Thursday, January 3, 2008




BSE Case in Alabama

On March 15, 2006, USDA–APHIS confirmed that a sample from an Alabama cow tested positive for BSE. The cow was euthanized and buried on the farm and did not enter the animal feed or human food supply.APHIS and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed their investigations in collaboration with the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries. The animal tested positive on the World Animal Health Organization (OIE)-recognized scrapie-associated fibrils immunoblot test, often referred to as the Western blot, and by immunohistochemistry. Tests were conducted at the USDA–Agricultural Research Service’s National Animal Disease Center and APHIS’ National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, IA.USDA’s investigations indicated that the positive animal, the index animal, was a red crossbreed. The cow was nonambulatory on the farm and was examined and treated by a local, private veterinarian. The following day, the cow remained nonambulatory. The veterinarian euthanized the animal and collected a sample, which was submitted for BSE testing. The animal was then buried on the farm.The age of the affected cow was determined through dentition to be more than 10 years at the time of death; therefore, she was born prior to the FDA’s ban on feeding recycled ruminant protein to other ruminants. FDA implemented the ban in 1997 to help minimize the risk that a cow may consume feed contaminated with the agent thought to cause BSE.APHIS and Alabama State officials investigated 36 farms and 5 auction houses and conducted DNA testing on herds that may have included relatives of the index animal. APHIS and State investigators were unable to find any related animals except for the two most recent calves of the index animal. The most recent calf was located at the same farm as the index animal; the second calf died in 2005. No other animals of interest were located. The living calf of the BSE-positive animal is currently being held at the NVSL for observation.APHIS’ investigation did not reveal the BSE-positive animal’s herd of origin. Experience worldwide has shown that it is highly unusual to find BSE in multiple animals in a herd or in an affected animal’s offspring.The FDA conducted an investigation into local feed mills that may have supplied feed to the index animal after the 1997 feed ban was implemented. This investigation showed that adequate controls were in place in feed facilities in the immediate geographic area of the index farm and that local feed mills that handle prohibited materials were in compliance with FDA’s feed ban.


BSE Surveillance—When veterinarians examine cattle and find central nervous system (CNS) signs, such as changes in temperament, abnormal posture, and ataxia, BSE is one of the differential diagnoses of concern. APHIS has conducted surveillance for BSE since 1990. From June 2004 through August 2006, APHIS conducted an enhanced surveillance effort. It was designed to estimate the level of BSE present in the national herd and provide input for designing a long-term surveillance plan.Using data from surveillance efforts over the past 7 years—including the period of enhanced surveillance—APHIS completed an estimate of the prevalence of BSE in the United States. This analysis concluded that BSE is likely to occur in this country at extremely low levels, less than 1 case per million adult cattle, and that the most likely number of cases is between 4 and 7 infected animals out of 42 million adult cattle.In August 2006, USDA began transitioning to ongoing surveillance that is more commensurate with the extremely low level of risk in the United States yet continues to exceed surveillance guidelines set by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE).Ongoing surveillance in the BSE program will sample roughly 40,000 animals each year from the cattle populations where the disease is most likely

to be found. The targeted population for ongoing surveillance focuses on cattle exhibiting signs of CNS disorders or any other signs that may be associated with BSE, including emaciation or injury. Dead cattle, as well as nonambulatory animals, will also be targeted. Healthy slaughter animals are not included in the sampling because the likelihood of detecting BSE in them has been shown to be extremely low. Therefore, this population includes three of the four surveillance streams as recommended by OIE.Data collected from the 40,000 samples will exceed the 7-year cumulative number of points to qualify as Type A surveillance per Article 3.8.4 of the OIE Code. Further, this level of sampling allows the United States to assess any change in the BSE status of U.S. cattle, and identify any significant rise in BSE prevalence in this country.


Eradication ProgramsVS

eradication programs include scrapie in sheep and goats, tuberculosis in cattle and cervids, pseudorabies and brucellosis in swine, and brucellosis in cattle and bison.Scrapie in Sheep and GoatsDisease and Program History—Scrapie was first discovered in the United States in 1947 in a Michigan flock that, for several years, had imported sheep of British origin from Canada. Since 1952, VS has worked to control scrapie in the United States. As a result of increasing industry and public concern about transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) and the discovery of new TSE diagnostic and control methods, VS initiated an accelerated scrapie eradication program in 2000.Current Program—The primary aspects of the scrapie eradication program are animal identification, surveillance, tracing of positive and exposed animals, testing of sheep and goats in exposed flocks, cleanup of infected flocks, and certification of flocks.Animal Identification—Identification of breeding sheep and culled breeding sheep is mandatory when ownership changes. The only sheep that do not have to be identified are those less than 18 months old that are moving in slaughter channels. As of October 2, 2006, 118,668 premises with sheep and/or goats were recorded in the scrapie national database. (In this database, a premises that contains both sheep and goats might be listed twice, once for each species.) Of these premises, 96,755 have requested and received official eartags (tags approved for use by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] in the official scrapie eradication program) (table 6).Regulatory Scrapie Slaughter Surveillance (RSSS)—The RSSS program, initiated on April 1, 2003, is the primary surveillance method for scrapie in the United States. RSSS identifies scrapie-infected flocks through targeted slaughter surveillance of sheep and goat populations that have been recognized as having higher-than-average scrapie prevalence. These are


Scrapie national database—sheep and/or goat premises counts
Sept. 30, 2004Sept. 30, 2005Sept. 30, 2006Total90,32203,58011 8,668
Requested official tags64,04073,80796,755
defined as mature black- or mottle-faced sheep and
any mature sheep or goats showing clinical signs
that could be associated with scrapie, such as poor
body condition, wool loss, or gait abnormalities.
Other than the targeted black-faced sheep and suspect
animals, the RSSS program samples only animals
with some form of identification (e.g., United
States Department of Agriculture [USDA]-approved
eartags, electronic ID, backtags, and tattoos or lot
identification). Sampling animals with identification
allows for tracing positive animals back to the farm
of origin.

During fiscal year (FY) 2006, as part of the RSSS
program, 37,111 sheep and goat samples, collected
from 72 slaughter plants in 22 States, were tested for
scrapie using immunohistochemistry on brain and/or
lymph node (table 7). Of the 37,076 sheep sampled,
51 percent were mottle-faced, 38 percent were
black-faced, and 11 percent were white-faced. Of the
70 sheep diagnosed as positive for scrapie, 62 were
black-faced and 8 were mottle-faced. Of the 35 goats
sampled as part of the RSSS program in FY 2006,
32 were tested and diagnosed as negative for scrapie;
3 samples were unable to be tested.

Under the scrapie program, an animal with
positive test results is traced back to its flock of
origin, and the flock is placed under movement
restrictions until a flock cleanup plan has been
completed. High-risk animals that had been moved
from these flocks before they were placed under
movement restrictions also are traced and tested.
Testing Summary—In response to regulatory
investigations of disease, APHIS’ field Veterinary
Medical Officers collect samples from flocks for
scrapie testing. Such cases are known as regulatory
field cases. In addition to the 37,111 samples tested
under the RSSS program in FY 2006, 5,262 additional
tests were conducted for scrapie—either by thirdeyelid
testing or necropsy.

Case and Infected Flock Summary—In FY 2006,
116 newly identified infected flocks were reported,
and 350 scrapie cases were confirmed and reported
by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories
(NVSL) (tables 8 and 9). A scrapie case is defined
as an animal for which a diagnosis of scrapie has
been made by the NVSL using a USDA-approved test
(typically immunohistochemistry on the obex or
a peripheral lymph node). During FY 2006, three
scrapie cases were reported in goats. Figure 13
presents the geographic location of U.S. mature ewe
populations (National Agricultural Statistics Service
2002 Census) relative to flocks found to be positive
for scrapie through RSSS sampling or another
regulatory or surveillance method (denoted by
NVSL-positive flocks).


Regulatory scrapie slaughter surveillance,
by fiscal year
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006
Number of plants 34 78 72
Number of States 6 24 22
Number of samples
25, 90 34,9 2* 37,
* Number changed from 2005 Animal Health Report to reflect
updated data.


Flocks newly infected with scrapie
2004 2005 2006
00 65 6


Scrapie cases, FY 2003 through FY 2006
Test or examination
(Number of cases)
Necropsy 3 5 374 46 243
Regulatory third eyelid 32 20 3 37
Regulatory Scrapie
Slaughter Surveillance
23 86 06 70
Total 370 480 598 350
1 Includes part of FY 2003 (April 1–September 30, 2003)

2006 United States Animal Health Report

Scrapie susceptibility in sheep in the United States has been associated with two codons that encode for amino acids in the PrP protein. These codons are at positions 136 and 171, the latter of which is thought to be the major determinant of scrapie susceptibility in the United States. For all the scrapie-positive sheep with known genotypes in FY 2006, 99.3 percent were QQ at codon 171. Of these, 92.6 percent were AA at codon 136, 6.4 percent were AV at codon 136, and 1.0 percent were VV at codon 136. Of the remaining 0.7 percent that were not QQ at codon 171, all were AVQR at codons 136 and 171.Scrapie Flock Certification Program (SFCP)—The SFCP is a cooperative effort among producers, State and Federal animal health agencies, and industry representatives. Through the SFCP, a flock becomes certified if, during a 5-year monitoring period, no sheep in the flock are diagnosed with scrapie, no clinical evidence of scrapie is found in the flock, and there are no additions of female animals from flocks of lower status to the flock. The program categories are described in the following paragraphs.Complete Monitored Category—A flock in this category is approved to participate in the program. There are two status levels for flocks in this category:Enrolled flock: A flock entering the program is assigned enrolled status and is a “complete monitored
enrolled flock.”Certified flock: An enrolled flock that has met
program standards for 5 consecutive years advances to certified status, meaning that it is unlikely to contain any sheep infected with scrapie.

FigureIGURE 13: Distribution of mature ewe populations, by county, compared to scrapie-positive animals (October 2002–December 2006).U.S. map showing the distribution of mature ewes, by county, compared to scrapie-positive animals, for October 2002 through December 2006. All counties are colored in document estimated number ewes 4 categories plus “unknown.” Circles different diameters and one two colors indicate where animals were found based on tests from National Veterinary Services Laboratories or Regulatory Scrapie Slaughter Surveillance program.43 Chapter 4: Animal Disease Eradication Programs and Control and Certification Programs

Selective Monitored Category—This category, though open to any flock, was designed for producers of slaughter lambs to allow for scrapie surveillance in large production flocks. Only male animals over 1 year of age must have official identification. Producers agree to submit for scrapie diagnosis a portion of the mature animals that are culled or die; the number of animals to submit is based on the flock’s size. Additionally, an accredited veterinarian must inspect all cull ewes for clinical signs of scrapie before slaughter. Selective status is maintained indefinitely as long as the flock meets the category requirements.Trends in Plan Enrollment—Enrollment in the SFCP has increased since 2002. As of September 30, 2006, 2,027 flocks were participating, and of these, 297 were certified flocks (table 10). Enrollments have slowed, which might be attributable to an increased reliance on genotype testing to reduce the risk of introducing scrapie.Challenges—Efforts will continue to expand surveillance into underrepresented areas and to increase the traceability of sheep and goats presented for sampling. Additionally, work will continue on upgrading the scrapie national database, improving field data collection by refining sample collection and submission, and streamlining data entry and analysis.


Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in CervidsDisease and Program History—First recognized in 1967 as a clinical “wasting” syndrome in mule deer at a wildlife research facility in northern Colorado, CWD was identified as a TSE in 1978. There is no known relationship between CWD, which occurs in cervids, and any other TSE of animals or humans.In the mid-1980s, CWD was detected in free-ranging deer and elk in contiguous areas of northeastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. In May 1999, CWD was found in free-ranging deer in the southwestern corner of Nebraska (adjacent to Colorado and Wyoming) and later in other areas in western and central Nebraska. Since 2002, CWD has also been detected in wild deer, elk, or both in south-central Wisconsin, southwestern South Dakota, the western slope of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado, southern New Mexico, northern Illinois, eastern and central Utah, central New York, the eastern arm of West Virginia, and northwestern Kansas. The first infected free-ranging moose was detected in Colorado in 2005.The first CWD-positive farmed elk herd in the United States was detected in 1997 in South Dakota. Through December 31, 2006, 31 additional CWD‑-positive farmed elk herds and 9 CWD-positive farmed deer herds have been found in 9 States, for a cumulative total of 41 infected farmed cervid herds.

Current Program—APHIS–VS and State CWD surveillance in farmed animals began in late 1997 and has increased each year since. VS pays laboratory costs for all surveillance testing of farmed cervids. Responses to onfarm CWD-positive cases include depopulation with indemnity or quarantine. Additionally, VS conducts traceforward and trace-
back epidemiologic investigations.A proposed rule for a CWD herd-certification program for farmed-cervid operations was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 24, 2003. Program goals are to control and eventually eradicate CWD from farmed cervid herds. The program would certify herds that demonstrate 5 years of CWD surveillance with no evidence of disease. The proposed program requirements include fencing, identification, inventory, and surveillance. The rule is intended to limit interstate movement of farmed cervids to herds enrolled in the herd-certification program. State programs meeting or exceeding Federal standards will be included in the Federal program.The final rule for this program was published on July 21, 2006. Subsequently, three organizations representing State agencies (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, National Assembly of State Animal Health Officials, and United States Animal Health Association [USAHA]) filed petitions challenging certain interstate-movement provisions in the final rule and requesting a stay in the effective date. APHIS determined that the issues identified in the petitions merited further discussion and published a delay in implementation of the rule on September 8, 2006. On November 3, 2006, the petitions were published for public comment. APHIS will evaluate the comments to determine if changes in the rule are necessary so that it can be implemented as the cooperative State–Federal–industry program it is intended to be.VS began supporting CWD surveillance in wildlife in 1997. Since the national “Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Wild and Captive Cervids” was adopted in June 2002, VS has cooperated with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to promote uniform, nationwide surveillance while allowing flexibility to meet individual State situations and needs.Since beginning to receive line-item funding for CWD in FY 2003, APHIS–VS has been providing assistance to State wildlife agencies and tribes through cooperative agreements to address the disease in free-ranging deer, elk, and now moose. This funding covered surveillance testing for some 90,000 hunter-killed and targeted animals in the 2002–03 and the 2003–04 hunting seasons and more than 122,000 in 2004–05. More than 95,000 tests were projected for 2005–06. All 50 States participated in the first 2 years of the program, 47 States requested and received funding in FY 2005, and 49 participated in FY 2006. Funding is distributed through a tiered system based on risk of disease developed in consultation with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In addition to individual tribal assistance, an agreement with the Native American Fish and Wildlife Society funds five regional CWD tribal biologists to assist tribes with CWD activities.Disease Status—In FY 2006, 14,913 farmed cervids were tested for CWD as compared to more than 15,000 animals in FY 2005 and FY 2004 and more than 12,000 in FY 2003. From 1997 through 2006, CWD had been found in 32 farmed elk herds and 9 farmed deer herds in 9 States

(table 15).Of the 41 positive herds identified as of December 31, 2006, 5 (4 in Colorado and 1 in TABLE 15: Number of farmed cervid herds with animals positive for chronic wasting disease, by State, 1997–2006State1997–200420052006Total (1997–2006)Colorado1 22—4Kansas——Minnesota2—3Montana——Nebraska4—5New York—2—2Oklahoma——South Dakota7——7Wisconsin6—7Total34641 53

Chapter 4: Animal Disease Eradication Programs and Control and Certification Programs

Wisconsin) remained under State quarantine and 35 had been depopulated. The quarantine was lifted from one herd that underwent rigorous surveillance for more than 5 years with no further evidence of disease.Challenges—The key challenges in managing CWD result from the fact that cervids fall under multiple jurisdictions. In 2002, at the request of Congress, an interagency group was convened to develop a management plan to assist States, Federal agencies, and Native American tribes in managing CWD in captive and wild herds. Currently, this plan is implemented by State and Federal agencies, as budgets permit.Additional challenges are related to the difficulties associated with testing wild cervids. High sample throughput and more rapid test technology were needed to meet the needs of wildlife agencies. By expanding its contract group of State and university laboratories, NVSL now has 26 laboratories approved to conduct CWD testing. In addition, VS’ Center for Veterinary Biologics has approved four CWD antigen test kits based on enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), allowing faster testing and greater throughput for surveillance testing of wild cervids.The lack of a live-animal test for CWD is also a major challenge for CWD management in farmed and captive cervids. Currently rectal biopsy is being evaluated as a CWD management tool for farmed and captive cervids.

snip...full text ;

>>>Experience worldwide has shown that it is highly unusual to find BSE in multiple animals in a herd or in an affected animal’s offspring.The FDA conducted an investigation into local feed mills that may have supplied feed to the index animal after the 1997 feed ban was implemented. This investigation showed that adequate controls were in place in feed facilities in the immediate geographic area of the index farm and that local feed mills that handle prohibited materials were in compliance with FDA’s feed ban.<<< href="">


Products manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006

Date: August 6, 2006 at 6:16 pm PST


a) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish, Recall # V-100-6;
b) Performance Sheep Pell W/Decox/A/N, medicated,
net wt. 50 lbs, Recall # V-101-6;
c) Pro 40% Swine Conc Meal -- 50 lb, Recall # V-102-6;
d) CO-OP 32% Sinking Catfish Food Medicated,
Recall # V-103-6;
e) "Big Jim's" BBB Deer Ration, Big Buck Blend,
Recall # V-104-6;
f) CO-OP 40% Hog Supplement Medicated Pelleted,
Tylosin 100 grams/ton, 50 lb. bag, Recall # V-105-6;
g) Pig Starter Pell II, 18% W/MCDX Medicated 282020,
Carbadox -- 0.0055%, Recall # V-106-6;
Feed for Chickens from Hatch to 20 Weeks, Medicated,
Bacitracin Methylene Disalicylate, 25 and 50 Lbs,
Recall # V-107-6;
i) CO-OP LAYING PELLETS, Complete Feed for Laying
Chickens, Recall # 108-6;
j) CO-OP LAYING CRUMBLES, Recall # V-109-6;
net wt 50 Lbs, Recall # V-110-6;
Recall # V-111-6;
Recall # V-112-6

Product manufactured from 02/01/2005 until 06/06/2006

Alabama Farmers Cooperative, Inc., Decatur, AL, by telephone, fax, email and
visit on June 9, 2006. FDA initiated recall is complete.

Animal and fish feeds which were possibly contaminated with ruminant based
protein not labeled as "Do not feed to ruminants".

125 tons

AL and FL




a) PRO-LAK, bulk weight, Protein Concentrate for Lactating Dairy Animals,
Recall # V-079-6;
b) ProAmino II, FOR PREFRESH AND LACTATING COWS, net weight 50lb (22.6 kg),
Recall # V-080-6;
FEED, Recall # V-081-6;
d) Feather Meal, Recall # V-082-6
a) Bulk
b) None
c) Bulk
d) Bulk

H. J. Baker & Bro., Inc., Albertville, AL, by telephone on June 15, 2006 and
by press release on June 16, 2006. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.

Possible contamination of animal feeds with ruminent derived meat and bone

10,878.06 tons




NOW, lets look at the statistics of the BARBs and same herd BSE cohorts ;

Review of the Evidence for the Occurrence of ‘BARB’ BSE Cases in Cattle

c. Of the 93 cases, all were born in different herds except for 5 pairs (more
than expected by chance) reared in the same herd (age differences between animals in
the pairs were 12, <1, href="">


39. Professor John Wilesmith (Defra) updated the committee on the

BSE cases born after the 1996 reinforced mammalian meat and

bone meal ban in the UK (BARB cases). Around 116 BARB cases

had been identified in Great Britain up to 22 November 2005,

mostly through active surveillance. BARB cases had decreased in

successive birth cohorts, from 44 in the 1996/1997 cohort to none

to date in the 2000/2001 cohort. However, 3 BARB cases had

been identified in the 2001/2002 cohort. Backcalculation of the

prevalence of BARB cases indicated a drop from 130 infected

animals per million (95% confidence interval 90-190) in the

1996/1997 cohort to 30 infected animals per million (95%

confidence interval 10-60) in the 1999/2000 cohort. A shift in the

geographical distribution of BSE cases, from the concentration of

pre-1996 BSE cases in Eastern England to a more uniform


© SEAC 2005

distribution of BARB cases, had occurred. However, it appeared

that certain post-1996 cohorts had a higher exposure to BSE in

certain areas for limited periods. Several clusters of BARB cases

within herds had been identified (5 pairs, 2 triplets and 1


40. A triplet of BARB cases in South West Wales had been

investigated in detail. The triplet comprised 2 cases born in

September and October 2001 and a third in May 2002. The

animals born in 2001 were reared outdoors from the spring of 2002

but the animal born in 2002 had been reared indoors. Further

investigation of feeding practices revealed that a new feed bin for

the adult dairy herd had been installed in September 1998. In July

2002 the feed bin was emptied, but not cleaned, and relocated. All

3 BARB cases received feed from the relocated bin. This finding

suggested the hypothesis that the feed bin installed in September

1998 was filled initially with contaminated feed, that remnants of

this feed fell to the bottom of the bin during its relocation, and thus

young animals in the 2001/2002 birth cohort were exposed to

feedstuffs produced in 1998. No adult cattle had been infected

because of the reduced susceptibility to BSE with increasing age.

41. Further investigation of multiple case herds had found no

association of BARB clusters with the closure of feed mills.

42. Professor Wilesmith concluded that there is evidence of a decline

in risk of infection for successive birth cohorts of cattle. The BARB

epidemic is unlikely to be sustained by animals born after 31 July

2000. Feed bins could represent a continued source of occasional

infection and advice to farmers is being formulated to reduce this

risk. There is no evidence for an indigenous source of infection for

the BARB cases.

43. Members considered it encouraging that no other factor, apart from

feed contamination, had been identified as a possible cause of

BARB cases to date. Members commented that this study

suggests that only a small amount of contaminated feed may be

required for infection and that BSE infectivity can survive in the

environment for several years. Professor Wilesmith agreed and

noted that infection caused by small doses of infectious material

was consistent with other studies, and it would appear there is little

dilution of infectivity, if present, in the rendering system.

Additionally it appeared that the infectious agent had survived for 4

years in the feed bin.

44. The Chair thanked Professor Wilesmith for his presentation.


(May 16, 2007)
TAFS1 Position Paper on Atypical scrapie and Atypical BSE


Does it represent a risk to human health?

􀂾 It is too early to tell whether or not it represents a risk to humans. For the moment it is
assumed to be a danger, and is treated like BSE. Results of experimental transmission
to primates remain unpublished. Some scientists suggest that similarities between the
molecular features of H-type BSE and some prion diseases of humans may indicate
that they are related. Care must be exercised in interpreting such preliminary data(8)
specifically with regard to suggestions of a cause and effect.

􀂾 Transmissibility to cattle has been confirmed, but remains currently unpublished as the
study is incomplete. It may therefore be possible to investigate further, by oral
challenge, whether or not the infectious agent is distributed around the body in a
different way from BSE, possibly infecting tissues that are not considered-infectious
in BSE. This may have implications for risk management and public health.

In FY 2007, 331 scrapie cases have been confirmed and reported by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL), including 59* Regulatory Scrapie Slaughter Surveillance (RSSS) cases (Figure 5 and Slide 16). In FY 2007, two field cases, one validation case, and two RSSS cases were consistent with Nor-98 scrapie. The Nor98-like cases originated from flocks in California, Minnesota, Colorado, Wyoming and Indiana respectively. Nineteen cases of scrapie in goats have been reported since 1990 (Figure 6). The last goat case was reported in September 2007.


see full report here ;


Aspects of the Cerebellar Neuropathology in Nor98

Gavier-Widén, D1; Benestad, SL2; Ottander, L1; Westergren, E11National Veterinary Insitute, Sweden; 2National Veterinary Institute, Norway

Nor98 is a prion disease of old sheep and goats. This atypical form of scrapie was first described in Norway in 1998. Several features of Nor98 were shown to be different from classical scrapie including the distribution of disease associated prion protein (PrPd) accumulation in the brain. The cerebellum is generally the most affected brain area in Nor98. The study here presented aimed at adding information on the neuropathology in the cerebellum of Nor98 naturally affected sheep of various genotypes in Sweden and Norway. A panel of histochemical and immunohistochemical (IHC) stainings such as IHC for PrPd, synaptophysin, glial fibrillary acidic protein,amyloid, and cell markers for phagocytic cells were conducted. The type of histologicallesions and tissue reactions were evaluated. The types of PrPd deposition were characterized. The cerebellar cortex was regularly affected, even though there was avariation in the severity of the lesions from case to case. Neuropil vacuolation was more marked in the molecular layer, but affected also the granular cell layer. There wasa loss of granule cells. Punctate deposition of PrPd was characteristic. It was morphologically and in distribution identical with that of synaptophysin, suggesting that PrPd accumulates in the synaptic structures. PrPd was also observed in the granule cell layer and in the white matter. The pathology features of Nor98 in the cerebellum of the affected sheep showed similarities with those of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.


typical scrapie transmits to primates by there NON-FORCED ORAL CONSUMPTION ;


see full text ;



USA BASE CASE, (ATYPICAL BSE), AND OR TSE (whatever they are calling it
today), please note that both the ALABAMA COW, AND THE TEXAS COW, both were
''H-TYPE'', personal communication Detwiler et al Wednesday, August 22, 2007
11:52 PM. ...TSS

SEAC 99th meeting on Friday 14th December 2007


MADCOW USDA the untold story





Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy TME


Monitoring the occurrence of emerging forms of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in
the United States



I only ponder how many sporadic CJDs in the USA are type 2 PrPSc?

Hardcover, 304 pages plus photos and illustrations.
ISBN 0-387-95508-9 June 2003
BY Philip Yam


Answering critics like Terry Singeltary, who feels that the U.S. under-counts CJD, Schonberger conceded that the current surveillance system has errors but stated that most of the errors will be confined to the older population.

doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(03)00715-1Copyright © 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.


Tracking spongiform encephalopathies in North America

Xavier Bosch

Available online 29 July 2003.
Volume 3, Issue 8, August 2003, Page 463

"My name is Terry S Singeltary Sr, and I live in Bacliff, Texas. I lost my mom to hvCJD (Heidenhain variant CJD) and have been searching for answers ever since. What I have found is that we have not been told the truth. CWD in deer and elk is a small portion of a much bigger problem." ...

Diagnosis and Reporting of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease

Singeltary, Sr et al. JAMA.2001; 285: 733-734.

Like lambs to the slaughter
31 March 2001
Debora MacKenzie
Magazine issue 2284

FOUR years ago, Terry Singeltary watched his mother die horribly from a degenerative brain disease. Doctors told him it was Alzheimer's, but Singeltary was suspicious. The diagnosis didn't fit her violent symptoms, and he demanded an autopsy. It showed she had died of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Most doctors believe that sCJD is caused by a prion protein deforming by chance into a killer. But Singeltary thinks otherwise. He is one of a number of campaigners who say that some sCJD, like the variant CJD related to BSE, is caused by eating meat from infected animals. Their suspicions have focused on sheep carrying scrapie, a BSE-like disease that is wide spread in flocks across Europe and North America. Now scientists in France have stumbled across new evidence that adds weight to the campaigners' fears. To their complete surprise, the researchers found that one strain of scrapie causes the same brain damage in mice as sCJD. "This means we cannot rule out that at least some sCJD may be caused by some strains of scrapie," says team member Jean-Philippe Deslys of the French Atomic Energy Commission's medical research laboratory in Fontenay-aux-Roses, south-west of Paris. Hans Kretschmar of the University of Göttingen, who coordinates CJD surveillance in Germany, is so concerned by the findings that he now wants to trawl back through past sCJD cases to see if any might have been caused by eating infected mutton or lamb. ...

DER SPIEGEL (9/2001) - 24.02.2001 (9397 Zeichen)USA: Loch in der MauerDie BSE-Angst erreicht Amerika: Trotz strikter Auflagen gelangte in Texasverbotenes Tiermehl ins Rinderfutter - die Kontrollen der Aufsichtsbehördensind lax. Link auf diesen Artikel im Archiv:"

Its as full of holes as Swiss Cheese" says Terry Singeltary of the FDA regulations. ...

Thu Dec 6, 2007 11:38



2 January 2000
British Medical Journal

U.S. Scientist should be concerned with a CJD epidemic in the U.S., as well

15 November 1999
British Medical Journal

vCJD in the USA * BSE in U.S.

BSE (Mad Cow) Update: Do Reports of sCJD Clusters Matter?

snip... see full text ;

[In submitting these data, Terry S. Singeltary Sr. draws attention to the steady increase in the "type unknown" category, which, according to their definition, comprises cases in which vCJD could be excluded. The total of 26 cases for the current year (2007) is disturbing, possibly symptomatic of the circulation of novel agents. Characterization of these agents should be given a high priority. - Mod.CP],F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1010,39963

*** UPDATE MAY 2009

Monday, May 11, 2009 Rare BSE mutation raises concerns over risks to public health

Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
P.O. Box 42
Bacliff, Texas USA 77518