to be one whole beautiful design -

hence the food " chain " analogy where each link in the chain is important.

In some cases cannibalism is part of the mechanism, for example in

spiders where the female eats the male - it is to help sustain the baby

spiders, and in centipedes where if you put a dozen in a jar, only one

will be there in the morning - one fat one. It is designed that way to

keep from having too many centipedes.

Most species are *not* designed to be cannibals because it would

eliminate the species. It is only if it helps the species that it has

been designed that way.

Man is just another link in the chain - we too need suitable food and

we in turn become food and the cycle continues. Man is *not* designed

to be cannibalistic as it would not help the species to survive for two

reasons - one it could soon wipe out the species - and two because it

would cause an increase in diseases of mad cow kind which could also

wipe out the species.

Cows are also not designed to be cannibals. Feeding cow products to

cows is what caused mad cow disease for example.

If man stopped killing animals for food then there would be extinction

of many species because the *balance* of species - so that each one can

survive like links in a chain - could not be maintained.

Man is the one animal on the planet with the cognition to decide how to

keep that balance as a fine tuning point in the chain.

I mentioned Kruger National Park in an earlier email. If man was not a

factor there - there could be no Kruger park. And on a global scale, the

same would be the case - if man was not moderating what animals were

food and what were not, the earth would die. All of it.

In Kruger, without man, the elephants would overrun the place, and

remove the food for many members of the chain, and that food would be

missing for the animals who normally eat that group and so more would

die out till all died out. The entire ecosystem would literally all die

because they are all inter-related, and need to be in the right

proportions to stay that way.

As it is, man has messed up there in a big way with (illegally) hunting

large cats - which is bad decision making and not food related. The big

cats help to keep the numbers in proportion by what they eat. Hunting

without need is lack of respect, and we are responsible for respecting

what animals are food and what animals are in a different part of the

chain than the link that is our food, and in some cass the fur for

warmth. Nobody in central Africa needs a fur for warmth, and killing the

big cats is wrong there. But killing fur seals for furs to keep man warm

in icy climates is within the balance as it is designed.

One has to see the plant and animal world of which we are a part,

as a whole - as one big picture and not with isolated ideas that do not

take the big picture into account according to its intricate design.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/22/2004 4:13:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

furryboots@... writes:

Cows are also not designed to be cannibals. Feeding cow products to

cows is what caused mad cow disease for example.

I thought it was from feeding cheap ground sheep meat mixed with feed to

cattle. The brain disease was transfered cross species from sheep to cattle.

When you mess with nature and try to feed herbivores meat, you're in for

trouble.

The only remote danger to humans is if they eat the organ meat. Locally

prepared ground beef doesn't usually have organ meat in it.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/22/2004 8:06:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Hestia@... writes:

It's not a recent occurance. It existed as part of that

people's spiritual beliefs, not as a food necessity.

But don't you think that the root of cannbalism was born out of the need for

survival to " cull " the population during bad times and were morphed into

religious/spiritual events to " dignify " the culling and consolidate power?

[Guest guest]

Dear Irene,

very interesting post - thanks

I don't think the world would die without humans - in the contrary : world

IS diying BECAUSE of humans -

without us, the whole world would be a huge Kruger-Park - it's US that is

destroing natural chains !

there are way too many humans on earth - wouldn't that be a reason for

cannibalism ?

ofcourse we humans think about that as very rude because families would

loose children and parents and relatives - but: why is that so rude with

humans, but not with animals ?

I'm not giving answers, just asking questions.

love

Re: thoughts on eating/killing animals

>

> Opernschule BGZ, Y.Zollikofer wrote:

> > yes, interesting thoughts ...

> > could be true -

> > and humans eating humans ? does that belong to the natural foodchain

aswell

> > ? if no - why not ? if yes - who could say so ?

>

> It has to do with how the food chain is *designed*. No human could do

> such an awesome design.

>

> It is designed to stay in balance with not to few or too many of any

> species, and so that each species does survive and has suitable food to

> eat. Everything is inter-related to be one whole beautiful design -

> hence the food " chain " analogy where each link in the chain is important.

>

> In some cases cannibalism is part of the mechanism, for example in

> spiders where the female eats the male - it is to help sustain the baby

> spiders, and in centipedes where if you put a dozen in a jar, only one

> will be there in the morning - one fat one. It is designed that way to

> keep from having too many centipedes.

> Most species are *not* designed to be cannibals because it would

> eliminate the species. It is only if it helps the species that it has

> been designed that way.

> Man is just another link in the chain - we too need suitable food and

> we in turn become food and the cycle continues. Man is *not* designed

> to be cannibalistic as it would not help the species to survive for two

> reasons - one it could soon wipe out the species - and two because it

> would cause an increase in diseases of mad cow kind which could also

> wipe out the species.

> Cows are also not designed to be cannibals. Feeding cow products to

> cows is what caused mad cow disease for example.

>

> If man stopped killing animals for food then there would be extinction

> of many species because the *balance* of species - so that each one can

> survive like links in a chain - could not be maintained.

> Man is the one animal on the planet with the cognition to decide how to

> keep that balance as a fine tuning point in the chain.

>

> I mentioned Kruger National Park in an earlier email. If man was not a

> factor there - there could be no Kruger park. And on a global scale, the

> same would be the case - if man was not moderating what animals were

> food and what were not, the earth would die. All of it.

> In Kruger, without man, the elephants would overrun the place, and

> remove the food for many members of the chain, and that food would be

> missing for the animals who normally eat that group and so more would

> die out till all died out. The entire ecosystem would literally all die

> because they are all inter-related, and need to be in the right

> proportions to stay that way.

> As it is, man has messed up there in a big way with (illegally) hunting

> large cats - which is bad decision making and not food related. The big

> cats help to keep the numbers in proportion by what they eat. Hunting

> without need is lack of respect, and we are responsible for respecting

> what animals are food and what animals are in a different part of the

> chain than the link that is our food, and in some cass the fur for

> warmth. Nobody in central Africa needs a fur for warmth, and killing the

> big cats is wrong there. But killing fur seals for furs to keep man warm

> in icy climates is within the balance as it is designed.

>

> One has to see the plant and animal world of which we are a part,

> as a whole - as one big picture and not with isolated ideas that do not

> take the big picture into account according to its intricate design.

>

> Namaste,

> Irene

> --

> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

> P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

> http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

> Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Irene,

I just got that mail two minutes ago ...

hey: I'm not twisting words at all ! I try to understand a language that is

my 6th language - not my first - and I ASKED if he meant it like that or if

I misunderstood - so there is no reason to accuse me of twisting words !!

Do you know me as somebody who does that normally ? ...

> Intentionally perhaps?

>

> - That was not called for - as Max said which you quoted

> but seemed not to have read:

> " Mistreatment of animals should never be tolerated. "

>

> What you claim is in total contradiction. I respect you seem to be

> against the idea of following what we were designed to do as part of the

> food chain - but it is not an excuse to twist the words of those with a

> different view. We do read *your* ideas as you like and intend them to

> be read and wihtout twisting them - can you do the same with those of us

> whose ideas are different from yours? Please? Less is not respectful.

>

> The rest of Max's email commentary was also very understanding of the

> natural respect needed for other species.

> I also read your and Max's posts and my sense of fairness and

> respect for others got zapped. The words for your " interpretation " just

> were not there, and I would like to think that kind of twisting of words

> should not be happening no matter how different people's opinions may be.

>

> Namaste,

> Irene

>

>

> > Re: thoughts on eating/killing animals

> >

> >

> >

> >>In a message dated 9/20/2004 2:42:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> >>dmurr58@... writes:

> >>However, we can certainly focus on buying meat from humane sources

> >>

> >>I have always looked at harvest whether it be plant or animal as a gift

> >

> > for

> >

> >>my survival. Mistreatment of animals should never be tolerated.

> >>

> >>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Cannibalism existed long before the world was over run with

humans. It's not a recent occurance. It existed as part of that

people's spiritual beliefs, not as a food necessity.

No, the world wouldn't die without humans. Just like it doesn't

die when another species is wiped out. However, humans ARE part

of the food chain. When there are too many rabbits in an area,

there are more predators (coyotes, foxes etc). When there are

too many predators, the rabbits disappear and then the predators

die off for lack of food. It's all part of nature's cycle.

We destroy the natural food chain when we wipe out ecosystems.

Not when we eat meat.

> Dear Irene,

>

> very interesting post - thanks

>

> I don't think the world would die without humans - in the

contrary : world

> IS diying BECAUSE of humans -

> without us, the whole world would be a huge Kruger-Park - it's

US that is

> destroing natural chains !

>

> there are way too many humans on earth - wouldn't that be a

reason for

> cannibalism ?

> ofcourse we humans think about that as very rude because

families would

> loose children and parents and relatives - but: why is that so

rude with

> humans, but not with animals ?

>

> I'm not giving answers, just asking questions.

>

> love

>

[Guest guest]

Opernschule BGZ, Y.Zollikofer wrote:

> very interesting post - thanks

>

> I don't think the world would die without humans - in the contrary : world

> IS diying BECAUSE of humans -

Humans are unique because they have a choice to help the world or to

hurt the world - and they do both.

> without us, the whole world would be a huge Kruger-Park - it's US that is

> destroing natural chains !

Kruger Park would die without humans - that was the point I was trying

to make :-))

It needs humans to manage the numbers of some of the animals there -

which then are food for humans. If you take the humans out of the food

chain at Kruger, it ALL dies. It is a perfect example of how important

EVERY part of the plant and animal life is for success of the whole

design of life.

Kruger can also die the way other areas of wildlife died - by humans

abusing the wildlife instead of using it well as at Kruger. An aerial

photo of Africa shows what the land looks like after being abused - it

turns to desert. Kruger Park is no desert :-) But it would be if man did

not manage it.

> there are way too many humans on earth - wouldn't that be a reason for

> cannibalism ?

Cannibalism never just happens in a species - it only occurs when there

is a reason for it related to species survival. So it will not happen in

humans while there is not a reason for it, even though it would probably

be more humane than war or genocide!

Nature's design caters for the crowding of humans in a different way.

Whenever it is too crowded, a new disease develops that kills off many

people, and the balance is restored. That is the design, not cannibalism.

It is why we have had epidemics such as cholera, smallpox, diptheria,

scarlet fever, measles, yellow fever, plague, malaria, the killer flu,

and now AIDS and mad cow are appearing. The more closely together you

pack humans, the more new diseases develop to reduce the numbers. ALL

these epidemic diseases started as a result of human crowding, and these

are Nature's designed method of holding down the population.

Cannibalism by man would not help any other links in the chain, for

example it would not make us better food for other predators. So it is

not in the design.

Disease is the culling factor for humans - and it helps those at the

smallest end of the chain - to make it go full circle.

Again man interferes and does harm as well as good. ALL the chronic

diseases are caused by man - allergies, cancer, arthritis, fibromyalgia,

multiple sclerosis etc etc - those are caused by man's own drugs and

vaccines used to damage immune systems.

So in that way we " help " the culling process.

As a whole, the mechanism of life is well designed to be balanced.

I do not think we humans can design it better :-)

It would be foolish to think we control something that was designed well

before we arrived on the scene and which is far more intricate than any

man could devise :-) IMO the best we can do is to work within the design

- to respect it and honor it, and help it remain according to design.

If we do not, we will lose our own food and the planet will not survive

any more than Kruger Park can.

Namaste,

IRene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

Opernschule BGZ, Y.Zollikofer wrote:

> Irene,

>

> I just got that mail two minutes ago ...

>

> hey: I'm not twisting words at all !

Okay - Sorry - I did not realize you would have a language

problem as your writing is very clear.

Usually if someone writes well in a language they also understand it

well, and I consider it is reasonable to assume that.

> Do you know me as somebody who does that normally ? ...

Do not try to make this personal.

First of all I responded to what was written, because it was nasty, not

because of who wrote it. I would have responded the same no matter who

wrote it.

And second, I have been on the list too short a time to know what is

normal for anyone. I can only go by what I have seen so far - and so far

you have written in a clear way like anyone else, and I had no reason to

treat you differently from anyone else.

NOW you tell me you have a language-related reason to misunderstand -

but I could not have guessed it based on your writing skill so far.

From now on I know about it. If I had known before, I would have

responded differently.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/22/2004 1:33:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

opernschulebgzb@... writes:

No, the world wouldn't die without humans.

Anyone remember the 1971 movie " The Helstrom Chronicle " ? His premise was

that the next world dominating organism would be the insect.

[Guest guest]

From: <Maddviking@...>

> It's not a recent occurance. It existed as part of that

> people's spiritual beliefs, not as a food necessity.

>

> But don't you think that the root of cannbalism was born out of

the need for

> survival to " cull " the population during bad times and were

morphed into

> religious/spiritual events to " dignify " the culling and

consolidate power?

Possibly. More likely it was a way of honoring an enemy. They

thought they were taking on the powers/skills etc of what they

ate. A great warrior's spirit should continue to live on - that

kind of thing. Someone with great vision would be prized for his

eyes. Generally it was organs used in this fashion. The

primative hunter would thank the spirit of the animal it hunted

for allowing itself to be used as food/tools/clothing etc. When

a man was killed in war, some of it translated over. That's why

in some cultures it is sacriligeous to bury people in certain

ways. Left out for the animals, or buried safe. Face up or face

down. Religion had much more of a hold over the general puplic

then it does now. Science has loosened that hold.

[Guest guest]

> Cannibalism never just happens in a species - it only occurs

when there

> is a reason for it related to species survival. So it will not

happen in

> humans while there is not a reason for it, even though it would

probably

> be more humane than war or genocide!

Point of order, cannibalism HAS happened.

> Nature's design caters for the crowding of humans in a

different way.

> Whenever it is too crowded, a new disease develops that kills

off many

> people, and the balance is restored. That is the design, not

cannibalism.

> It is why we have had epidemics such as cholera, smallpox,

diptheria,

> scarlet fever, measles, yellow fever, plague, malaria, the

killer flu,

> and now AIDS and mad cow are appearing. The more closely

together you

> pack humans, the more new diseases develop to reduce the

numbers. ALL

> these epidemic diseases started as a result of human crowding,

and these

> are Nature's designed method of holding down the population.

> Cannibalism by man would not help any other links in the chain,

for

> example it would not make us better food for other predators.

So it is

> not in the design.

The problem with man is that they can take themselves out of the

design. Other species can't. Why else do people choose to eat

all that junk food? Technically speaking, the world isn't over

crowded with people. Yet. Certain areas are, but there are vast

areas still without people. The epidemics you describe also

happened long before we got to this stage.

The plague was caused by religion. To be specific, the

Inquisition. People got scared. They killed their cats because

they didn't want to be accused of being witches. So the rat

population exploded, spreading the plague. It wasn't caused by

overcrowding.

[Guest guest]

Maddviking@... wrote:

> I thought it was from feeding cheap ground sheep meat mixed with feed to

> cattle.

It was first thought to start that way because of Scrapie in sheep being

a similar disease but now they are not so sure and think it mutated in

cattle from normal cattle prions.

Either way development is associated with UK cattle feed exported all

over the world and enhanced with sick animal parts, and also with

reduction in preparation temperatures of that animal feed as an economic

measure. The feed was used for many different species.

Scrapie has been around in sheep a long time and scrapie still does not

affect cows or any other species.

The BSE mutation however will cross species and will affect any

warm-blooded species, and has been documented to affect many.

So the mad cow prion is not species-specific. It can affect any

mammal, and nowadays when sheep get sick it can be BSE or scrapie!

Usually such mutations and species jumping only happen in very

crowded conditions, but man's interference by feeding food that was not

appropriate to the species increased the new disease mutation risk to

the same level as crowding would do.

Crowding is a hotbed for new disease mutations because the crowded folk

usually have very poor immunity and poor resistance and so are

susceptible with their defences down.

> The brain disease was transfered cross species from sheep to cattle.

> When you mess with nature and try to feed herbivores meat,

or feed plants to carnivores etc

> you're in for trouble.

> The only remote danger to humans is if they eat the organ meat. Locally

> prepared ground beef doesn't usually have organ meat in it.

Well you are in for trouble only if the animal used for the meat has

BSE. And if your own resistance is down. And if you eat the wrong part

of the infected animal. The prions are in the brain tissue. And there is

possibly a long incubation time, but reports vary widely in how much.

Recent research in mice shows incubation time related to presence of

growth factor.

The first 3 humans got the disease in 1995, and by 1999 the incidence

was 28 that year, I have not seen the latest statistics, but the

incidence of BSE in many species is steadily increasing, and every year

more countries have affected animals.

Infectivity is not really well studied yet. For example we now know that

lymphocytes from tonsils, spleen, and appendix can harbour transmissible

prions and so there is research to see what blood transfusion risk there

may be from people carrying the prion but not actively infected yet.

Here is an excerpt from current research:

" Despite their rarity, human prion diseases have received prominence

because the consumption of prion-contaminated meat from cattle with

bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is thought to be responsible for

the emergence of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) in humans.

Clinical criteria for the diagnosis of vCJD is now available. Recent,

more startling evidence suggests that the clinical presentation of vCJD

may vary and that patients may present as classical (sporadic) CJD or

may have subclinical infection and be apparently healthy. These patients

may still pose a risk of iatrogenic transmission through surgical or

medical (blood transfusion) procedures......... As the number of cases

of BSE in the UK declines, the risk of BSE in other countries from

imported cattle or meat and bone meal from the UK has been increasing.

It is also recognized that other animal species (farmed, domestic and

wild animals) other than cows are susceptible to TSEs. The possibility

of interspecies transmission of TSEs and the global presence of the

disease suggests a need for a co-ordinated worldwide risk management

approach to eradicate TSEs. "

The Reference is:

[Public Health. 2004 Sep;118(6):409-20.

The risk of accidental transmission of transmissible spongiform

encephalopathy: identification of emerging issues.

Ramasamy I.

Department of Chemical Pathology, Newham General Hospital, Glen Road,

Plaistow, London E13 8RU, UK.]

While the current incidence is not decimating any human populations, I

believe we will hear a lot more about TSE prions - just as when AIDS

first emerged it too was an issue laughed off as low risk. Now everybody

has heard of it and knows they *need* to be concerned about it.

The TSE human infections are higher numbers every year, and as long as

that trend continues, a dash of vigilance would not hurt.

Man sure knows how to mess things up :-))

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

Irene de Villiers wrote:

> Well you are in for trouble only if the animal used for the meat has

> BSE. And if your own resistance is down. And if you eat the wrong part

> of the infected animal. The prions are in the brain tissue.

I meant to say the prions *infect* the brain tissue.

They can be found in the meat in all kinds of tissues depending on the

animal. For example the kudu in South Africa (a large buck which is

potentially the best animal as a food animal in Africa) is very

susceptible to the prion disease and the prions can be found all over,

even the skin, conjunctiva, and salivary glands of kudu, making

potential for transfer much worse than in cows for example where the

prions are quite restricted in where they will be found.

Namaste,

IRene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

that's right Belinda

>

> No, the world wouldn't die without humans. Just like it doesn't

> die when another species is wiped out. However, humans ARE part

> of the food chain. When there are too many rabbits in an area,

> there are more predators (coyotes, foxes etc). When there are

> too many predators, the rabbits disappear and then the predators

> die off for lack of food. It's all part of nature's cycle.

>

> We destroy the natural food chain when we wipe out ecosystems.

> Not when we eat meat.

>

> > Dear Irene,

> >

> > very interesting post - thanks

> >

> > I don't think the world would die without humans - in the

> contrary : world

> > IS diying BECAUSE of humans -

> > without us, the whole world would be a huge Kruger-Park - it's

> US that is

> > destroing natural chains !

> >

> > there are way too many humans on earth - wouldn't that be a

> reason for

> > cannibalism ?

> > ofcourse we humans think about that as very rude because

> families would

> > loose children and parents and relatives - but: why is that so

> rude with

> > humans, but not with animals ?

> >

> > I'm not giving answers, just asking questions.

> >

> > love

> >

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

that's ok Irene

Re: thoughts on eating/killing animals

> Opernschule BGZ, Y.Zollikofer wrote:

> > Irene,

> >

> > I just got that mail two minutes ago ...

> >

> > hey: I'm not twisting words at all !

>

> Okay - Sorry - I did not realize you would have a language

> problem as your writing is very clear.

> Usually if someone writes well in a language they also understand it

> well, and I consider it is reasonable to assume that.

>

> > Do you know me as somebody who does that normally ? ...

>

> Do not try to make this personal.

> First of all I responded to what was written, because it was nasty, not

> because of who wrote it. I would have responded the same no matter who

> wrote it.

> And second, I have been on the list too short a time to know what is

> normal for anyone. I can only go by what I have seen so far - and so far

> you have written in a clear way like anyone else, and I had no reason to

> treat you differently from anyone else.

>

> NOW you tell me you have a language-related reason to misunderstand -

> but I could not have guessed it based on your writing skill so far.

> From now on I know about it. If I had known before, I would have

> responded differently.

>

> Namaste,

> Irene

> --

> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

> P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

> http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

> Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> yes, interesting thoughts ...

> could be true -

> and humans eating humans ? does that belong to the natural

foodchain aswell

> ? if no - why not ? if yes - who could say so ?

>

Are there many animals who eat their own, except perhaps under

extreme conditions? I don't think so. So why would we be different.

BTW, I also don't quite following your interpretation of madviking's

post. From what I see, all living beings are living off of each

other one way or another. In which case, maybe that's the only

reason we are ALL here. So what's the deal?

Judy