Cumbria Report

Originally from: Mary Critchley
                        
I am speed reading...

http://www.warmwell.com

Sept 6 ~ "Vaccination must be regarded as an essential element in the control strategy.
Under these circumstances there is a significant risk that slaughtering to 'stamp out' the disease will fail to keep up with its spread, and disposal will fail to keep up with slaughtering. In short, there is the risk of creating circumstances similar to those which occurred in Cumbria in 2001, where large-scale slaughter of animals was ineffective as a rapid and efficient method of disease control. We believe those circumstances should be avoided at all costs ...a vaccination-to- live policy would require a livestock support regime that would offset market failures occurring as a result of the vaccination policy adopted. ...we understand that such a scheme might be acceptable under EU law." (page 56 Cumbria Report)
Sept 6 ~"usefulness of the data..."
We recommend that DEFRA commissions an external review of its provision of epidemiological support in connection with FMD, and of the usefulness of the data collected to the understanding of disease spread."
Sept 6 ~ "We recommend that DEFRA undertakes a comprehensive revision of its draft contingency plan
in the light of the findings of this and other FMD Inquiries. The plan should be conceived on a multi-agency basis and should engage all the relevant agencies, including the County Councils. In local FMD planning, the Cumbria County Council Emergency Centre should be considered as a 'hub' facility for any future multi-agency response......the local Contingency Plan should specify clearly the stage and scale of epidemic that will trigger a request from DEFRA for assistance from the Army........local authorisation of action in dealing with an outbreak should be introduced as early as possible, with DEFRA headquarters kept fully informed of decisions......"
The Carlisle Health Office was "overwhelmed", As a result of the handling of FMD, the farming and rural communities of Cumbria have suffered an enormous loss in confidence in DEFRA. It will be an uphill struggle for the Department to restore the relationships....
Sept 6 ~ Cumbria Report (p34) "Totalitarian"
" We received a range of distressing accounts of poor communication between the authorities and farmers (and others) relating to the culling and disposal of animals. In some instances the approach that the authorities were described as having taken bordered on the totalitarian. We can find no excuse for this..."
"Relevant knowledge. In dealing with the farming industry, communicators and administrators require a relevant level of knowledge of agriculture and food production. In many instances this appeared to be lacking.
Written communication. .... Some letters used unfortunate choices of expression, were not sufficiently clear or appeared threatening..... poorly photocopied forms that were difficult to read..... evidence of the Department giving verbal instructions or making agreements, which were not confirmed by letter, leading to later dispute " (page 35)
Sept 6 ~ "an upsurge of public objection and to expressions of public concern, frustration and anger
at the way that the epidemic was being handled. Individuals and communities felt that they were being unconsidered or poorly served by the authorities, and there was a loss of confidence in the government department leading the control and eradication process....." The Cumbria Report on FMD may be read here.
                        

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
A pdf version of the Cumbria County Council's FMD Report can be found here – http://www.farmtalking.org/pdf/cumbria_f&m_inquiry_report.pdf

Author wrote:
I am speed reading...
http://www.warmwell.com
Sept 6 ~ "Vaccination must be regarded as an essential element in the
control strategy.
Under these circumstances there is a significant risk that slaughtering to
'stamp out' the disease will fail to keep up with its spread, and disposal
will fail to keep up with slaughtering. In short, there is the risk of
creating circumstances similar to those which occurred in Cumbria in 2001,
where large-scale slaughter of animals was ineffective as a rapid and
efficient method of disease control. We believe those circumstances should
be avoided at all costs ...a vaccination-to- live policy would require a
livestock support regime that would offset market failures occurring as a
result of the vaccination policy adopted. ...we understand that such a
scheme might be acceptable under EU law." (page 56 Cumbria Report)
Sept 6 ~"usefulness of the data..."
We recommend that DEFRA commissions an external review of its provision of
epidemiological support in connection with FMD, and of the usefulness of the
data collected to the understanding of disease spread."
Sept 6 ~ "We recommend that DEFRA undertakes a comprehensive revision of its
draft contingency plan
in the light of the findings of this and other FMD Inquiries. The plan
should be conceived on a multi-agency basis and should engage all the
relevant agencies, including the County Councils. In local FMD planning, the
Cumbria County Council Emergency Centre should be considered as a 'hub'
facility for any future multi-agency response......the local Contingency
Plan should specify clearly the stage and scale of epidemic that will
trigger a request from DEFRA for assistance from the Army........local
authorisation of action in dealing with an outbreak should be introduced as
early as possible, with DEFRA headquarters kept fully informed of
decisions......"
The Carlisle Health Office was "overwhelmed", As a result of the handling of
FMD, the farming and rural communities of Cumbria have suffered an enormous
loss in confidence in DEFRA. It will be an uphill struggle for the
Department to restore the relationships....
Sept 6 ~ Cumbria Report (p34) "Totalitarian"
" We received a range of distressing accounts of poor communication between
the authorities and farmers (and others) relating to the culling and
disposal of animals. In some instances the approach that the authorities
were described as having taken bordered on the totalitarian. We can find no
excuse for this..."
"Relevant knowledge. In dealing with the farming industry, communicators and
administrators require a relevant level of knowledge of agriculture and food
production. In many instances this appeared to be lacking.
Written communication. .... Some letters used unfortunate choices of
expression, were not sufficiently clear or appeared threatening..... poorly
photocopied forms that were difficult to read..... evidence of the
Department giving verbal instructions or making agreements, which were not
confirmed by letter, leading to later dispute " (page 35)
Sept 6 ~ "an upsurge of public objection and to expressions of public
concern, frustration and anger
at the way that the epidemic was being handled. Individuals and communities
felt that they were being unconsidered or poorly served by the authorities,
and there was a loss of confidence in the government department leading the
control and eradication process....." The Cumbria Report on FMD may be read
here.

                                        
                                
* This message has been edited by Farmtalking on 06 Sep 2002 13:53:10 *
                                

Originally from: Mary Critchley
                        
Bill

Where did you get the notion that the tests don't work well?

Are you referring to the fact that the tests that exist haven't yet been validated – or do you know something that my scientific and veterinary correspondents don't?

"The main opposition that we have encountered to the use of vaccination is that the non structural protein test, used to distinguish between response to vaccine as opposed to response to infection, has not yet been fully validated to the guidelines of the OIE.
Intervet have now introduced a 3ABC marker test which is capable of differentiating between response to vaccination and response to viral challenge. This has been extensively tested and trialled and provides a definitive tool to differentiate between those animals that have responded to vaccination or viral challenge, for use at herd level. We understand that this test is now ready for submission to the OIE for validation. Merial have also produced a similar test and had the test independently assessed although the test is a 'described' test, but it is not yet 'proscribed', as it has not yet been validated.
United Bio-Medical (UBI) have also developed a range of similar tests and state: "The complete UBI NS test system has a specificity approaching 100% on vaccinated livestock. We believe that our system has sufficient sensitivity and specificity to detect evidence of infection in vaccinated herds (eg, potentially infectious carrier animals if they truly exist) while distinguishing the antibody response to infection from the response to vaccination."

Please do have a look at http://www.warmwell.com/fmdvaccination.html and then get back to me if you have opposing factual information. Your statement will be alarming many who want to see vaccination to live instead of the wholescale and largely needless slaughter of 2001

Regards
Mary

Originally from: Bill
                        
You can only have "vaccinate to live" if you accept FMD is endemic. If you "ring fence" you have to accept there will be holes in the fence because the tests don't work too well.

Bill.
                        

Originally from: Burkie
                        
Dear Bill: Suggest you go do your homework. Whole countries like Argentina and Uruguay and Brazil were allowed vaccination.

They sell you, your beef, pork and lamb now.

And you buy it.

Meanwhile, your own producers are going broke.

So which side of the fence are you on?

Burkie in Kansas

Originally from: Bill
                        
Dear Burkie,

Argentina was vaccinating in 1967 and that is where the 1967/68 FMD epidemic came from, in a consignment of 770 frozen lamb carcasses from Establishment 1408.

The 2001 epidemic, the worst agricultural disaster in the history of the planet, resulted from our bureaucratic inability to detect or track the disease because the tests don't work and we won't trust clinical diagnosis. The same as 1967/68, vets running round like headless chickens and with about the same chance of success.

As for which side of the fence I am on it is the side of reality. The virus exists, it can survive in ticks and tick eggs (Northumberland Report) and realistically we cannot wipe out the tick population.

We must learn to live with the virus, as they do in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. Also as they do in South Africa and Zimbabwe where despite sporadic outbreaks they seem to get by without mass destruction of their livestock (wild and domestic).

The side of the fence I sit on is the side of reality. "Disease free" status is a costly luxury we can ill afford. The cost in suffering, animal and human, is beyond calculation but in financial terms the 10 billion pounds it cost last year is equivalent to the profit on a hundred years of exports.

Bill.
                        

Originally from: Bill
                        
Mary, I have already posted how the ELISA and Virus Neutralisation Tests work and why they are not too reliable. It was quite a lengthy posting so I will try to dig it out and e-mail it to you.

I have correspondence from Lord Whitty admitting the very earliest you can expect a positive result from ELISA is 5 days after infection (I would have said 6 but things may have improved in the last 30 years). The problem is whilst the norm might be 5 to 10 days it can be anything up to 12 weeks.

Most of the tests are carried out by ELISA because it is automated. The Virus Neutralisation Test is a bit more accurate but relies on sufficient virus being present in the sample to cause infection in laboratory tissue, usually a section sliced from a sheep's trachea.

The laboratory situation can never replicate the favourable growing conditions encountered in a living animal. Tissue in the laboratory will require a higher concentration of virus to cause infection and this will obviously be one factor in reducing the likelihood of a positive test.

Bill.
                        

Originally from: coleen
                        
http://www.noah.co.uk/issues/briefingdoc/fmd.htm

Bill might I draw your attention to this site from Noah The National Office of Animal Health – scan down to the paragraph – Does vaccination work – Yes!! – read on.

Coleen

Originally from: Bill
                        
Coleen, nothing in that report is inconsistent with anything I have said.

The F.M.D. virus (aphthovirus) has seven serotypes and over a hundred known sub-serotypes.

It is a picornavirus, like the common cold virus, and mutates for fun. How many sub-serotypes are they testing for, one, two or even three?

Accuracy approaching 100%? How near to 100%????, 99%, 80% 70% or might it be 1 or 2%. Read between the lines. It's like the old slogan "Top breeders RECOMMEND Pedigree Chum". Notice they don't say "Top breeders USE Pedigree Chum".

The new tests Mary talks about, as yet not validated by the O.I.E., are just another ruse to liberate farmers of hard earned cash.

Bill.
                        

Originally from: Frances Fish
                        
Dear Bill, Are we to assume that those countries who opted for vaccination, like Uraguay and The Netherlands, were just terribly lucky.? They brought outbreaks of FMD in their respective countries under control quickly (and the Dutch did not need to slaughter, they chose to do so !) So, the proof of the pudding........ ? Regarding the Cumbria Report itself, all we need now is a government that is willing to open its eyes, its ears and its purse strings but, have to say I haven't seen a pig flying in the sky recently,but, as usual, live in hope. Frances

Originally from: Frances Fish
                        
Dear Bill, A question for you.Do you get any honey from those bees in your bonnet ? Frances

Originally from: Bill
                        
Wish I did Frances. Funny though how the so-called World experts in FMD are the World's Worst at controlling it. Perhaps if I stop banging my head against the wall the bees will oblige!
Bill.