Originally posted by soficrow
Just a tidbit from my files:
Well... this isn't exactly a primary source, but let's forgo that for the sake of discussion.
This is an interesting source, but nonetheless doesn't support the general statement that 'standard manufacturing process create new infectious
prions.' It supports the idea that the processes of rendering ruminants and feeding them to other ruminants
selected for existing prion
strains that are particularly hardy. But you can't generalize this to include all 'standard manufacturing processes.'
What they're saying in the article is probably true... so?
soficrow
The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health through Hematech, a biotechnology company and a South Dakota subsidiary of Kirin, who is
interested in genetically engineering cows to produce antibiotics and other medicines for people- and was evaluated by the Agricultural Research
Service of the USDA.
Again... so what? It's not like it's some conspiracy. This information is clearly available to anyone who just reads the authors names on the paper.
The NIH funds research... it's what they do. Biotech companies bring products, like genetically engineered cows to market... it's what they do...
often biotech companies do more than one thing any given organism... it makes sense... it's the system they're familiar with.
Would this all somehow be okay with you if Kirin and Hematech weren't involved? Would this be okay with you if, and of course this wouldn't happen,
but hypothetically... would this be okay with you if the experiments were being funded by the Organic Consumers Association, and the research being
carried out by a bunch of hippies? Would this make it acceptable.
Most likely not... since you've generalized the problem to 'standard manufacturing processes,' and since you've more or less demonized every
single scientist working for the USDA.
Do you actually even know any scientists working for the USDA? Ever talked with even a single one in all of your 'research?'
For years, the USDA's position on BSE and prions was, "Problem? What problem? Prions don't exist."
Now, they're saying, "No problem - we fixed it. We can genetically engineer cattle that are immune to prions."
Maybe that prions don't exist was the USDA's position some time in the past... I've been following prions... for a while, and I don't
recall that... but whatever...
It's not their position now... and they're not saying we can fix it. If you'd chill out for a moment, you'd realize, that the ONLY thing the
research says is that cows that don't contain the gene that encodes
this particular prion, are phenotypically indistinguishable, based on x
number of criteria, y days since birth. They're not saying the problem is fixed... nowhere does the NBT paper say this.
Q: So why the dance? Why fund research, and evaluate it as successful, while saying it's not really needed?
A: Because the USDA is in the business of protecting the US cattle industry - NOT public health.
I know this is a conspiracy site an all, but my goodness
That they've even funded the research suggests they don't 'say it's not really needed.' Gov't agencies aren't in the business of funding
research that 'isnt needed.'
I won't take you to task on the idea of the USDA protecting industry over public health, but I refuse to demonize the entire scientific structure
that exists in the US. If you take even a single drug developed via that scientific structure you shouldn't either.
Furthermore, and if you knew any USDA scientists, Local Cooperative extension agents, etc. you'd realize that these people are for the most part
interested in helping and primarily work with small, local growers and food producers. Research and Extension Centers, and USDA ARS sites work
generally with mom & pop... not Dole... that's who these systems were set up for.