It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UPDATE: Results on Suspected Mad Cow Released

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
According to Drudge news was expected at 18:00 EST. It's now 18:34 EST and I've not found anything yet. Further, the link on drudge goes to a dead page. I don't know if the link ever worked or not for I did not click it at any point during the day. I'm stuck in my office writing test scripts, has anyone seen anything on the TV?



[edit on 11/22/2004 by titian]

[edit on 11/23/2004 by titian]




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I believe the announcement is scheduled for 7 PM EST (in 20 minutes). It will almost certainly be positive.

The key questions will be the age of the cow and birthplace.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Reuters is now say 7 PM EST at the earliest

news.moneycentral.msn.com...



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   
If there has been mad cows in the food supply we likely won't know it for another 12 years or so when people start dropping from vCJD and we have autopsies to show vCJD as the cause. If we had a problem, it's probably too late already for those of us that enjoy a good burger or steak. If we have a problem with the food supply now, then it's easily covered up and no one will know the consequences for years to come.

There's a simple solution for stopping vCJD in it's tracks: quit feeding animals to other animals.

vCJD, Kuru, and contageous other brain wasting diseases generally happen when a species eats members of it's same species. Cows are naturally vegetarians. We should keep it that way.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
USDA now says no announcemnt tonight

www.usda.gov...!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2004/11/0505.xml

which means the two earlier positives have been confirmed and the USDA has to come up with nonsense to justify the lack of testing in the past.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Source



Statement By U.S. Department of Agriculture Press Secretary Alisa Harrison
November 22, 2004

"Test results for the BSE inconclusive are not complete. There will be no announcements made tonight. USDA will release the results as soon as the National Veterinary Services Laboratory completes the testing process."
[/quote[



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBalloon
If there has been mad cows in the food supply we likely won't know it for another 12 years or so when people start dropping from vCJD and we have autopsies to show vCJD as the cause. ...If we have a problem with the food supply now, then it's easily covered up and no one will know the consequences for years to come.


I agree with you completely. I'm not much on most conspiracies but this is one issue that I honestly believe we are not getting the whole story on. It is ridiculous that the US which had the same feeding practices as the UK would somehow be immune from mad cow.

For me and my family we do alot more ground turkey and pork instead of beef. The beef we do have we get from family who let their cattle graze instead of grain feed.

I have no faith in the USDA to be forthcoming on this issue - it's always going to be "an isolated case" or a "single herd."


B.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Cattle Futures going up an rumors that confirmatory test is negative. I have serious doubts. The number of false positives on initial test is fairly low and it would be extremely unusual to get two false positives on the same sample.

I'm still sticking with a positive confirmatory test. There are some rumors of a 4th test to confirm the 3rd test, My guess is that the 4th test is wishful thinking trying to explain away three positive test results.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
USDA Newsroom

Second test is negative as well.



Statement by John Clifford, Deputy Administrator Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
November 23, 2004

"The USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa, has determined that the inconclusive screening test sample reported on Nov. 18 has tested negative for BSE upon confirmatory testing.

"The Nov. 18 sample is the first that has tested inconclusive under an APHIS protocol announced in August that calls for public reporting of screening results only after two reactive screens. NVSL used the immunohistochemistry (IHC) test, an internationally-recognized gold standard test for BSE, and received a negative result on Nov. 22. Because the Nov. 18 screening test results were reactive in both the first and second screens, NVSL scientists made the recommendation to run the IHC test a second time. On Nov. 23 they reported the second IHC test was negative. Negative results from both IHC tests make us confident that the animal in question is indeed negative for BSE.

"APHIS began an enhanced surveillance program on June 1 and to date has tested over 121,000 samples for BSE. Screening tests are designed to be extremely sensitive and false positives are not unexpected. APHIS has reported three inconclusives including the Nov. 18 sample and all have tested negative on confirmatory testing."



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   



Second test is negative as well.



The first TWO tests were positive (inconclusive means positive in USDA speak). Sounds like vvCJD.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by niman]

[edit on 23-11-2004 by niman]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I don't think they were positive, they were reactive, or inconclusive. They were never "officially" considered positive.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by titian
I don't think they were positive, they were reactive, or inconclusive. They were never "officially" considered positive.


Reactive is positive. Inconclusive is nonsense (results are either positive or negative - they can be false positives or false negatives, but not inconclusive).

The fact that the rapid test was positive twice strongly indicates it was not a false positive. However, this may be a varient of the varient and not picked up by the immunohistochemical test (gold standard).

Thus, the USDA may have discovered vvCJD (not recommended for eating).



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Well, I'm not trying to argue with you as this is out of my league but I performed some quick research on terminology and came across both answers. Reactive can equal a false-positive and reactive can equal a positive. Its interpretation depends on the test in question. This is straight medical lingo, not from the USDA or anything related to veterinary testing.

That's why I said what I said. I could very well be wrong about what I read.


womenshealth.about.com...
About HIV testing


A reactive test may give a false positive reading to anyone with kidney or renal failure, to a woman that has had multiple pregnancies, anyone receiving the influenza vaccine, or to anyone that has received gamma globulin.


www.bloodservices.ca...
About blood testing

www.hepb.org...


A "positive" or "reactive" HBsAg test result means that the person is infected with the hepatitis B virus.




A "positive" or "reactive" HBsAb (or anti-HBs) test result indicates that a person is "immune" to any future hepatitis B infection and is no longer contagious.




A "positive" or "reactive" HBcAb (or anti-HBc) test result indicates a past or present infection, but it could also be a false positive.


Hence my comments.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
See if you can find one scienticic or medical site that calls a positive an inconclusive. That's utter nonsense invented by the USDA.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
[edit on 11/23/2004 by titian]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by titian
Well, I'm not trying to argue with you as this is out of my league but I performed some quick research on terminology and came across both answers. Reactive can equal a false-positive and reactive can equal a positive. Its interpretation depends on the test in question. This is straight medical lingo, not from the USDA or anything related to veterinary testing.

That's why I said what I said. I could very well be wrong about what I read.

Hence my comments.


Here is a more deatiled explanation. If a test is run and generates a positive reaction, it is a positive. The positives can be false for two reasons. One is the technician or machine made a sampling error (sample was mislabled or was contaminated with a positive control), or the test cross reacts with something else. A positive is NOT called an inconclusive.

For a rapid test, the positive could be a true positive, but the test was designed to be broad, so further testing is required. An examples would be an anthrax test. The rapid test may be designed to simply detect the presence of bacillus. A positive is a true positive for the test, but further testing is required to see if it is live bacillus anthrasis. This later test may show the positive to be a harmless species of bacillus or may be a killed bacillus (anthracis or otherwise).

For vCJD, the rapid test is very specific so it is unlikely to detect something that is unrelated to vCJD. Since the rapid test was positive twice, it is unlikely that it is a false positive due to sampling. It is possible that the vCJD has changed enough so it is no longer recognized by the follow-up test (immuno-histochemical) but that doesn't mean that the initial two positives didn't detect a varient of the varient CJD and it doesn't mean that the varient can't kill you.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by titian
Well, since you are adamant about this point I'd ask the same of you. Find me a reputable site that indicates that an inconclusive always equals a positive.
This was my whole point -- not that the USDA is hiding something. That appears to be your point yet you've provided nothing but your opinion.


Only the FDA calls a positive an inconclusive. Tests are positive or negative. They are NOT called inconclusive.

No site would say an inconclusive always equals a positive because no site would use the term inconclusive for a positive. The FDA calls a positive inconclusive because they don't want to unnecesarily alarm people if the positive is not confirmed. They should simply say they have an initial positive that needs to be confirmed by additional tests. Calling a positive inconclusive is nonsense. They can also say they need further tests to be sure that the positive isn't a false positive. Calling two postives two inconclusives is nonsense.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I stand corrected on one thing. I focused on the word inconclusive; and somehow, I missed the fact that the first two tests were positive. I don't know how I could have missed that, too much going on maybe.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



Two initial tests at the state level had returned positive, prompting the sample to be sent to the agency's Ames, Iowa, laboratory, the statement said.

Word of a possible second case or "inconclusive," as industry and government officials call them was first revealed last Thursday, though few details were provided about the cow's location or age.


This is the article I first read and I guess it's what stuck with me.



Suspicions about a new case of the disease in the United States came after two simultaneous test results could not rule out an infection.

The inconclusive result does not mean we have found another case of BSE in this country, said Andrea Morgan, associate deputy administrator of the USDAs Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Statement by John Clifford, Deputy Administrator Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service

November 23, 2004
"The USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa, has determined that the inconclusive screening test sample reported on Nov. 18 has tested negative for BSE upon confirmatory testing.


Whew I am sure glad, but I ahve the feeling we dodged one here


www.usda.gov...!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2004/11/0508.xml




[edit on 23-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Niman, I edited my post because you had posted some of what my post had asked for at the same time I was posting that post. I saw no need for my post at that point.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join