Comments on: Thanks for the Help, MSM

By: Mesa EconoGuy

Mesa EconoGuy — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 01:01:03 +0000

Journalists are bred to distort or ignore facts. How is this story any different?

Perhaps we should invent IJD â€“ Ignorant Journalist Disease [redundant].

Instant epidemic.

By: markm

markm — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:27:06 +0000

"Assuming this is the reason behind the administration's decision to test only 1%, for which they have been chastised for years, it is yet another example of Bush's ham-handedness on communication."

Bush's??? The President doesn't write USDA press releases, or have much to do with their policy decisions. It's some faceless bureaucrat behind this.

Also brainless, I think. It seems like their position is, "We cannot detect BSE in 2 year old cows, so we'll test 1% of them. We'll also only test 1% of old slaughtered cows where BSE could be detected."

Makes me wonder if their worst fear isn't missing a BSE-infected cow, but finding one - after we've been eating her children for 5 years...

By: David

David — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:19:25 +0000

Now if someone can just explain to me why after living in Germany 20 years ago I still can’t give blood because of BSE.

By: TJIT

TJIT — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 01:29:14 +0000

This report by the Harvard center for risk analysis might be helpful to those of us who are chewing on these issues.

Comments on USDA(BSE) surveillance plan

In summary, we agree with USDAâ€™s focus on testing high risk cattle. If there are additional BSE-infected animals in the U.S., the likely high false negative rate for laboratory detection of BSE in normal adults and juveniles (animals that do not yet show signs of disease) would make a focus on these populations inefficient.