Re: Mad Cow

[Guest guest]

>Getting mad cow from eating beef would be impossible no matter how

>bad the beef is. How can you get a nutrient deficiency from another

>organism? A good source of info on the subject is:

><http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/17/mad_cow_pesticides.htm>http://www.mercola.c\

om/2000/dec/17/mad_cow_pesticides.htm

>

>Happy holidays.

>Bee

Although I appreciate hearing both sides in this matter, I think there

is a lot of research to be done before anyone gets too adamant they

know the answer. The problem I have with the Mercola article (and WAPF's)

is that they are based on early data (year 2000) and they sort of lightheartedly

dismiss the current research as propaganda. The research is NOT bad

research, and when you read about it in the science magazines they

seem to be really working on the issue, and to just ignore it makes

the article seem uninformed.

OTOH, the sensationalization and panic part of BSE I disagree with

too. So, here is my 2 cents:

1. The researchers are not as panicked as the newspapers are.

JKD is rare, and is still rare, something like 50 people a year

in Britain (mutton eating and all), even when the beef

weren't screened and about 3 in 1,000 were infected.

Considering the 34,000 folks that die from the flu each year,

this isn't exactly a major epidemic.

2. The major impact of all this is financial. It is sparking a trade

war on beef. Plus it panics people into not buying beef.

3. There is more to it than just ingesting prions. You

and your can and beef cows eat weird proteins all the

time. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GET TO YOUR BLOOD.

Normally they don't. They are digested into amino acids,

and the gut barrier keeps undigested ones out of your blood.

So in theory eating prions shouldn't hurt you. If in fact

people are getting infected, it means probably low stomach

acid and leaky gut. Which is about the condition of the

average dairy cow too.

4. If you do get prions in your blood, they should not get

into your brain. There is this thing called the blood/brain

barrier that keeps that kind of thing away from your

nervous system. So if in fact people get them in their

brain, they also have a blood/brain barrier problem (which

a lot of people might, maybe due to zonulin).

5. Due to 3 and 4 likely, the infection rate for prions seems

to be really LOW. So the fact that people ate infected

sheep for ages doesn't mean an infections agent doesn't exist. Also,

the people who DID get JKD probably were figured

to have Alzheimers or some other neural problem.

6. I don't think, based on the research, you can say " prions

don't exist " . It may well be they are produced only because

of certain environmental factors (like lack of copper or

insecticides) but they do seem to reproduce themselves,

as cancer cells do, and they do seem to be able to

jump species under the right conditions. The infectious

agent may or may not turn out to be what is described

as a " prion " but the point is, they test it by infecting animals,

so it is contagious and appears to be self-replicating.

Anyway, here is a good writup on the subject, which covers several potential

reasons BSE is thought to arise. Seems there are several types of it,

and they don't think the current problems are from scrapie, but

from recycled cattle. And they have infected mammals experimentally,

but not all types are contagious.

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/research/cshsd/bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy.htm

Naturally-occurring spongiform encephalopathies have been detected in a few

species with a very low prevalence. Not all spongiform encephalopathies are

transmissible, even by intracerebral inoculation of affected brain tissue.

However, the experimental transmission of spongiform encephalopathy has proved

exceptionally efficient [baker, Ridley and Wells, 1993], with over 19 species

well documented. It is unlikely that any mammalian species is immune, including

exclusive carnivores.

*

3.1 The nature of the agent

The infective agent is currently thought to be a prion, a rogue protein capable

of hijacking cell replication mechanisms in order to replicate itself, or of

conformally altering host prion protein into its own form [, 1995;

Arandaanzaldo, 1992]. An alternative hypothesis is an infective, single-stranded

DNA [Liberski, 1992] observed in homologous form in scrapie, CJD and BSE

[Narang, 1994].

Whichever agent is the cause, the resultant cellular dysfunction leads to large

demyelinated patches of brain, voids and a spongy appearance at autopsy. The

infective agent has never been isolated in BSE or any other spongiform

encephalopathies, and there is no test for infection other than appearance at

autopsy or the injection of infected tissue into experimental animals.

*

3.2 Intracerebral inoculation

Direct injection of homogenised brain from TSE affected humans and animals into

the brain of laboratory animals results in similar disease to the original host.

Transmission with species is more efficient than between species. The agent

appears to alter during passage through a new species, becoming less infectious

to the original host and more infectious to the new host. The newly passaged

infectious agent also affects a new range of hosts, different from that prior to

passage. Intracerebral inoculation is the only method to ascertain TSE for

certain.

*

3.3 Oral ingestion

Both mink and mice have been infected with BSE through food [barlow and

Middleton, 1991; et al, 1994]. Of more concern is oral transmission to

the pig [Dawson et al, 1990] which both shares a similar digestive tract with

humans and is excluded from regulatory controls on ruminant protein feed stuff.

*

4.1 Age as a risk factor

Most of the 150,000 cattle affected by BSE were dairy cattle, and the use of

animal protein was more frequent (by far) in non-beef herds. Thus contaminated

feed has been seen as the one and only risk factor for infection with BSE

[bradley, 1994; Wilesmith et al, 1992]. The introduction of regulatory control

of bovine protein in 1988/89 has therefore eliminated this source of infection

and infection rates should be falling - indeed the peak incidence was passed in

1993 (1,000 animals per week) and confirmed incidence has now fallen to 70

animals per week. Overall incidence rates amongst British cattle have been

approximately three cases per 1,000 animals per year.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

>Although I appreciate hearing both sides in this matter, I think there

>is a lot of research to be done before anyone gets too adamant they

>know the answer. The problem I have with the Mercola article (and WAPF's)

>is that they are based on early data (year 2000) and they sort of

>lightheartedly

>dismiss the current research as propaganda. The research is NOT bad

>research, and when you read about it in the science magazines they

>seem to be really working on the issue, and to just ignore it makes

>the article seem uninformed.

Mark Purdey's pages at www.markpurdey.com should provide perspectives

on recent developments. -Allan

[Guest guest]

> Gayle,

>

> IIRC is (I)f (I) ®emember ©orrectly

Ahhh! Thank you Wanita. I thought it was some US government

department!

> Dr. Mercola's newsletter had this news article

> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/national/28CANA.html

I can't access this article as I have to register.

I am not sure why this finger pointing is occurring as the North

American beef industry is an integrated market. As our Canadian

national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, reported, there is no definite

evidence the proves this cow is from Canada. In fact, the finger

pointing would be a way of giving the US inspectors a bit more time.

" An , spokesman for the American Meat Institute, said another

Canadian case would clearly be much better than a systemwide

breakdown. "

http://shorterlink.com/?XA9XN9

> The airborn theory might be interesting

> to investigate. Know Canada has some interesting technology they've

used

> since NAFTA began. One case was where Inuit women in Nunuvut had

extreme

> levels of dioxins and other harmfuls in their breast milk. This

technology

> was able to determine because of the mix which half dozen factories

in the

> U.S. and Mexico produced that toxic drift.

Who knows what is the cause. But the Globe and Mail newspaper reports:

>But that hasn't always been the case in the United States.

>The U.S. General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of

Congress, has reported major holes in compliance with the 1997

ruminant-feed rules, as well as gaps in import control and animal

testing.

>In its 2000 report, the GAO found " significant non-compliance " with

the feed rules and a " severely flawed " enforcement system that saw

hundreds of U.S. feed mills, renderers and farmers break the rules.

http://shorterlink.com/?2N5DJF

For us who are so interested in food quality, it is scary at how

Canada has suffered economically from the one cow diagnosed with BSE

on May 20, 2003. For the future, I believe it does not ensure

compliance to report possible BSE cases on any farmer's in any part of

the world or by another country. One case will bring that country's

beef industry to a dramatic halt with billions of dollars lost. Canada

is an example as borders across the world slammed shut, and now with

the United States. The new motto will be keep your mouth shut, kill

the cow, and business as usual.

As a beef consumer, it will become so much more important to buy from

a farmer that you know.

Gayle

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/2/04 12:03:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,

gayle123456789@... writes:

> >IIRC is (I)f (I) ®emember ©orrectly

>

> Ahhh! Thank you Wanita. I thought it was some US government

> department!

Thank God it isn't one more of those.

For the sake of variety, you could interpret it as " (I)f (I) ®ecall

©orrectly " fifty percent of the time. You could also intend this sentence to

be

understood fifty percent of the time when you use the acronym.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/2/04 12:37:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

beewilder@... writes:

> Finger pointing to Canada is common. During the power blackout

> earlier last year that finger from the US came out quite quickly and

> it pointed to, yes you guessed it, Canada. Why can't they wait until

> they have conclusive evidence before placing blame.

Did you see the South Park movie that came out several years? Rampant

Canada-bashing was one of the main themes; it was hilarious.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Finger pointing to Canada is common. During the power blackout

earlier last year that finger from the US came out quite quickly and

it pointed to, yes you guessed it, Canada. Why can't they wait until

they have conclusive evidence before placing blame. That's like

naming the victor in a political race before the votes have been

counted. They have ended up with egg on their faces too many times

and I don't think the American people agree. They've seen blame

being cast in the wrong direction too many times to swallow this one

as well.

Besides the fact the BSE is not contagious, cannot be acquire by

eating meat, by either humans or animals, because it is caused by

posticides and results in a nutrient deficiency. How can an organism

get a nutrient deficiency from another organism? I think it's another

disease label that is intended to direct the blame in the opposite

direction, away from govt. and the pesticide industry, in order to

deflect possible lawsuits and responsibility.

Bee

> > Gayle,

> >

> > IIRC is (I)f (I) ®emember ©orrectly

>

> Ahhh! Thank you Wanita. I thought it was some US government

> department!

>

>

> > Dr. Mercola's newsletter had this news article

> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/28/national/28CANA.html

> I can't access this article as I have to register.

>

> I am not sure why this finger pointing is occurring as the North

> American beef industry is an integrated market. As our Canadian

> national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, reported, there is no

definite

> evidence the proves this cow is from Canada. In fact, the finger

> pointing would be a way of giving the US inspectors a bit more time.

> " An , spokesman for the American Meat Institute, said another

> Canadian case would clearly be much better than a systemwide

> breakdown. "

> http://shorterlink.com/?XA9XN9

>

> > The airborn theory might be interesting

> > to investigate. Know Canada has some interesting technology

they've

> used

> > since NAFTA began. One case was where Inuit women in Nunuvut had

> extreme

> > levels of dioxins and other harmfuls in their breast milk. This

> technology

> > was able to determine because of the mix which half dozen

factories

> in the

> > U.S. and Mexico produced that toxic drift.

>

> Who knows what is the cause. But the Globe and Mail newspaper

reports:

> >But that hasn't always been the case in the United States.

>

> >The U.S. General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of

> Congress, has reported major holes in compliance with the 1997

> ruminant-feed rules, as well as gaps in import control and animal

> testing.

>

> >In its 2000 report, the GAO found " significant non-compliance " with

> the feed rules and a " severely flawed " enforcement system that saw

> hundreds of U.S. feed mills, renderers and farmers break the rules.

>

> http://shorterlink.com/?2N5DJF

>

> For us who are so interested in food quality, it is scary at how

> Canada has suffered economically from the one cow diagnosed with BSE

> on May 20, 2003. For the future, I believe it does not ensure

> compliance to report possible BSE cases on any farmer's in any part

of

> the world or by another country. One case will bring that country's

> beef industry to a dramatic halt with billions of dollars lost.

Canada

> is an example as borders across the world slammed shut, and now with

> the United States. The new motto will be keep your mouth shut, kill

> the cow, and business as usual.

>

> As a beef consumer, it will become so much more important to buy

from

> a farmer that you know.

>

> Gayle

[Guest guest]

No I didn't see the South Park antics on Canada bashing. I

find South Park generally offensive. But it sounds interesting, and

accurate.

Bee

> In a message dated 1/2/04 12:37:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> beewilder@s... writes:

>

> > Finger pointing to Canada is common. During the power blackout

> > earlier last year that finger from the US came out quite quickly

and

> > it pointed to, yes you guessed it, Canada. Why can't they wait

until

> > they have conclusive evidence before placing blame.

>

> Did you see the South Park movie that came out several years?

Rampant

> Canada-bashing was one of the main themes; it was hilarious.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/3/04 11:06:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

beewilder@... writes:

> No I didn't see the South Park antics on Canada bashing. I

> find South Park generally offensive. But it sounds interesting, and

> accurate.

I suggest not watching the movie then. It's kind of like the t.v. show, but

with a better plot, funnier, and *vastly* increased amounts of profanity.

Chris