Found it grassfarmer

[ianben]

Again not exactly sure what this says but must
be the source of the article I read.
http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/126/1/
5.abstract

Abstract
A genetic study of 75 cases of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) of which 51 were confirmed
by histopathology in 29 pedigree and seven non-
pedigree herds of Holstein Friesian cattle
revealed that 73 per cent of 60 BSE cases had
first or second degree relatives also affected. All
the 44 cases assigned to families could be traced
back in the previous three generations to one
cow and 11 bulls, which were of Canadian
Holstein or Dutch Friesian heredity. No single
common ancestor could be identified in the
parentage of BSE-affected animals in pedigree
studies up to six or more generations. The
number of common ancestors and the degree of
relatedness of the affected animals in a multiple-
case herd was no more than would be expected
from the breeding structure of the herd. The
segregation ratio of affected cows in the proband
generation within sire and maternal grandsire
sibships in 12 pedigree herds was not
inconsistent with Mendelian expectation for
autosomal recessive inheritance with complete
penetrance. The data analysed shows that the
disease itself is not simply inherited. However,
there remains a real possibility that the
susceptibility of individual animals to BSE is
inherited. This should be taken into account in
current and future research on the aetiology and
control of the disease.

There is a remarkable amount of research still
being done on this and money spent.
Even questioning if there is a link between BSE
and humans, not really enough human cases
given the exposure apparently.
Questioning the existence of prions too as the
were thought to work.
More research and more funding needed will a
scientist ever reach a conclusion.

So thanks grassfarmer I found my search very
interesting.

[Happytrails]

Interesting study. I like it because my cattle have no dairy genetics and thus, according to the study, a smaller chance of getting BSE. Thanks ianben.

[grassfarmer]

C'mon HT you gotta be kidding - where does it say in
the study that your cows won't get it because they
don't have dairy genetics? In the UK it was spread
through the milk replacer powder - how many beef
calves get milk replacer from day 1?

So ianben it shows that 44 of the cases were sired by
11 bulls. Doesn't say that the majority of BSE cases
were sired by 7 of the 10 most used AI bulls.
Besides this was a 1990 report so I guess they never
did prove their hypothesis by further research?

[oneoff]

An "Abstract" such as published above; is a condensed summary of research data found in the accompanying paper.

This reasearch paper apparently proposes the hypothesis (whch is maybe a theory in its initial stages) that there might be a correlation between the susceptability to certain bulls (apparently used widely in AI breeding in the UK) and BSE suseptability to infection by prions???.
If I understand the abstract correctly; it is suggested that recessive genes might explain how family lines arising from those BSE cases produced offspring that were also affected by BSE incidence.

Now I have not had the time to read either this supposed research paper; nor any additional follow up studies. That takes considerable time and effort for those interested in better understanding a very serious disease outbreak that has affected grassfarmer and kaiser along with every other beef producer in Canada and around the world. Some benefited....most certainly didn't.
Of the posters, Iaben put the most thought and effort into digging deepest. I'm not sure the believers did anything beyond being lucky that bags of milk replacer and various feeds and supplements and their animal genetics didn't produce the combination that created outbreaks round the world.

Tmme to quote the saying "There but for the grace of god go I"

The Hypothesis (theory??) in the "paper" above only reports what the researchers thought plausable from the liited data they analysed.

Both believers and those who question the conclusions (and its caveats) are encouraged to contribute further. And in the absence of further information based on a "scientific method" it is hoped that the weight of the evidence will lean to either the hypothesis being outright rejeted or studied further.

[ianben]

This is the link to the piece questioning the cow
human transmission in 2003
Is it just a scientist looking for funding or can
you oneoff find out if any research was done.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-
2458-3-25
Background
A new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease was
described in the United Kingdom. It is often
claimed that it is caused by consumption of food
infected with the agent of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy. However, this remains open to
question because the number of cases of the
variant is, at the present time, less than would be
expected from a major food-borne source.
Discussion
The EUROCJD cooperative study presents
currently available epidemiological data of
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and its new variant, for
nine European countries plus Australia and
Canada. Unexpectedly, for the United Kingdom
where all but a few cases of the new variant have
been reported, these cases have to be included in
the incidence curve of the sporadic forms of the
disease in order to obtain the best fit with the
median curve from all the countries. This variant
could be merely a rare clinical phenotype within
the sporadic disease. The published clinical and
experimental data which suggest that it is linked
with bovine spongiform encephalopathy, lead us
to propose that this link could be a common
etiological origin other than consumption of
bovine infected food. In any case, public health
recommendations hold and further investigation
is required.
Summary
The lack of a relative increase of the Creutzfeldt-
Jakob-disease mortality rate in the United
Kingdom, does not fit well with the new variant
being the consequence of consumption of food
infected with the agent of bovine spongiform
encephalopthy.

[grassfarmer]

Thank you professor oneoff. In your technical analysis
of the report you indicated that the bulls suspected
were "apparently used widely in AI breeding in the
UK" maybe you could highlight the words that back
your statement?

You go on to say "Of the posters, Iaben put the most
thought and effort into digging deepest. I'm not sure
the believers did anything beyond being lucky...."
Lets get real here for a moment obviously neither you
nor ianben know anything about BSE. Ianbens intense
thought and effort consisted of Googling a research
abstract that he doesn't understand to prove a point
on an internet discussion forum.
I've been intensely aware of the BSE issue since the
initial cases in the UK in the mid 80s and it has been
a major issue affecting my business in the beef sector
for most of the last 24 years. I also happen to be a
good friend of the only Canadian that was invited
onto the small international panel of experts that was
convened to give advice and create a course of action
when the first cases of BSE occurred in the 80s.
So you guys go play on Google for a couple more
years and then maybe come back and we'll have a
discussion about BSE.

[ianben]

Like you grassfarmer I too was seriously affected
by BSE so before google and the internet I did
read that report.
It may have been a jornalists view based on that
or some other theory but my google trawl still
sees more questions than answers.
I always thought the(note me thinking no proof)
the link to humans questionable given we had
been eating scrapie infected sheep for hundreds
of years.
I find the way research is funded does not always
get us the best results. They always find the need
for more research.
The BSE/vCJD link has been a gravy train for
researchers and a disaster for you and me
because someone forced a mouse to be infected
with BSE.

[ado089]

I'm in over my head on this topic but
why the unwavering get denial of a
genetic link grassfarmer? I had
"roughest proteins" thrown at me in
another post, those do happen in nature
too.

I've always struggled to draw the link
between a feed source and contraction of
the disease. Mamals can't absorb complex
proteins, so they are broke down by
digestive juices into simple proteins.
This is well known. So how do you get a
prion, a supper, dupper complex protein,
absorbed by the body from food and
deposited in the brain? Come on there is
more to this story then contaminated
feed.

[grassfarmer]

Ado this discussion and its predecessor on ianben's
other post were never about BSE or a genetic link. It is
highlighting that the posters claiming to be interested
only in peer reviewed, proven scientific research are
full of crap. Time and again they have proven it by
making up facts, making assumptions with no
scientific backing and claiming facts are present in
written materiel when they clearly aren't.

If anyone has been paying attention the'd notice that I
have never denied a "genetic link" to susceptibility
because there probably is one.
What I've been denying is the central claims of these
threads that use of AI or high production genetics
helped spread BSE. Also denying the claim that 7 out
of the top 10 AI bulls in the UK "had the gene" for BSE
genetic susceptibility. There simply is no scientific
proof behind these things so you can't claim there is.

As for BSE "contaminated feed" clearly does not
explain the whole deal because there had to an
original cause of the first case and that is most likely
tied up in complex environmental factors as
hypothesized by the late Mark Purdey. That said the
majority of the cases in the UK were undoubtedly
spread through the "contaminated feed" sources of
milk replacer and calf starter pellets. The crucial point
here is that it is only in the first few days of a calves
life that this is possible before the blood to brain
barrier is closed. The stomach wall is porous to large
molecule size initially to allow the absorbtion of
colostrum which also has a large molecule size.
Besides these "contaminated feed" caused cases there
are also atypical BSE cases of which the origin is less
certain. Some of these atypical cases manifest
themselves with different symptoms and some
manifest at younger ages than conventional BSE
cases. There are also incidences of BSE that are
apparently of sporadic origin.

[charliep]

Why didn't you say that in the first place? You are not that far apart except for nuances.

[ado089]

Grassfarmer, I acknowledge what you are
saying. However I think the further the
hypothesis strays from the generally
accepted normal, the higher the burden
of proof is to support the statement.
Hypocritical? Somewhat but its necessary
to ensure integrity of the scientific
process.

Questioning the world around us and
challenging the normal is how we move,
forward, both social and scientifically.
Discussions like these are highly
constructive when it leads to people of
different views researching the other
perspective. I for example got deeper
into allan savory and Gabe browns work
then I ever have before. As a result
they've helped me consolidate some ideas
I've been noodling on for quite some
time. Hopefully I can implement some of
them next spring. Wild conspiracy
theories on Monsanto and them Chem boys
hasn't enriched my life whatsoever
though.

Thanks for reminding me of the early
infancy colostrum absorption, that
totally slipped my mind. However it
still doesn't explain how it transfers
from beast to man.

[ianben]

BSE while it remained in cattle was just another
disease. It was the mouse and link to humans
which caused most of the hysteria and actually
ruined farmers businesses and lives.

How good was the evidence back then if it turns
out that there is no human link.

Will anyone ever admit they got it wrong?

[oneoff]

Would anyone deny that some members of any population appear more susceptable than others to an exposure that can cause disease or illness.

That difference is not caused by the substance that triggers the illness (eg. contaminated milk replacer or asbestos fibres etc.)

Anyone who doesn't appreciate a "scientific approach" probably never has been exposed to the ideas of debate; bouncing all ideas around, statistical analysis, research and digging for all the ideas,hypotheses and explanations that one can get their hands on.


And beliefs just aren't liable to produce anything more than dogma and propaganda that gets swallowed instantly by hasty people looking to "confirm what they already think they know".....or an explanation to ease their worries about their present illnesses.

Beliefs produce next to nothing; except soothing troubled minds. Give e an example to the contray.

[ianben]

Columbus believed the earth was round and
sailed west over the edge. America
Watt believed he could build a boiler that would
not explode.Steam engine
Brunell believed he could build iron ship that
would float on the ocean. Modern ships
The Wright brothers believed they could
fly.Aeroplane

None of them had the proof that is apparently
necessary today.

I find the idea that we should be able to know
everything about something and predict the
future from the past unrealistic and depressing.

Just live for today and be thankful if tomorrow
comes.

[oneoff]

Who says everyone or anyone is driven by beliefs. Perhaps dreams and wildest wishes are even more responsible in driving ideas into practical applications. And since when does all time and effort get devoted to into practial applications?

I think it is a matter of observing various phenomena, thinking about ways and tricks that might make the goal come closer; scratching your brain really hard and perservering though many setbacks and failures. And once in a hundred ties someone might come a little closer to the elusive dream that was probably envisioned by many others a thousand years ago. All they lacked was the scientific knowledge, resoures and equipent and support services that was not yet available.

There is also lots of effort devoted to art, music, creating worthless knick nacks, recording history and even posting on Agriville.