letemgrow said:
In Iowa we saw animals that tested positive in the lymph node, and negative in the obex. I had a researcher tell me that unless it is positive in the obex it shouldn't be considered CWD. All the lymph node is showing, is that it carries the infectious agent that "may" turn into CWD. Since the lymph node is a "filter" to the body, if it is doing it's job, how many of them may not develop full blown CWD? I have not seen any research to this. I don't know if they can even prove this, without a live test. Since all these animals are dead to get to this point.
All I have heard is that every animal that has tested positive in the obex, tested positive in the lymph node. But since the obex is the last place to turn positive, they are "assuming" a lymph positive will turn into a positive. Again, hard to prove without a live test.
I guess what bothers me is, on page 47 of the "standards program", they state that "it is assumed that animals may shed the CWD prion into the environment before the onset of clinical disease". That tells me there is no science out there that tells me they know how prions are spread, or when, or if!!!
If they say prions can be spread by nose contact, or urine, etc., then why can't they test for it??? Are they assuming this also? How about soil contamination, why can't they test for that? If it is there, they should be able to find it, shouldn't they? The cases we had in two herds in Minnesota showed very, very low levels of contamination among pen mates. These animals shared common feeders and waters.
If you google recent research articles on CWD, I see many articles still refer to prions as a "theory". Why? After almost 30 years of prion research, why haven't they found a cure? In fact, have they even identified what a prion looks like? Are they chasing the "boogie man"?? Dr. Frank Bastien of the Univ. of Tulane, thinks that "it will turn out that the prion concept is wrong". Some researchers feel that CWD is caused by a bacteria. Researchers don't even agree on the cause and spread of CWD. Yet conservation people are making claims they can't support.
I am sorry I sound so skeptical on CWD. I go a long way back with prion diseases. I had cattle we imported from Europe depopulated for 'mad cow" back in the early 1990's. I spent a lot of time in Europe back then. We saw "mad cow" disease turn into a big "haddo" about nothing over here. In fact, it has turned into a non-issue.
The people that seem to be stirring the pot on this, are the conservation people. In the "Federal Rule" comments, APHIS/USDA states that they have determined CWD to be a "low infectious disease". Then why are wildlife agencies stating in news articles, that it is highly infectious? Just the opposite what the nations animal health specialists are saying!!! Seems to me they have some other agenda.
Gary