Re: Re: ELISA testing.

Originally from: Bill
                        
Does anybody have a print out from the MAFF/DEFRA website in 2001 that claimed ELISA testing was 99.9% accurate? Or indeed any other record of this ludicrous claim!

Bill.
                        

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
It's easy to find!

There's a web site clled 'Farmtalking' which has a link to its 'Search' box on the Home Page!

Try this! – http://farmtalking.com/art_science_kitching_test.html

Originally from: Bill
                        
Thank you, Jane.

But Kitching isn't saying ELISA testing is almost 100% accurate. What he is saying is that combined antibody and virus testing is almost 100% accurate, which it is!

However virus testing requires highly skilled technicians and in 2001 very few samples were tested for virus. The system relied almost entirely on ELISA testing which requires much lower levels of skill. Elliot Morley was therefore absolutely correct in saying that negative test results did not necessarily mean the animals were FMD free.

Kitching is punting IOH propaganda that was developed as a smokescreen to cover up their incompetence during the epidemic.

See if you can find any references to virus testing made DURING THE EPIDEMIC, by either the IOH or DEFRA!

Bet you can't!

All the best,
Bill.
                        

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        

Author wrote:
IAH of course, sorry for slipping off into horticulture!.
I've been puzzled in the past why there been glowing references to Kitching
on Farmtalking.

'Perhaps that's because you don't realize that some of the info published on Farmtalking dates from early 2001!'

However it's now plain to see that Pirbright's cover story is

supportive of the conspiracy theory that the Government were using the FMD epidemic to wipe out the farming industry.

'A theory oft repeated but true or false what do we gain from it's repitition?'

The truth is that because of Pirbright's incompetence the Government hadn't
got a clue as to which animals were/were not infected.

'IMO it was not so much 'incompetance' as a lack of preparation to cope with testing samples in the numbers that rapidly became legion in the early days of the FMD outbreak in 2001. Dr. Kitching and Pirbright staff did their best but as is frequently the case, it wasn't good enough.'

As for Kitching's

inferral that significant numbers of samples were being tested for virus (a claim
only made subsequent to the epidemic), it's absolute nonesense. Think about it!

'I don't have to! – I realized at the time that they were doing their best and testing significant numbers, all the staff working overtime and more, but sadly, it still wasn't enough.

One of the reasons why from the start of FMD I did what I could to promote the use of vaccination and subsequently the recommendations of Prof. Fred Brown and the use of the Smart Cycler for pen side tests when ever possible.'

They would have needed to conjure up a small army of skilled technicians and needed several acres of building to house all the cultures!

'Quite!

But again I have to say that finding fault with individuals or Govt Departments whether or not we knew then or know now that they were/are guilty of negligence or incompetance, serves no good purpose today. It won't bring back the slaughtered animals or return the farmers that have given up, to their farms.

Surely it is better to concentrate on what we know now. We have two choices if we believe the intention was/is to wipe out the British farming industry.

1. First of all to find out why. Has anyone come up with a good reason yet? If they do and we agree it's a good decision we will have to adapt our way of life to cope without Bristish farming. 2. If we disagree with the decision, if indeed one is proven to exist, then as individuals we must strive to maintain the industry in one way or another. Some of us are trying to support it even today!

Many have tried to preserve their industries, in steel, coal-mining and fishing without success, but who knows maybe agriculture will prevail after all?

Or maybe the facts turn out to be that it's not the Govt's intention to wipe out farming but simply to change it!

As we know, not may people like changes but in time they do adapt and learn accept them, well at least until the next time!

Originally from: Bill
                        
IAH of course, sorry for slipping off into horticulture!.

I've been puzzled in the past why there been glowing references to Kitching on Farmtalking. However it's now plain to see that Pirbright's cover story is supportive of the conspiracy theory that the Government were using the FMD epidemic to wipe out the farming industry.

The truth is that because of Pirbright's incompetence the Government hadn't got a clue as to which animals were/were not infected. As for Kitching's inferral that significant numbers of samples were being tested for virus (a claim only made subsequent to the epidemic), it's absolute nonesense. Think about it! They would have needed to conjure up a small army of skilled technicians and needed several acres of building to house all the cultures!

All the best,
Bill.
                        

Originally from: Val Collinson
                        
Hello Jane,

With regard to a reason why the government might want to wipe out British farming, it is surely true that the CAP was costing the EU an enormous amount of money, much of which was going to support ever increasing sheep numbers in this country, and, from what one hears, thousands of sheep were being moved around illegally in order to qualify more than once for subsidy.

Agriculture in this country is far less significant in terms of votes than it is in other European countries. Furthermore, the enlargement of the EU is likely to lead to massive surpluses of food which, at least initially, are likely to be far cheaper than what is produced here, so why continue to subsidise British production on a massive scale?

To remove subsidies overnight, even if compensation were paid, would have been seen as unethical and generally undesirable by the voting public, so, is it not plausible that FMD was contrived to achieve the same end?

Personally, I think that the only justification for subsidies is that it is politically desirable for Britain to maintain the ability to feed herself – otherwise, what security do we have? The fact that cheap, subsidised imports are permitted, with which we cannot compete, is nothing to do with the efficiency of our agriculture but more to do with wider political issues – and always has been. However, I do think that the 'one size fits all' type of subsidisation incorporated in the CAP has led to huge inequalities waste of resources and therefore something had to be done to stop the heamorrhaging of funds from the EU. Nevertheless, no-one could surely condone such a dishonest and brutal way of going about it, if indeed that is what happened.

Unfortunately, governments only tend to think 4 – 5 years ahead and are not really interested in the long term effects of their actions. In this respect, it is interesting to note that the financial press is now talking in terms of coal as a cheap alternative to oil!

As far as the future of British agriculture is concerned, there is certainly a movement in this area towards sourcing locally produced, traceable food and, in any case, whether the escalating price of oil is the beginning of the end of the cheap energy era or not, it is predicted to run out in the very near future, so maybe for that reason alone, cheap imported food will no longer be readily available.

Best regards

ValC

Surely it is better to concentrate on what we know now. We have two

choices if we believe the intention was/is to wipe out the British farming industry.

1. First of all to find out why. Has anyone come up with a good reason

yet? If they do and we agree it's a good decision we will have to adapt our way of life to cope without Bristish farming.

2. If we disagree with the decision, if indeed one is proven to exist,

then as individuals we must strive to maintain the industry in one way or another.

Some of us are trying to support it even today!

Many have tried to preserve their industries, in steel, coal-mining and

fishing without success, but who knows maybe agriculture will prevail after all?

Or maybe the facts turn out to be that it's not the Govt's intention to

wipe out farming but simply to change it!

As we know, not may people like changes but in time they do adapt and

learn accept them, well at least until the next time!

All the best,
Bill.

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/farmtalking

To leave the group, email: ...

Report abuse

http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D774210&mid%3D10069
                        

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        

Author wrote:
Thank you, Jane.
But Kitching isn't saying ELISA testing is almost 100% accurate. What he is
saying is that combined antibody and virus testing is almost 100% accurate,
which it is!

'I'm so sorry Bill – you asked for a reference and I gave it to you. The fact that it doesn't say what you want it to is hardly my fault!'

However virus testing requires highly skilled technicians and in 2001 very
few samples were tested for virus. The system relied almost entirely on ELISA
testing which requires much lower levels of skill. Elliot Morley was therefore
absolutely correct in saying that negative test results did not necessarily
mean the animals were FMD free.
Kitching is punting IOH propaganda that was developed as a smokescreen to
cover up their incompetence during the epidemic.
See if you can find any references to virus testing made DURING THE EPIDEMIC,
by either the IOH or DEFRA!
Bet you can't!

'Well, I can actually!
I suggest a search on Google if Farmtalking doesn't provide exactly what you want.'

Originally from: Bill
                        
You will remember of course that slaughtermen who got doused in bodily fluids from FMD infected animals broke out in vesicles, about 20 people were affected. All tested negative for FMD and DEFRA explained away the symptoms as "Hand-Foot-and-Mouth Disease".

Only trouble with that explanation is the virus that causes "Hand-Foot-and-Mouth disease (the Coxsackie virus) is exclusive to humans and therefore cannot be transmitted by the bodily fluids of animals.

All the best,
Bill.
                        

Originally from: Bill
                        
ELISA testing was sometimes backed up by the Virus Neutralisation Test, but the latter was used to test for antibody, not virus.

Of great significance since ELISA was introduced in the late 50's/early 60's is the difficulty in detecting antibody in humans (only one person has ever tested positive). This has resulted in the textbooks being re-written, with mention of transmission by infected humans deleted. Anyone who has worked with the virus will know that humans very easily become infected, usually with flu-like symptoms. Only very heavily infected humans present with vesicles.

Transmission by infected humans, particularly vets, was significant in spread of the disease in 2001. In order to conceal this fact DEFRA (on advice from Pirbright) were quoting the incubation period in cattle as 5 to 6 days when it is typically only 2 to 3 days.

All the best,
Bill.
                        

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
Hello Val!

Author wrote:
Hello Jane,
With regard to a reason why the government might want to wipe out British farming, it is surely true that the CAP was costing the EU an enormous amount of money, much of which was going to support ever increasing sheep numbers in this country, and, from what one hears, thousands of sheep were being moved around illegally in order to qualify more than once for subsidy.

Yes, I would agree with that!

Agriculture in this country is far less significant in terms of votes than it is in other European countries.

That's very true too.

Furthermore, the enlargement of the EU is likely to lead to massive surpluses of food which, at least initially, are likely to be far cheaper than what is produced here, so why continue to subsidise British production on a massive scale?

Certainly in the short term it seems wise to cease the subsidy payments.

To remove subsidies overnight, even if compensation were paid would have been seen as unethical and generally undesirable by the voting public, so, is it not plausible that FMD was contrived to achieve the same end?

Plausible maybe but factual? I prefer to doubt that for many reasons!

Personally, I think that the only justification for subsidies is that it is politically desirable for Britain to maintain the ability to feed herself – otherwise, what security do we have?

The fact that cheap, subsidised imports are permitted, with which we cannot compete, is nothing to do with the efficiency of our agriculture but more to do with wider political issues – and always has been.

However, I do think that the 'one size fits all' type of subsidisation incorporated in the CAP has led to huge inequalities waste of resources and therefore something had to be done to stop the heamorrhaging of funds from the EU. Nevertheless, no-one could surely condone such a dishonest and brutal way of going about it, if indeed that is what happened.

Quite!

Unfortunately, governments only tend to think 4 – 5 years ahead and are not really interested in the long term effects of their actions.

Understandable, as their priority is the next election!

In this respect, it is interesting to note that the financial press is now talking in terms of coal as a cheap alternative to oil! As far as the future of British agriculture is concerned, there is certainly a movement in this area towards sourcing locally produced, traceable food and, in any case, whether the escalating price of oil is the beginning of the end of the cheap energy era or not, it is predicted to run out in the very near future, so maybe for that reason alone, cheap imported food will no longer be readily available.

In rural areas we usually can source our food locally but do we always? I doubt it!

Even I, and many of my friends who do buy from the local Farm Shop/Butcher/Fishmonger/Grocer/Garage, also make a trip to the Supermarkets in Berwick, Dunbar or Edinburgh from time to time! When fuel costs rise perhaps we won't be able to do so, but human nature being what it is, I'm sure that's a bridge we won't cross till we have to!

Farmers will also cross bridges when they come to them. They are no different from the rest of us whose instinctive and first priority is always 'self preservation'.

The subsidies, may have encouraged the purchase of quotas and led to illegalities in some cases and now the new single farm payment scheme is already attracting advisors who recommend farmers hang on to the payment and do less on their farms.

Some I've spoken to are considering almost giving up farming themselves; with set-aside plus the single farm payment and a few fattening lambs or steers their work would be considerably reduced and their income much improved! Who can blame them? Wouldn't we all do the same?

The Single Farm Payment scheme replaces the quota subsidies for now, but I bet no one's laying money that Govt won't seek to fade them out as well in the not too distant future!

Best wishes – Jane

Best regards, ValC