"Rubystars" > wrote:

>I know sometimes it was their feet or some other ailment that wouldn't
>affect my health, but I don't want to eat animals that are so sick they
>can't stand up, even if there wasn't CJD involved.
>
>-Rubystars


Me, too. I am fed up with 'survival of the fittest' crap. As a top predator, I
evolved to eat only the very best.

Dennis

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> Paul M. Cook©® > writes
> >
> >"Oz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Paul M. Cook©® > writes
> >>
> >> >DDT accumulates in fat tissue. Meaning it may not be harmful on your
> >first
> >> >exposure, or even your second. After that, it was anybody's guess.
To
> >say
> >> >DDT destroys wildlife and is harmless to humans is just rank
stupidity.
> >>
> >> Everything is toxic at some dose, even water.
> >> So absolutely everything is potentially harmful in some way.
> >
> >Yeah but you wouldn't want arsenic in your orange juice now would you?
>
> Small amounts of arsenic are essential, and there will be some in orange
> juice anyway.
>
> >Care
> >for some mercury in your tuna?
>
> Trace amounts are quite safe, we all eat them anyway.
>
> >Maybe you'd like some cyanide in your
> >drinking water?
>
> Lots in most nuts, particularly almonds.
>
> Your point being?

That you're a clueless boob.

Paul

Oz wrote:

> Paul M. Cook©® > writes
> >
> >"Oz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Paul M. Cook©® > writes
> >>
> >> >DDT accumulates in fat tissue. Meaning it may not be harmful on your
> >first
> >> >exposure, or even your second. After that, it was anybody's guess. To
> >say
> >> >DDT destroys wildlife and is harmless to humans is just rank stupidity.
> >>
> >> Everything is toxic at some dose, even water.
> >> So absolutely everything is potentially harmful in some way.
> >
> >Yeah but you wouldn't want arsenic in your orange juice now would you?
>
> Small amounts of arsenic are essential, and there will be some in orange
> juice anyway.
> (snip)

There is quite a bit oif arsenic in apples. Eat a whole bag and you would croak.
Dogs and cats need ot too, so its in cat and dog food
--
Michael Ellis, IAPP
Privacy Manager
Date.com
Phone 877-224-DATE x2620

Date.com - "The New Way To Date"




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Rubystars > writes
>"Oz" > wrote in message
...
>> Rubystars > writes
>>
>> >The issue for me isn't whether most downers are wholesome to eat or not.
>> >Obviously that's the case or there would have been a lot more sick people
>> >during all the time they were allowed into the human food supply. I just
>> >think its much safer not to use them for human consumption, because
>"most"
>> >doesn't include all.
>>
>> Fine, I'm not that bothered but do notice inspection by vet on farm
>> before slaughter, inspection of carcass by the authorities at abattoir
>> and usually some inspection thereafter.
>
>Great! Makes me feel a bit safer.

I should warn you that we are the sort of family who happily eats stuff
a week after it's eat by date if it smells ok. Good for a healthy immune
response.

If it doesn't smell that bad, well a good thai or curry will do even if
it has a little bit of a nose.

Nor do we wash veg and salad in disinfectant before eating in case its
been crapped on by a bird.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

"Oz" > wrote in message
<snip>
> I should warn you that we are the sort of family who happily eats stuff
> a week after it's eat by date if it smells ok. Good for a healthy immune
> response.

It would depend on the food on whether or not I'd take that risk.

> If it doesn't smell that bad, well a good thai or curry will do even if
> it has a little bit of a nose.

I haven't had curry before. I'm too afraid of it being too hot and burning
my mouth.

> Nor do we wash veg and salad in disinfectant before eating in case its
> been crapped on by a bird.

I do wash vegetables. I know they're grown in crap a lot of times.

-Rubystars

Rubystars > writes
>
>"Oz" > wrote in message
><snip>
>> I should warn you that we are the sort of family who happily eats stuff
>> a week after it's eat by date if it smells ok. Good for a healthy immune
>> response.
>
>It would depend on the food on whether or not I'd take that risk.

Cooking is good for killing bugs ...

>> If it doesn't smell that bad, well a good thai or curry will do even if
>> it has a little bit of a nose.
>
>I haven't had curry before. I'm too afraid of it being too hot and burning
>my mouth.

Ahhh, the buzz!

>> Nor do we wash veg and salad in disinfectant before eating in case its
>> been crapped on by a bird.
>
>I do wash vegetables. I know they're grown in crap a lot of times.

Especially if organic.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:12:55 +0000, Oz > wrote:

>Rubystars > writes

>
>I should warn you that we are the sort of family who happily eats stuff
>a week after it's eat by date if it smells ok. Good for a healthy immune
>response.
>
>If it doesn't smell that bad, well a good thai or curry will do even if
>it has a little bit of a nose.
>
>Nor do we wash veg and salad in disinfectant before eating in case its
>been crapped on by a bird.

You're in greater danger from its being crapped on or touched by the
unwashed hand of a carrier field worker. Google for Chi-Chi's and
hepatitis to refresh your memory.


Boron

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> Rubystars > writes
> >"Oz" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Rubystars > writes
> >>
(snip)
> I should warn you that we are the sort of family who happily eats stuff
> a week after it's eat by date if it smells ok. Good for a healthy immune
> response.
>
> If it doesn't smell that bad, well a good thai or curry will do even if
> it has a little bit of a nose.
>
> Nor do we wash veg and salad in disinfectant before eating in case its
> been crapped on by a bird.
>
I'm really not too worried about getting a food-borne disease that will kill
me, because I know how rare that is. However, I seriously hate having to
spend the day on the throne if I eat something bad. Seeing as how cashflow
isn't a problem for me, and the grocery stores are open on a regular basis,
I err on the side of caution. I always take a second and look at and smell
whatever I am about to eat or cook. If it looks or smells funny, or if the
plastic bag has self-inflated, it's gone. 'When in doubt, throw it out',
may seem wasteful to some people, but it works for me.

aem sends...

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:00:44 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:01:47 -0000, "pearl" >
>> wrote:

>> >
>> Truly, I am sorry, but you are quoting a journal article that is 9
>> years old.
>
>What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological disorders?

Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
these numbers since her or your other article were published.
Knowledge of the disorders has come pretty far since then, as has, as
a matterof fact, knowledge of Alzheimer's. Predicating an entire
theory on such limited research with little corroboration over the
years makes no sense whatsoever.
>
>> None of this has borne out with recent numbers.
>
>Provide citations.

The chart of numbers from Britain was already posted in this thread
in tabular form. Did you miss it?
>
>> At the time
>> this article was published, the estimates of nvCJD that were to be
>> occurring were alarming everyone the same way. This, too, was in
>> error.
>
>It's too early to conclude anything of the sort, considering the
>lengthy incubation period.

No it is not. The same numbers chart posted yesterday or the day
before shows these numbers since 1990. That is long enough to track
the data through incubation and disease diagnosis.
>
>> It is not that BSE, or nvCJD or CJD are pleasantries or fluff - all
>> are quite serious, but Chicken Little, Casandra and the Boy who Cried
>> Wolf only serve to raise rabble and make fancy sound bites, quick
>> headlines & flame wars.
>
>When the population is at risk, it is far better to be safe than sorry.

The population is at far greater risk from any number of clear and
present dangers. To siphon off funding and research monies to pursue
something that afflicts so few is cruel and wasteful.
>
>> Hard numbers and facts that have been shown to
>> be solidly based in research are much more intelligent and ultimately
>> effective than unsubstatiated percentages, scare tactics or ****ing in
>> the wind.
>
>Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
>UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.

Non one in teh US except Laura Manuelidis seems to give a flying horse
pucky in the last 8 or 9 years, which leads me to think there is no
reason or interest in pursuing a blind alley. Even she is off on an
infectious agent angle nowadays.

Look...I have a connection on the human subjects committee at a major
teaching hospital that is involved with Alzheimer's research. That
isn't much a citation for you , I am sure, but I do get to read quite
a bit of what comes up. Bark. Wrong tree.

Boron

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:56:11 GMT, "ameijers"
> wrote:

>
>"Oz" > wrote in message
...
>> Rubystars > writes
>> >"Oz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Rubystars > writes
>> >>
>(snip)
>> I should warn you that we are the sort of family who happily eats stuff
>> a week after it's eat by date if it smells ok. Good for a healthy immune
>> response.
>>
>> If it doesn't smell that bad, well a good thai or curry will do even if
>> it has a little bit of a nose.
>>
>> Nor do we wash veg and salad in disinfectant before eating in case its
>> been crapped on by a bird.
>>
>I'm really not too worried about getting a food-borne disease that will kill
>me, because I know how rare that is. However, I seriously hate having to
>spend the day on the throne if I eat something bad. Seeing as how cashflow
>isn't a problem for me, and the grocery stores are open on a regular basis,
>I err on the side of caution. I always take a second and look at and smell
>whatever I am about to eat or cook. If it looks or smells funny, or if the
>plastic bag has self-inflated, it's gone. 'When in doubt, throw it out',
>may seem wasteful to some people, but it works for me.
>
>aem sends...

Goodness. You really think that? YOu at much more risk of death by
food poisoning that any prion-pudding-brain scare being shoveled out
here. 5,200 deaths in the US each year and that is thought to be a
serious underestimate.

Boron

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s785664.htm
Food poisoning deaths may be wildly underestimated
Monday, 17 February 2003

Food poisoning may claim more lives than doctors suspect

Deaths from food poisoning caused by bacteria such as Salmonella may
kill double the number of people previously thought, according to a
large-scale Danish study.

In research published in the latest issue of the The British Medical
Journal, Dr Kare Molbak and colleagues at the Statens Serum Institute
in Copenhagen said that not only could deaths from food poisoning be
twice as high as current estimates, they may also occur up to a year
after infection.

"This has never been studied before because people have always thought
of Salmonella and Campylobacter as acute infections," Molbak said.
"But what we observe is that for some patients there is a late excess
mortality up to one year after infection."

Salmonella in poultry products and eggs and Campylobacter, which is
found in chicken, are leading causes of food poisoning. In most
people, the infections are not serious and will result in a few days
of diarrhoea, stomach cramps or fever; but in the very young, the
elderly and in people with chronic illnesses like diabetes or HIV,
they can be deadly.

The Atlanta-based Centres for Disease Control estimate that about
5,200 people in the United States die each year from food poisoning,
and according to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, more than 4
million Australians contract food poisoning every year and an unknown
number die. But the scientists said these figures are likely to be
underestimates.

Deaths from food poisoning are underestimated because they usually
occur within 30 days after infection, the researchers said, and there
is very little long-term data. Food poisoning deaths can also be
wrongly attributed to other illnesses. "It has been due basically to a
lack of data," said Molbak.

The Danish researchers studied the medical history of 1,071 people who
had died within a year of being infected with Salmonella,
Campylobacter, Yersinia enterocolitica and Shigella. Yersinia
enterocolitica is bacteria found in pork and Shigella is found mainly
on fruits and vegetables grown in poorer countries.

Deaths within the first year after infection were 2.2% in the people
who had had food poisoning, compared to 0.7% in a control group of
3,636 people.

Molbak advised people concerned by results of the study to thoroughly
to cook meat and to wash fruits and vegetables in clean water to avoid
food poisoning, which can be treated with antibiotics. But he added
that the overuse of antibiotics can lead to the development of strains
of bacteria resistant to the drugs.

In Denmark, about 90 deaths a year are due to food poisoning,
according to the research. Molbak said the number in Britain, which
has a much bigger population, would be about 10 times higher.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:05:17 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s785664.htm
>Food poisoning deaths may be wildly underestimated
>Monday, 17 February 2003
<..>
>The Danish researchers studied the medical history of 1,071 people who
>had died within a year of being infected with Salmonella,
>Campylobacter, Yersinia enterocolitica and Shigella.
<..>
>Deaths within the first year after infection were 2.2% in the people
>who had had food poisoning, compared to 0.7% in a control group of
>3,636 people.

Well, that's pretty incoherent. The study is obviously misrepresented
by the journalist here. One must seriously question if she has done
more than to read a oneliner harvested from the abstract, while
misunderstanding it.

How come you don't notice, Boron?

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:48:13 -0800, OrionCA >
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:48:39 +0000, Thighbone Lee Jackson
> wrote:
>
>>>Everything is toxic at some dose, even water.
>>>So absolutely everything is potentially harmful in some way.
>>
>>Bit like saying the bullet fired from the gun at you is not dangerous
>>until it hits you and you're dead.
>
>That constitutes an unacceptably high level of lead poisoning, yes.
>However if lead, at any concentration in the bloodstream, were toxic
>we would all be dead because until relatively recently all grades of
>gasoline contained tetraethyl lead and you can't deny you've never
>smelled exhaust fumes.

Non sequitur. ('toxic' really does not equate with 'lethal')

>>Did you attend pre schooling?
>
>*sniff* Painful subject with me. I was reading, writing, and working
>(extremely!) simple math problems at age 4 so my parents decided I
>didn't need to attend. In 1st grade when other children were doing
>the "See Dick Run. Run, Dick; Run!" bit I was working my way through
>"Profiles in Courage", "Pirates of Mars", "Skylark of Valeron", and
>the like.
>
>I've always thought I would have enjoyed preschool and kindergarten.

I think I know some of what you've been through, my experience have
been somewhat similar, difference only there was no preschool and
kindergarten then my parents could let me skip, so that left me
effectively skipping the first 2 grades. Books are wonderful but not a
substitute for pals of your own physical age. But it is a conundrum for
parents, I can no longer blame mine. Done is done, and really I would
have been bored to death by attending 'See Dick run' classes.

ameijers > writes

>I'm really not too worried about getting a food-borne disease that will kill
>me, because I know how rare that is. However, I seriously hate having to
>spend the day on the throne if I eat something bad.

A very very rare occurrence for me. I can't remember when I last used
any medication at all for an upset stomach. Probably about 1972.

>Seeing as how cashflow
>isn't a problem for me, and the grocery stores are open on a regular basis,
>I err on the side of caution. I always take a second and look at and smell
>whatever I am about to eat or cook. If it looks or smells funny, or if the
>plastic bag has self-inflated, it's gone. 'When in doubt, throw it out',
>may seem wasteful to some people, but it works for me.

I would agree with that (more or less), I was referring to 'use by'
dates although my children tell me some people automatically bin
anything past its 'sell by' date!

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

Boron Elgar > writes

>Goodness. You really think that? YOu at much more risk of death by
>food poisoning that any prion-pudding-brain scare being shoveled out
>here. 5,200 deaths in the US each year and that is thought to be a
>serious underestimate.

Its an odd thing .....

Cases of gastroenteritis in the UK have shown an increasing trend since
WW2, with no signs of any decrease. During that period hygiene levels in
the home (in the 50's few in the UK owned a fridge, for example) and in
the food chain have increased constantly by leaps and bounds. Our food
is now vastly more hygienic than it ever was and yet gastroenteritis is
at an all time high.

So we (the UK govt and others) strive for even higher levels of hygiene.

I strongly suspect that the two are not linked, and indeed I can offer a
mechanism why this should be so.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

OrionCA > writes
>On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:48:34 +0000, Oz > wrote:
>
>>Now you are being as unreasonable as the rabid veggie activists.
>>There is a very high probability that vCJD is caused by BSE.
>>The emergence, prion typing and the incidence curve are pretty good
>>evidence. Its certainly a sensible modus operandi for public health.
>
>Sorry, but the *proof* would be to demonstrate that

>(a) a large number of people ate "prion-contaminated" beef,

That is beyond dispute for the UK. There are a number of surveys, one by
anderson (oxford university) being the best known. Refs will be in the
BSE progress report previously cited. About 1M subclinically BSE
infected cattle were eaten by the UK population.


>(b) a significant number of these developed the disease, more than
>could be explained away as statistical anomalies,

See onset, rise and decline of vCJD cases. That vCJD derives from BSE is
not proven, but the case is very solid.

>(c) an understanding of the transfer mechanism.

The transfer mechanism, that is oral infection of TE's is hugely well
documented.

>One of the problems with the "pretty good evidence" is that British
>researchers couldn't found "prion contaminated" meat in the markets.

Thats hardly surprising given that the available tests are not sensitive
enough for low levels. Mind you the entire UK vCJD caseload *could* be
explained by rogue butchers and rogue knackers using horribly
contaminated (but apparently wholesome) meat from BSE culls. I strongly
suspect the 'Queniborough hotspot' was caused in precisely this way.
Illegal things do happen. Do not expect to find proof, though.

>Not surprising because these prions are largely confined to the brain
>and, to a lesser extent, its central nervous system. There's also the
>problem of the transfer mechanism being missing: prions do not
>reproduce, neither is there a Xerox "prion copier" in your brain.

Prion precursor (ie the monomer) is produced by the brain, this is not
in doubt. That prions can and will catalyse polymerisation is not in
dispute. Consequently the mechanism is quite clear, and very simple.

>SImply because a *tiny* number of people have a deformed prion
>somewhat similar to one found in BSE-infected cattle doesn't mean the
>people caught it from the cattle. The human eye is exactly like the
>octopus eye in shape and structu Does that make you an octopus?

It makes it an eye. The prions found in vCJD patients typematch that
from BSE and the epidemiology (if it continues to decrease) is also good
evidence. Its more than good enough evidence for me, personally, to
consider suitable precautions to reduce exposure are a very wise thing
to do.

>The final and most important problem is that no one has proven that
>anyone who came down with CJD or a variant thereof ate
>"prion-contaminated" meat. For all we know the disease is actually a
>virus spread by bird droppings and both cows and humans catch it by
>walking barefoot in the fields.

The work on TE transmission has shown that TE's that have a vanishingly
low chance of containing any viable rna or dna are infectious. So this
statement is highly implausible.

>A random Cosmic Ray may zip through
>the skull and deform a prion or two hundred, causing the disease.

Indeed, see sporadic CJD if you like.

>Whatever, the fact that tens of thousands of Brits aren't staggering
>through the streets, foaming and drooling at the mouths (except after
>the pubs close, of course) indicates that whatever causes the disease
>it's far less of a problem than the hysterical rantings of the press
>and advocacy groups would have you believe.

That may be true, but this is because controls were put in place
astonishingly early via southwood.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

"Oz" > wrote in message
...
> OrionCA > writes
> >On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:48:34 +0000, Oz >
> >Whatever, the fact that tens of thousands of Brits aren't staggering
> >through the streets, foaming and drooling at the mouths (except after
> >the pubs close, of course) indicates that whatever causes the disease
> >it's far less of a problem than the hysterical rantings of the press
> >and advocacy groups would have you believe.
>
> That may be true, but this is because controls were put in place
> astonishingly early via southwood.
>

it seems to be a combination of southwood and the fact that prions do not
cross the species barrier easily. To show infectivity in tests they
effectively have to inject infected material into the brain. They managed to
get prions to cross the species barrier into people by using 60 million test
subjects

Jim Webster

I suppose now to say, "......mad as a cow," can mean something more
lethal than, ".....mad as a hornet " ? " Mad as a hatter " ? Another
platitude for the long list.

Just a Jeanie

OrionCA > writes
>On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 06:31:58 +0000, Oz > wrote:
>
>>OrionCA > writes
>>>On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:48:34 +0000, Oz > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Now you are being as unreasonable as the rabid veggie activists.
>>>>There is a very high probability that vCJD is caused by BSE.
>>>>The emergence, prion typing and the incidence curve are pretty good
>>>>evidence. Its certainly a sensible modus operandi for public health.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but the *proof* would be to demonstrate that
>>
>>>(a) a large number of people ate "prion-contaminated" beef,
>>
>>That is beyond dispute for the UK. There are a number of surveys, one by
>>anderson (oxford university) being the best known. Refs will be in the
>>BSE progress report previously cited. About 1M subclinically BSE
>>infected cattle were eaten by the UK population.
>
>Prions are not found in the usual cuts of beef you get from the
>butcher. Whether it was 1 Million or 100 Million is irrelevant if the
>beef does not contain the "deformed" prions.

It would be a brave person who claims this. Meat contains nerves.
However as to the size of the risk I would point out that I and my
family ate beef throughout the UK beef epidemic, which should say it
all.

>>>(b) a significant number of these developed the disease, more than
>>>could be explained away as statistical anomalies,
>>
>>See onset, rise and decline of vCJD cases. That vCJD derives from BSE is
>>not proven, but the case is very solid.
>
>Again, you confuse conjecture with fact. If a case is "not proven",
>it cannot be "solid". It is "conjecture".

No, it is solid. Nothing is ever proven scientifically, merely proven to
some level of probability. This one has a high probability.

>>>(c) an understanding of the transfer mechanism.
>>
>>The transfer mechanism, that is oral infection of TE's is hugely well
>>documented.
>
>Please provide this documentation.

It's all over the net, go do your own research.
Try the cabi website, they may well still have 300 abstracts FOC.

>>>One of the problems with the "pretty good evidence" is that British
>>>researchers couldn't found "prion contaminated" meat in the markets.
>>
>>Thats hardly surprising given that the available tests are not sensitive
>>enough for low levels. Mind you the entire UK vCJD caseload *could* be
>>explained by rogue butchers and rogue knackers using horribly
>>contaminated (but apparently wholesome) meat from BSE culls. I strongly
>>suspect the 'Queniborough hotspot' was caused in precisely this way.
>>Illegal things do happen. Do not expect to find proof, though.
>
>That's because there isn't any. "The absence of proof does not mean
>my theory is wrong; it simply means that I don't know how to prove
>it." is lousy science.

If you want to stay in denial, just eat a few brains from cwd-infected
deer. Chances are you won't be in a position to argue in 5 years time.

In short, you are being stupid. There is a risk, its a very low one
indeed PROVIDING sensible precautions are taken.

>>>Not surprising because these prions are largely confined to the brain
>>>and, to a lesser extent, its central nervous system. There's also the
>>>problem of the transfer mechanism being missing: prions do not
>>>reproduce, neither is there a Xerox "prion copier" in your brain.
>>
>>Prion precursor (ie the monomer) is produced by the brain, this is not
>>in doubt. That prions can and will catalyse polymerisation is not in
>>dispute. Consequently the mechanism is quite clear, and very simple.
>
>It is in dispute, the mechanism is not clear, and you are very simple
>if you are reading this stuff off the Internet and taking it at face
>value.

I have been into following prion work since well before BSE.
I also have a very good track record for predictions.
You, on the other hand, seem to be astonishingly ignorant for someone
with such a big mouth.

>>That may be true, but this is because controls were put in place
>>astonishingly early via southwood.
>
>"astonishingly early"? Are you on drugs? It takes 2-4 years before a
>"Mad Cow" displays evidence of BSE. By then thousands of pounds of
>"Mad cow beef" had been sold and consumed. Assuming for the sake of
>argument that health officials INSTANTLY diagnosed the disease and
>INSTANTLY notified the government of the problem, it would have taken
>months to institute the controls you talk about. By this time
>thousands MORE pounds of "contaminated" beef entered the marketplace -
>because not all contaminated cattle display the disease.

<sigh>
You are very ignorant of the UK bse epidemic, aren't you?
Come back when you know a bit because I've been discussing this for
nearly two decades and I really can't be arsed to shove the facts down
the throat of yet another ignorant loudmouthed git.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.

"Rubystars" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Oz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rubystars > writes
> >
> > >The issue for me isn't whether most downers are wholesome to eat or not.
> > >Obviously that's the case or there would have been a lot more sick people
> > >during all the time they were allowed into the human food supply. I just
> > >think its much safer not to use them for human consumption, because "most"
> > >doesn't include all.
> >
> > Fine, I'm not that bothered but do notice inspection by vet on farm
> > before slaughter, inspection of carcass by the authorities at abattoir
> > and usually some inspection thereafter.
>
> Great! Makes me feel a bit safer.
>
> -Rubystars

Oz is in the UK, Rubystars.

Jan. 6, 2004. 01:00 AM
U.S. slow to act on mad cow tests
ANDREW KNIGHT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's recent decision to ban from
human consumption cows too sick or injured to stand is a very
belated step in the right direction.

For years, animal welfare and public health experts have been calling
for a ban. But legislators obedient to an industry keen to extract every
last dollar from these suffering animals have repeatedly blocked bills.

Rather than being dragged to slaughter, these animals should be
humanely euthanized on the farm.

However, the USDA's decision will not end the risks to American
consumers — not by a long way.

Cows affected by mad cow disease commonly take years to display
any signs at all, let alone becoming too sick to stand, and the average
American cow is slaughtered at younger than two years of age, hence
the majority of mad cows will continue to pass undetected into the
human food supply without a very thorough surveillance system.

And the U.S. surveillance system would be considered a joke,
if people weren't likely to die from its shortcomings.

Americans slaughter around 35 million cows annually, and last year
tested a paltry 20,000 for mad cow disease, not even 1 in 1,700.
By contrast, Europe tests almost a million cows each month.

France, which has a fraction of the U.S. cattle population, tests
more cows in a week than America tests in a decade. Japan,
formerly the biggest U.S. export market, tests every cow destined
for human consumption, and our U.S. industry reps complain
that Japan won't reopen its doors to American beef.

Small wonder.

Dr. Stanley Prusiner, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine for his
discovery of prions, those deadly microscopic invokers of mad cow
disease, describes U.S. testing as "appalling."

In fact, it is something of a miracle that the single American mad cow
was detected at all. Had she not been paralyzed while giving birth and
consequently been unable to stand, it is extremely unlikely she would
have been tested.

Given that our "appalling" surveillance system managed to accidentally
detect a single mad cow, it is quite likely that a thorough European-style
system would detect a substantial number of cattle infected with mad
cow and other dangerous diseases.

In fact, for the one mad cow detected thus far, it is not unlikely that
some 1,700 have passed undetected into the food chain, and that the
human form of this lethal disease is silently incubating in numerous
unsuspecting beef-eaters at present.

At a few cents per pound of hamburger meat, testing costs are not
a problem.

However, the impacts of a thorough testing program on consumer
confidence and profits would likely be disastrous, and the industry
has successfully fought to keep testing low enough to make it highly
unlikely that such diseases will actually be detected. Until now.

The 1997 ban on the feeding of cows to cows in the form of meat
and bone meal is a key element of the supposed "firewall" that
protects U.S. herds. However, loopholes remain that are large
enough to gallop a herd of steers through.

Eighteen million pounds of meat and bone meal is produced daily
in the U.S. and farmers feed an average of a pound a day to dairy
cows to maximize production.

Since 1997, cow meat has been banned. But the enforcement of this
ban is even more appalling than our downed cow-inspection system.

A recent study found that one-fifth of American feed and rendering
companies had no system in place to prevent cross-contamination
of cattle feed, yet the Food and Drug Administration doesn't appear
to even have a complete database of the companies, let alone any
credible enforcement system.

Other gaping holes in the firewall include unsaleable pet food, poultry
litter, and restaurant leftovers, all of which may include cattle products,
and all of which are fed to cows in a never-ending effort to cut costs.

A million tonnes of poultry litter, containing poorly digested meat meal,
feces, and feathers, are fed to American cows each year. Perhaps least
savoury of all, spray-dried cow and pig blood is added to agricultural
animal feed to provide protein, mixed into drinking water, and,
most commonly, used as a milk replacement for dairy calves.

At least 16 studies have shown that prions may be transmitted
through blood, which is why the American Red Cross no longer
accepts blood from most Western European donors.

Ending the human consumption of downed cows will go some
way toward reducing public health risks and the suffering these
poor animals endure.

But unless and until the USDA follows Europe's lead and massively
increases testing for mad cow and other dangerous diseases, and
unless and until they get serious about ending the feeding of cow
products to cows, chickens and pigs, their efforts will remain little
more than a smokescreen designed to protect industry profits at
the expense of the American public.

Dr. Andrew Knight is a veterinarian who consults for various
animal protection organizations within the U.S. and abroad.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...rver?pagename=
thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=
1073301943487&call_pageid=968256290204&col=9683501 16795

"Oz" > wrote in message ...
> Boron Elgar > writes
>
> >Goodness. You really think that? YOu at much more risk of death by
> >food poisoning that any prion-pudding-brain scare being shoveled out
> >here. 5,200 deaths in the US each year and that is thought to be a
> >serious underestimate.
>
> Its an odd thing .....
>
> Cases of gastroenteritis in the UK have shown an increasing trend since
> WW2, with no signs of any decrease. During that period hygiene levels in
> the home (in the 50's few in the UK owned a fridge, for example) and in
> the food chain have increased constantly by leaps and bounds. Our food
> is now vastly more hygienic than it ever was and yet gastroenteritis is
> at an all time high.

Possibly because doctor-prescribed antibiotics destroy beneficial intestinal
bacteria, -- our first line of defence against pathogenic micro-organisms.
After antibiotics a course of a good human multi-strain probiotic should be
taken in order to restore beneficial gut flora. Ask your doctor about it, Oz.

"OrionCA" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 06:31:58 +0000, Oz > wrote:
>
> >OrionCA > writes
<..>
> >>(a) a large number of people ate "prion-contaminated" beef,
> >
> >That is beyond dispute for the UK. There are a number of surveys, one by
> >anderson (oxford university) being the best known. Refs will be in the
> >BSE progress report previously cited. About 1M subclinically BSE
> >infected cattle were eaten by the UK population.
>
> Prions are not found in the usual cuts of beef you get from the
> butcher. Whether it was 1 Million or 100 Million is irrelevant if the
> beef does not contain the "deformed" prions.

Does beef contain blood? Nerve and lymphatic tissues? .. Yes.

> >>A random Cosmic Ray may zip through
> >>the skull and deform a prion or two hundred, causing the disease.
> >
> >Indeed, see sporadic CJD if you like.

(wild denial, or what).

> >>Whatever, the fact that tens of thousands of Brits aren't staggering
> >>through the streets, foaming and drooling at the mouths (except after
> >>the pubs close, of course) indicates that whatever causes the disease
> >>it's far less of a problem than the hysterical rantings of the press
> >>and advocacy groups would have you believe.

Lengthy incubation, and remember CJD and 'simple dementia', AD..

> >That may be true, but this is because controls were put in place
> >astonishingly early via southwood.
>
> "astonishingly early"? Are you on drugs? It takes 2-4 years before a
> "Mad Cow" displays evidence of BSE. By then thousands of pounds of
> "Mad cow beef" had been sold and consumed.

BSE Incubation Period Is 2-8 Years - No Symptoms
1-3-4

"The incubation period for BSE ranges from two to eight years."
- National Cattleman's Beef Association

In other words, cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens once infected
can remain asymptomatic for 2-8 YEARS.

That is why most US cattle are slaughtered before they reach
4 or 5 years of age.

http://rense.com/general47/BSEincubationperiod.htm
- and why UK cattle are killed under the age of 30 months.

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:00:44 -0000, "pearl" >
> wrote:
> >"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:01:47 -0000, "pearl" >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> Truly, I am sorry, but you are quoting a journal article that is 9
> >> years old.
> >
> >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological disorders?
>
> Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
> other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
> over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
> these numbers since her or your other article were published.

Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit the source.

'Currently four million Americans are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.
The percentage of cases is on the rise with solid research showing that
there are about 360,000 individuals newly diagnosed each year.

At Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania at Pittsburgh,
researchers recently studied the brains of people who died of Alzheimer's
disease (46 in the Yale case and 54 in the Pittsburgh study). Surprisingly,
the autopsies respectively showed that 13 percent and five percent of the
dead were actually CJD cases misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's disease.

In a third (smaller) study published in the Journal of Psychiatry and
Neuroscience (1995), investigators reported that three out of 12 patients
diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease were found to have had CJD when
autopsied. [Teixeira, F., et al. "Clinico-Pathological Correlation in
Dementias." Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 20 (1995): 276-282.]
It should be noted CJD symptoms may be remarkably similar to those of
Alzheimer's disease.

There are no accurate figures for the total number of U.S. Alzheimer's
deaths each year, simply because it doesn't usually get reported as the
cause of death. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported only
22,725 Alzheimer's deaths in 1998. However, a spokesperson for the
National Alzheimer's Association, in a recent interview, agreed that the
actual number could easily be 100,000, or even has high as 400,000
per year. Because Alzheimer's patients usually die within 8 to 10 years,
she agreed that the CDC numbers must be grossly understated. If new
research supports that approximately 10 percent of all Alzheimer's
disease related deaths are in fact misdiagnosed CJD cases, then 10,000
to 40,000 CJD deaths will suddenly appear in America each year.
That would be an epidemic. '

> Knowledge of the disorders has come pretty far since then, as has, as
> a matterof fact, knowledge of Alzheimer's. Predicating an entire
> theory on such limited research with little corroboration over the
> years makes no sense whatsoever.

Huh. http://www.rense.com/general46/proofa.html

> >> None of this has borne out with recent numbers.
> >
> >Provide citations.
>
> The chart of numbers from Britain was already posted in this thread
> in tabular form. Did you miss it?

Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.

> >> At the time
> >> this article was published, the estimates of nvCJD that were to be
> >> occurring were alarming everyone the same way. This, too, was in
> >> error.
> >
> >It's too early to conclude anything of the sort, considering the
> >lengthy incubation period.
>
> No it is not.

Yes, it is.

> The same numbers chart posted yesterday or the day
> before shows these numbers since 1990. That is long enough to track
> the data through incubation and disease diagnosis.

No, it isn't. Especially since your 'tracking' is a farce.

> >> It is not that BSE, or nvCJD or CJD are pleasantries or fluff - all
> >> are quite serious, but Chicken Little, Casandra and the Boy who Cried
> >> Wolf only serve to raise rabble and make fancy sound bites, quick
> >> headlines & flame wars.
> >
> >When the population is at risk, it is far better to be safe than sorry.
>
> The population is at far greater risk from any number of clear and
> present dangers.

So you say.

> To siphon off funding and research monies to pursue
> something that afflicts so few is cruel and wasteful.

The entire system needs a good shake..

> >> Hard numbers and facts that have been shown to
> >> be solidly based in research are much more intelligent and ultimately
> >> effective than unsubstatiated percentages, scare tactics or ****ing in
> >> the wind.
> >
> >Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
> >UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.
>
> Non one in teh US except Laura Manuelidis seems to give a flying horse
> pucky in the last 8 or 9 years, which leads me to think there is no
> reason or interest in pursuing a blind alley. Even she is off on an
> infectious agent angle nowadays.

The alley isn't blind. You are though. Enjoying your beef, is it?

> Look...I have a connection on the human subjects committee at a major
> teaching hospital that is involved with Alzheimer's research. That
> isn't much a citation for you , I am sure, but I do get to read quite
> a bit of what comes up. Bark. Wrong tree.

Well you can get to read a bit more, should you care to. See above.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...

Your ongoing evasion is noted, jim.

> > American readers please note, no matter what the reality is, there are
> > people out there who want it to look better than it is because it suits
> > their own interests and lines their own pockets.
>
> Yes, but everyone knows I am a beef producer, tell them what you do for a
> living.

Has it any bearing on the subject under discussion, or vested interest,
as yours does? No.

> In fact I actually post under my real name because I'm not ashamed of how I
> earn my living

I'm not either, to the contrary, but you should be.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message

> > >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological
disorders?
> >
> > Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
> > other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
> > over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
> > these numbers since her or your other article were published.
>
> Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit the
source.

when the source is wrong, then it is stupid to base your decisions on it

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

..
> >
> > Great! Makes me feel a bit safer.
> >
> > -Rubystars
>
> Oz is in the UK, Rubystars.

If you want to eat decent meat, go into your butchers at look at the price
per pound of decent mince.
Then look at other meat products such as sausage and burgers. If they are
cheaper per pound than mince, and have to be further manufacturered,
packaged etc, then ask yourself how the cost has been kept so low.

If you need a new car and have £6,000 to spend, do not go to a Merc
dealership, you have to go somewhere down market. Food is exactly the same,
buy cheap rubbish and all you are buying is cheap rubbish

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "OrionCA" > wrote in message
...
> > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 06:31:58 +0000, Oz > wrote:
> >
> > >OrionCA > writes
> <..>
> > >>(a) a large number of people ate "prion-contaminated" beef,
> > >
> > >That is beyond dispute for the UK. There are a number of surveys, one
by
> > >anderson (oxford university) being the best known. Refs will be in the
> > >BSE progress report previously cited. About 1M subclinically BSE
> > >infected cattle were eaten by the UK population.
> >
> > Prions are not found in the usual cuts of beef you get from the
> > butcher. Whether it was 1 Million or 100 Million is irrelevant if the
> > beef does not contain the "deformed" prions.
>
> Does beef contain blood? Nerve and lymphatic tissues? .. Yes.
>

but as we have less than 20 cases a year of nvCJD and the number is falling,
it obviously isn't a problem

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Research into some neurological disorders (for example CJD and
> > > > Alzheimer's disease) relies almost entirely on brains from autopsies,
> > > > ..
> > > funny that
> > >
> > > there is a shortage of living people wanting pieces removed from their
> > > brains
> > >
> > > Jim Webster
> >
> > Your wit is blinding. What isn't funny, is that very few autopsies are carried
> > out on the brains of those who died from neurological disorders, and with
> > the number of deaths attributed to other causes, yet discovered to be CJD
> > upon autopsy, it is the official figures you like to wave around as evidence
> > that all the TSE containing meat-products eaten were/are safe that's a joke.
>
> except that however you dress it up, less and less people die every year of
> nvCJD

You can't know that.

"pearl" > wrote in message
...

> > except that however you dress it up, less and less people die every year
of
> > nvCJD
>
> You can't know that.

Yes I do, the figures have been published, remember, Oz published them and
you didn't understand them,

Jim Webster

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> Your ongoing evasion is noted, jim.
>
> > > American readers please note, no matter what the reality is, there are
> > > people out there who want it to look better than it is because it
suits
> > > their own interests and lines their own pockets.
> >
> > Yes, but everyone knows I am a beef producer, tell them what you do for
a
> > living.
>
> Has it any bearing on the subject under discussion, or vested interest,
> as yours does? No.
>
> > In fact I actually post under my real name because I'm not ashamed of
how I
> > earn my living
>
> I'm not either, to the contrary, but you should be.

OK so tell all these good people what you do for a living, assuming you
don't channel inner earth beings professionally

Jim Webster
>
>
>
>

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 05:09:50 +0100, Torsten Brinch
> wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:05:17 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>
>>http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s785664.htm
>>Food poisoning deaths may be wildly underestimated
>>Monday, 17 February 2003
><..>
>>The Danish researchers studied the medical history of 1,071 people who
>>had died within a year of being infected with Salmonella,
>>Campylobacter, Yersinia enterocolitica and Shigella.
><..>
>>Deaths within the first year after infection were 2.2% in the people
>>who had had food poisoning, compared to 0.7% in a control group of
>>3,636 people.
>
>Well, that's pretty incoherent. The study is obviously misrepresented
>by the journalist here. One must seriously question if she has done
>more than to read a oneliner harvested from the abstract, while
>misunderstanding it.
>
>How come you don't notice, Boron?
>
Sorry you cannot read for comprehension. Maybe you can find someone to
explain it to you.

Boron

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:48:16 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Oz" > wrote in message ...
>> Boron Elgar > writes
>>
>> >Goodness. You really think that? YOu at much more risk of death by
>> >food poisoning that any prion-pudding-brain scare being shoveled out
>> >here. 5,200 deaths in the US each year and that is thought to be a
>> >serious underestimate.
>>
>> Its an odd thing .....
>>
>> Cases of gastroenteritis in the UK have shown an increasing trend since
>> WW2, with no signs of any decrease. During that period hygiene levels in
>> the home (in the 50's few in the UK owned a fridge, for example) and in
>> the food chain have increased constantly by leaps and bounds. Our food
>> is now vastly more hygienic than it ever was and yet gastroenteritis is
>> at an all time high.
>
>Possibly because doctor-prescribed antibiotics destroy beneficial intestinal
>bacteria, -- our first line of defence against pathogenic micro-organisms.
>After antibiotics a course of a good human multi-strain probiotic should be
>taken in order to restore beneficial gut flora. Ask your doctor about it, Oz.

You're nuts. Pure and simple.

Boron
>
>

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:52:05 -0000, pearl wrote:

>> No it is not.
>
> Yes, it is.

....is this the right room for an argument ?
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

--
Tim.

If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
be so simple that we couldn't.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:52:05 -0000, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:00:44 -0000, "pearl" >
>> wrote:
>> >"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
.. .
>> >> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:01:47 -0000, "pearl" >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> Truly, I am sorry, but you are quoting a journal article that is 9
>> >> years old.
>> >
>> >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological disorders?
>>
>> Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
>> other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
>> over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
>> these numbers since her or your other article were published.
>
>Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit the source.

I have not discredited her, just saying that follow-up studies to her
study are not forthcoming.
>
>'Currently four million Americans are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.
>The percentage of cases is on the rise with solid research showing that
>there are about 360,000 individuals newly diagnosed each year.
>
>At Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania at Pittsburgh,
>researchers recently studied the brains of people who died of Alzheimer's
>disease (46 in the Yale case and 54 in the Pittsburgh study). Surprisingly,
>the autopsies respectively showed that 13 percent and five percent of the
>dead were actually CJD cases misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's disease.
>
>In a third (smaller) study published in the Journal of Psychiatry and
>Neuroscience (1995), investigators reported that three out of 12 patients
>diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease were found to have had CJD when
>autopsied. [Teixeira, F., et al. "Clinico-Pathological Correlation in
>Dementias." Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 20 (1995): 276-282.]
>It should be noted CJD symptoms may be remarkably similar to those of
>Alzheimer's disease.
>
>There are no accurate figures for the total number of U.S. Alzheimer's
>deaths each year, simply because it doesn't usually get reported as the
>cause of death. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported only
>22,725 Alzheimer's deaths in 1998. However, a spokesperson for the
>National Alzheimer's Association, in a recent interview, agreed that the
>actual number could easily be 100,000, or even has high as 400,000
>per year. Because Alzheimer's patients usually die within 8 to 10 years,
>she agreed that the CDC numbers must be grossly understated. If new
>research supports that approximately 10 percent of all Alzheimer's
>disease related deaths are in fact misdiagnosed CJD cases, then 10,000
>to 40,000 CJD deaths will suddenly appear in America each year.
>That would be an epidemic. '
>
>> Knowledge of the disorders has come pretty far since then, as has, as
>> a matterof fact, knowledge of Alzheimer's. Predicating an entire
>> theory on such limited research with little corroboration over the
>> years makes no sense whatsoever.
>
>Huh. http://www.rense.com/general46/proofa.html

Rense is garbage. Why not improve your quoting source...say, from
Drudge? The Washington Times, perhaps? Maybe one of Murdock's
tabloids?

AND you have no dates for new studies. YOu are drawing on old info and
missing the point. If this were an avenue worth pursuing, if there
were some validity to this, it would be studied and shown with numbers
from later studies. It isn't.
>
>> >> None of this has borne out with recent numbers.
>> >
>> >Provide citations.

Well, now that IS a brilliant statement. Shall I prove the
non-exitsence of something else to you, too? God, perhaps? No recent
studies are there.
>>
>> The chart of numbers from Britain was already posted in this thread
>> in tabular form. Did you miss it?
>
>Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
>UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.

They are not there before the mid 90s numbers you have. The studies
are not being done. That does not indicate a problem that exists to
me. It indicates a fevered mind conjecturing.
>
>> >> At the time
>> >> this article was published, the estimates of nvCJD that were to be
>> >> occurring were alarming everyone the same way. This, too, was in
>> >> error.
>> >
>> >It's too early to conclude anything of the sort, considering the
>> >lengthy incubation period.
>>
>> No it is not.
>
>Yes, it is.

Well, dream on, and do so in the face of the the errors in the
estimates that were made.
>
>> The same numbers chart posted yesterday or the day
>> before shows these numbers since 1990. That is long enough to track
>> the data through incubation and disease diagnosis.
>
>No, it isn't. Especially since your 'tracking' is a farce.

*My* tracking? I daresay I am not the one to publish the Brits'
figures for them
>
>> >> It is not that BSE, or nvCJD or CJD are pleasantries or fluff - all
>> >> are quite serious, but Chicken Little, Casandra and the Boy who Cried
>> >> Wolf only serve to raise rabble and make fancy sound bites, quick
>> >> headlines & flame wars.
>> >
>> >When the population is at risk, it is far better to be safe than sorry.
>>
>> The population is at far greater risk from any number of clear and
>> present dangers.
>
>So you say.

I take it from that smartass and information laden comment that you
feel that CJD and its variants are the greatest danger facing human
kind? Once again, you prove that you are an alarmist, with a touch of
paranoia feeding it.
>
>> To siphon off funding and research monies to pursue
>> something that afflicts so few is cruel and wasteful.
>
>The entire system needs a good shake..

Hey, something to agree with. Terrific.
>
>> >> Hard numbers and facts that have been shown to
>> >> be solidly based in research are much more intelligent and ultimately
>> >> effective than unsubstatiated percentages, scare tactics or ****ing in
>> >> the wind.
>> >
>> >Give us citations for the percentage of dementia sufferers autopsied in the
>> >UK, and the percentage with CJD that were misdiagnosed before death.
>>
>> Non one in teh US except Laura Manuelidis seems to give a flying horse
>> pucky in the last 8 or 9 years, which leads me to think there is no
>> reason or interest in pursuing a blind alley. Even she is off on an
>> infectious agent angle nowadays.
>
>The alley isn't blind. You are though. Enjoying your beef, is it?

And that is another foolish conclusion you have come to. Are you on
the Vegan wagon, too? Is some other political agenda what pushes you
in your headlong rush over the precipice?


YOU seem to feel there are enormous numbers out there proving your
point. There are not. You have surmise and what if, and gosh, someone
thought 8 or 9 years ago, that maybe...puff & nonsense and inordinate
fear of something that is a small risk.

For someone who feels s/he is so well versed in risk and yet comes to
this conclusion, I recommend a lottery ticket or two. Surely you will
win the grand prize in your world of odds-making.

Boron

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 07:52:47 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 05:09:50 +0100, Torsten Brinch
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:05:17 -0500, Boron Elgar
> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s785664.htm
>>>Food poisoning deaths may be wildly underestimated
>>>Monday, 17 February 2003
>><..>
>>>The Danish researchers studied the medical history of 1,071 people who
>>>had died within a year of being infected with Salmonella,
>>>Campylobacter, Yersinia enterocolitica and Shigella.
>><..>
>>>Deaths within the first year after infection were 2.2% in the people
>>>who had had food poisoning, compared to 0.7% in a control group of
>>>3,636 people.
>>
>>Well, that's pretty incoherent. The study is obviously misrepresented
>>by the journalist here. One must seriously question if she has done
>>more than to read a oneliner harvested from the abstract, while
>>misunderstanding it.
>>
>>How come you don't notice, Boron?
>>
>Sorry you cannot read for comprehension. Maybe you can find someone to
>explain it to you.

Touchy, touchy. :-) Why not improve your quoting source...say, the
actual study, rather than ABC 'science'?

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:52:05 -0000, "pearl" >
> wrote:

> >http://www.rense.com/general46/proofa.html
>
>Rense is garbage. Why not improve your quoting source...say, from
>Drudge? The Washington Times, perhaps? Maybe one of Murdock's
>tabloids?

Whatever you think of any particular news service is besides the point.

>AND you have no dates for new studies. YOu are drawing on old info and
>missing the point. If this were an avenue worth pursuing, if there
>were some validity to this, it would be studied and shown with numbers
>from later studies. It isn't.

The research at the above link isn't 'old'. You're lying through your teeth.

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>
> > > >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological
> disorders?
> > >
> > > Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
> > > other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
> > > over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
> > > these numbers since her or your other article were published.
> >
> > Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit the source.
>
> when the source is wrong, then it is stupid to base your decisions on it

Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim. ..

"Tim Challenger" <"timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at"> wrote in message
s.com...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:52:05 -0000, pearl wrote:
>
> >> No it is not.
> >
> > Yes, it is.
>
> ...is this the right room for an argument ?
> http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

. No it isn't.

> --
> Tim.
>
> If the human brain were simple enough that we could understand it, we would
> be so simple that we couldn't.

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:48:16 -0000, "pearl" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Oz" > wrote in message ...
> >> Boron Elgar > writes
> >>
> >> >Goodness. You really think that? YOu at much more risk of death by
> >> >food poisoning that any prion-pudding-brain scare being shoveled out
> >> >here. 5,200 deaths in the US each year and that is thought to be a
> >> >serious underestimate.
> >>
> >> Its an odd thing .....
> >>
> >> Cases of gastroenteritis in the UK have shown an increasing trend since
> >> WW2, with no signs of any decrease. During that period hygiene levels in
> >> the home (in the 50's few in the UK owned a fridge, for example) and in
> >> the food chain have increased constantly by leaps and bounds. Our food
> >> is now vastly more hygienic than it ever was and yet gastroenteritis is
> >> at an all time high.
> >
> >Possibly because doctor-prescribed antibiotics destroy beneficial intestinal
> >bacteria, -- our first line of defence against pathogenic micro-organisms.
> >After antibiotics a course of a good human multi-strain probiotic should be
> >taken in order to restore beneficial gut flora. Ask your doctor about it, Oz.
>
> You're nuts. Pure and simple.
>
> Boron

'Probiotic bacteria (eg, Bifidobacterium bifidum and Lactobacillus GG)
have beneficial effects on the clinical course of rotavirus diarrhoea.30-32
...
Among the possible mechanisms responsible for the favourable clinical
response is promotion of the immunologic and nonimmunologic defence
barrier in the gut.

Oral introduction of Lactobacillus GG has been associated with alleviation
of intestinal inflammation and normalisation of increased intestinal
permeability36 and gut microflora.37 Another explanation for the
gut-stabilising effect of Lactobacillus GG could be improvement of the
intestine's immunologic barrier, particularly intestinal IgA responses.36
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN...Num1/51p53.htm

Microflora and immune function
There are three main routes through which the gut acts as a
defence system. The first is via the resident microflora, which
protects against invading bacteria. Proposed mechanisms
include competing for nutrients and for receptor sites on the
gut wall and generation of an adverse environment for pathogens
(e.g. low pH). Secondly, the intestinal wall cells not only absorb
nutrients, but also provide a protective barrier to the entry of
harmful substances. Thirdly, the gut immune system is made up
of specialised immune cells. These immune cells can react through
their own innate response whilst also triggering production of
antibodies, proteins that specifically bind to another proteins
called antigens -in this case the invading pathogen- to deactivate
it and remove it from the body. Our gut bacteria communicate
with cells of the gastrointestinal immune system and the liver to
co-ordinate an immune response to food antigens and harmful
micro-organisms.

Thus, the intestinal microflora is essential for the protection
mechanism to work optimally. In fact, not having the correct
balance of bacteria in the gut has been associated with a
number of conditions including irritable bowel syndrome,
inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer and gastroenteritis.
Changes to diet and eating patterns, and the use of antibiotics
can have a harmful effect on the balance of the gut microflora.
These can combine to shift the balance of the gut microflora
away from potentially beneficial or health-promoting bacteria
such as the lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, towards an increase
in the harmful or pathogenic micro-organisms (e.g: certain
clostridia and enteroccocci). ..'
http://www.eufic.org/gb/food/pag/food40/food403.htm

You're a moron, Boron. (It had to be said.)

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "pearl" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > >What bearing has that on mistaking CJD for other neurological
> > disorders?
> > > >
> > > > Plenty. I have searched the literature and can come up with little
> > > > other than Laura Manuelidis who has taken this tack. SHe is quoted
> > > > over & over & over again, yet no succeeding studies have verified
> > > > these numbers since her or your other article were published.
> > >
> > > Typical- if you can't argue against the evidence, try to discredit the
source.
> >
> > when the source is wrong, then it is stupid to base your decisions on it
>
> Let's see you demonstrate in what way the source is 'wrong', jim. ..

I think Boron Elgar pointed out the weaknesses of the case pretty
convincingly

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...

> > > except that however you dress it up, less and less people die every year of
> > > nvCJD
> >
> > You can't know that.
>
> Yes I do, the figures have been published, remember, Oz published them and
> you didn't understand them,
>
> Jim Webster

No you can't know that, because the people who published your figures
can't know that those figures are complete. It can be mistaken for, and
even be present, in other neurological disorders, and very few autopsies
are actually carried out to ascertain the cause, or causes, of death.