From Science News Daily recent:



There's a lot more on sciencedaily.com just search on "prion disease".

Alzheimer's and prion disease are similar, they both involve proteins that get out of whack. But Alzheimer's involves beta-amyloid and prion disease involves something else. You can't really diagnose either one without a brain autopsy. In fact, there are lots of sorts of dementia diseases that are a little different from one another.

So sure, I could easily imagine someone being misdiagnosed with either disease, especially if they weren't being followed closely to note the much more rapid deteroration with vCJD.

My personal belief is that Alzheimer's is Type III diabetes, the brain isn't able to produce insulin to handle excess blood sugar.

Prion disease is like... sci fi scary. I mean the thought of it being a really incredibly difficult to destroy protein that makes other proteins misfold. It sounds like a twilight zone story! It is stuff like that that makes me wonder how life ever managed to evolve...

Ah! I know what it reminds me of! Ice-9. Anyone ever read Cat's Cradle?

Still... this horrible thing claims 10's of tens of people's lives every year!

Yes, my question is about beef producers in the United States.



Right, but a page ago you said this:


So Big Beef is controlling the USDA, and they don't want to be tested, so the USDA doesn't require testing. But why are the Big Beef producers willing to lose huge money in lost overseas beef sales? That's what can't make sense of here. Why would Big Beef find that kind of loss of sales acceptable? That's what I can't make sense of here in this thread.

Actually, it was during the beef lawsuit that Oprah met Dr. Phil. He was at that time running two companies, one was a Jury Science program in which he analyzed juries for trials and he was hired in her case.

I do think he would touch this. Maybe she would not but maybe she would.

His second company was a large weekend - group psycho babble thing that was making him incredibly rich already.

She liked him, was tired of having a different shrink on every week and decided to get some consistency.

I think he would take this on.

US meatpacker can do mad cow tests-U.S. judge 29 March 2007
10:38 PM

WASHINGTON, March 29 (Reuters) - A small U.S. meatpacker hoping to rebuild its beef exports can perform its own tests for mad cow disease, a federal judge ruled on Thursday, overturning a U.S. government monopoly on test kits for the fatal disease.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson from the District of Columbia said his ruling in favor of Creekstone Farms Premium Beef LLC would not take effect until June 1 pending any appeal by the Agriculture Department.

Privately held Creekstone filed suit a year ago for the right to test all of the cattle it slaughters for the fatal malady. It says the tests would assure customers that its beef is safe. USDA said mad cow tests should be a livestock health measure, not a marketing tool.

Neither Creekstone nor USDA had an immediate comment, said spokesmen.

In his ruling, Judge Robertson said USDA had no authority to control sales of test kits under a 1913 law that regulates serums and other treatments for domestic animals. USDA's "prohibition of the private use of rapid test kits to screen cattle for bovine spongiform encephalopathy is unlawful," he wrote.

"The kits are used only on animals that are dead. USDA's own pronouncements about BSE test kits establish they have nothing to do with treatment of BSE."

Scientists say BSE, also often known as "mad cow" disease, is caused by malformed proteins known as prions. People can contract a human version of the disease by eating contaminated meat.

U.S. beef exports nosedived following the discovery in December 2003 of the first U.S. case of mad cow disease. Two other cases have been reported since then.

In its lawsuit, Creekstone said its revenues dropped by 35 percent because foreign buyers fear mad cow. Customers would buy more beef if they had the assurance given by a test.

USDA said most U.S. cattle are marketed at a young age when there is little risk they have BSE. Running rapid screening tests on young cattle provides "no food safety valve," the agency said.

Robertson noted "... the consumer issues at the heart of USDA's position cannot be located within (the 1913 law) and appear to lie, not with USDA but with the Federal Trade Commission or perhaps the Commerce Department."

Although U.S. beef exports reached $2.04 billion in 2006, they are far below the $3.8 billion level that preceded the mad cow case.

Trade remains limited with coveted markets, including Japan, South Korea, Russia and China. President George W. Bush said on Wednesday recovery of beef exports is a key goal of the administration's foreign policy.

SKorea trade deal hinges on ending beef ban: US RL
2 April 2007
Agence France Presse

WASHINGTON, April 2, 2007 (AFP) -

A big US-South Korea free trade agreement is unlikely to be ratified by Washington unless Seoul ends a ban imposed on US beef over fears of mad cow disease, a US official and key lawmaker said Monday.

While the ban on beef is not officially part of the free-trade agreement (FTA) clinched over the weekend after 10 months of negotiations, both sides acknowledge that US lawmakers would block any deal unless the issue is resolved, Deputy US Trade Representative Karan Bhatia said.

"I don't think the Congress will approve an FTA with Korea without the full reopening of Korean beef market," Bhatia told reporters on a conference call from Seoul.

"We have made that very clear to Korea and they understand that."

Before a 2003 import ban imposed over fears of mad cow disease, South Korea bought 850 million dollars' worth of US beef a year.

Seoul last year agreed to accept US boneless beef but rejected three shipments after discovering tiny bone fragments.

Korean officials said in Seoul they verbally promised to "positively consider" US demands on beef after the International Organization for Animal Health reviews mad cow risks in the US.

In addition, Seoul will phase out its 40 percent tariff on beef over 15 years. Tariffs on pork will go over 10 years.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said the negotiators in Seoul made only "vague promises to resolve this issue at some point in the future" and added that he would block the trade agreement until the South Korean market is reopened.

"I will oppose the Korea Free Trade Agreement, and in fact I will not allow it to move through the Senate, unless and until Korea completely lifts its ban on US beef," Baucus said in a statement.

"I have made it clear -- to the administration and to the Korean government -- from the start of these talks that there can be no trade agreement without full access to the Korean market for all of Montana's beef exports, boneless and bone-in, and regardless of age."

Well, that should make us wonder in a big way. Big Beef- referring to the largest, top 4 companies that produce beef. A theory I have is that they dont want testing b/c they are covering up the disease, and that would really kill their exports, and domestic sales... just a thought? It seems to be the smaller guy (Lee just posted a recent article on an example of a m.packer who the judge ruled in favor to test! yay!)..who wants to do their own testing.... notice this article Lee posted says "Small meatpacker".... the Giants just want to be able to raise the beef in as large a quantity as possible, not have any more red tape, get the meat to auction or other- to me- thats what its about. Im sure they are not "happy" that their exports are down, Im sure they are trying to export it- in fact I remember reading how the US was putting major pressure on other countries to accept our beef imports, and they were very nervous to. If you google it theres allot more, but the links I have seem somewhat outdated, so Im not sure where exactly we stand now. HTH alittle...

hah- actually- look at Lees second post- i didnt catch it in time. That talks about how were putting pressure on S.Korea... to accept our imports "or else" basically.... thats nice. free "force" trade.

yes- that is what i thought back in 1998 when i did my first paper on CJD. That was right after i lost my Grandfather. My Chemistry teacher was wowed by it- that was when I knew i was onto something new, and scary- but interesting. It is promising that they are researching treatments, but studies are inconsistent. They help some, but not others. I know in the UK they want to test to see if people are harboring the disease today, b/c just about the entire population is thought to have been exposed to tainted beef or other. But I dont know if I would want to know. I have often had to face the realization that my Grandfather died from this, and if its possible that it has to do w/ a genetic mutation, maybe I have that mutation- not necessarily giving me CJD, but making me more prone to getting it from food.
Have you ever watched any specials on History channel about kuru and cannibolism? I believe that is how this all started- the really nasty practice of humans eating humans for rituals and ceremonial purposes. It was on a month or so ago on a Saturday, and I was fascinated.

So- yes I can hear the twilight zone music playing now- but this is my real, everyday reality. I dont let it get the best of me- my Grandfather would never want that, but I feel theres no way I can do nothing.

Change never happens overnight- i know the resistance Im up against! I have it in my own family. I cant really even discuss this issue to a major extent w/in my family, just my husband and I, and a few others- my aunt was really concerned but then said it was "part of her greiving process" and lost interest. But-I will continue my work.

I'm glad to hear that. It's just stupid to try to block voluntary testing. And if Creekstone successfully starts exporting abroad, others will follow suit.

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.

Allow me now to connect the dots.

Only one tiny beef company is suing to allow testing.

The beef industry is not suing to allow testing.

The beef industry is working through lobbyists to force untested beef back into the Asian imported beef market and they have been successful with Japan.

The ugliest fact of all: no work is being done by the finest research system in the world, the premiere United States university system because that is ALSO prohibited.

I will bring you more on that front and perhaps you can then begin to connect your own dots.

BTW: Prions, unlike viruses, contain no DNA. They are not living, and therefore, to biologists, cannot infect, since infection requires genetic material. But prions adhere to normal proteins and caused them to fold - that is, become diseased - in a mechanical process akin to a chain reaction.

You'd think questions would be welcome! Apparently not. Apparently questions mean you aren't connecting the dots.

To Quote: You'd think questions would be welcome! Apparently not. Apparently questions mean you aren't connecting the dots.

So, sorry. I don't get your meaning but I do get your tone!

If you have a specific question which is addressed to me please state it succinctly and I will respond with facts supported with documented reference. Challenges should also be supported with documented references rather than broad based unsupported assertions.

The tone ... is counterproductive.

Supported, documented facts are productive for informed, insightful discourse.

I'm not here to drag anyone into one belief or another. I don't have a dog in this fight. What I do have is experience in reporting on this issue and a detailed knowledge of facts both published and unpublished.

Nor am I here to be insulted.

Ah, correction and edit. Based on the posting below I am indeed here to be insulted. Thank you. Hope you did find my extensive efforts and postings more helpful than I found your ten word criticism (insult) and contribution to this thread. I challenge you to contribute to this body of knowledge.

Could you possibly be any more pedantic? Talk about tone!!!

Financial Times Information
Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire

December 9, 2006 Saturday


(EDITORIAL from the Korea Herald on Dec. 9) The discovery of bone fragments in U.S. beef shipments is a serious health issue for Koreans. Despite claims to the contrary from U.S. officials, it is a valid concern for Koreans who imposed a ban on U.S. beef imports following the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States.

The three-year ban was lifted in September on condition that only boneless beef would be imported. Quarantine inspectors here, however, found bone fragments in all three shipments that have arrived since the lifting of the ban and have consequently rejected them. Korea accepts only boneless beef from cattle up to 30 months of age to guard against mad cow disease.

Prior to the U.S. beef import ban, Korea was the third-largest market for U.S. beef, valued at about $850 million annually. Understandably, U.S. officials are anxious to reclaim this lucrative market. From the consumers' perspective, however, even a remote possibility of mad-cow disease cannot be ignored.

The efforts by U.S. officials to somehow link this health issue to the Korea-U.S. negotiations on a free trade agreement seem unwarranted and ill-advised. It so happens that the latest round of negotiations is taking place in Big Sky, Montana, the second largest beef producer in the United States. There is no doubt the U.S. beef industry is pressuring its politicians to demand Korea reopen its market to U.S. beef.

The U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns claims that the bone fragments found in beef is not a safety issue. "This is a hypothetical effort to try to find a reason not to accept U.S. beef," he said in a press conference. He said he believes that even Korea is acknowledging this is not a safety issue.

Ask any person on the street in Seoul if he would feel secure eating U.S. beef with bone fragments. The answer would be an unequivocal "no."

Perhaps Americans feel differently on this issue. "American beef is safe regardless of bones," said Max Baucus, a Montana senator, chomping on beef steak for lunch with Kim Jong-hoon, Korea's chief trade negotiator, and his U.S. counterpart Wendy Cutler. Earlier, the senator said, "According to international standards, Korea should be accepting bone-in beef and offal as well as boneless U.S. beef right now, and they should move to take that step in Montana." Such a statement coming from Baucus, who is tipped to head the Senate Finance Committee, is a worrying development. The committee will be the first to review any free trade deal, so his remarks could be perceived as a clear threat to link further opening of the beef market with FTA negotiations.

However, as Cutler has said, the beef issue is not strictly linked to the FTA talks. It is unfortunate that bone fragments in beef, a major food safety issue in the mind of the public, has overshadowed the latest round of negotiations, considered the most crucial, unnecessarily raising tensions. U.S. officials must recognize the domestic situation in Korea where food safety is always a highly sensitive topic and decouple the beef shipment rejections from the larger task of FTA negotiations.

Pharma Investments, Ventures & Law Weekly October 29, 2006

Significant declines in domestic demand of beef would impact U.S. beef and cattle industry

Significant declines in domestic demand of beef would impact the U.S. beef and cattle industry.

According to a recent report from the United States, "The discovery of the first case of mad cow disease in the United States in 2003 reverberated across the beef and cattle industry.

"This study employs a general equilibrium model to analyze the potential economic effects of mad cow disease on the beef, cattle, and other meat industries under three scenarios, ranging from most favorable to most pessimistic."

"The scenario with 90% foreign demand decline and 10% domestic demand reduction generates results consistent with the actual outcomes after the mad cow disease outbreak," reported S. Devadoss and colleagues at the University of Idaho.

[I]Investigators concluded, "Only if domestic demand declines significantly will the economic hardship in the U.S. beef and cattle industry be very large."[/I]

Devadoss and colleagues published their study in the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (A general equilibrium analysis of foreign and domestic demand shocks arising from mad cow disease in the United States. J AGR RESOUR ECON, 2006;31(2):441-453).

For additional information, contact S. Devadoss, University of Idaho, Dept. of Agriculture Economics, Moscow, ID 83843, USA.

Publisher contact information for the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics is: Western Agricultural Economics Association, C, O Deevon Bailey, Utah State University, Economics Dept., 3535 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-3530, USA.

Originally Posted by leeanderse
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.

Allow me now to connect the dots......

Could you possibly be any more pedantic? Talk about tone!!!

I will defer to the criticizers of my information and style to carry forward in educating us on this issue. If my information has been neither helpful nor informative then so be it.

The topic is yours to carry forward and enlighten us and no longer mine. And if you rise to the challenge I promise not to take two lines out of a thousand to form a basis for criticism of you! And from all the postings is that in fact all you gained. There was no benefit at all to your pool of knowledge assuming in aruguendo such a pool exists on this topic.

It is easy to post a one line of criticism.

You will find it more time consuming and difficult to contribute but I challenge you to carry on.

I am certainly willing to sit back and learn something, pendantic or otherwise so please teach.

I will return to learn from those who criticize if they are up to the task. Time will tell whether they have the ability to contribute here or are limited to the role of criticizers.

The floor is yours and we await your contribution to this thread.

I am always searching through information presented to determine whether in contains a direction toward knowledge or just the illusion of knowledge because data is not information and information is not knowledge until you absorb it for yourself.

Please provide us with at a minimum data and information. We will determine whether it carries the potential for knowledge.

With my third book, I learned this: To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.