Michael Lorrey wrote:
> Maybe its just my paraoid streak, but with the reports of hoof and mouth
> disease spreading to livestock around the world, from Saudi Arabia to
> Korea, makes me wonder if this is not a planted disease by anti-meat
> forces....
The current wisdom theorises that FMD is viral in nature. Symptoms of FMD
in livestock begin usually with a temperature, followed within 24 hours by
the appearance of blisters and ulcerations on places such as the tongue,
lips, gums, dental pad, interdigital skin of the feet, bulbs of the heels
and milk teats. Occasionally, ulcerations appear inside the nostrils or on
the muzzle. Visually, these ulcerations are the equivalent of large cold
sores. The resultant illness and lameness causes decreased appetite, a drop
in milk yield, a drop in productivity, and of course, increased care costs.
Afflicted animals almost always recover, usually within a week or two. Death
occurs in only 5 percent of cases. [UK Times, 1.3.2001]
I wonder how much evidence there is that hoof and mouth is contageous. In
looking into the matter, I checked out Sir Albert Howard, who is credited
with writing the book that set off the organic farming and gardening
revolution, An Agricultural Testament, Oxford University Press, 1943. He
also wrote Farming and Gardening For Health or Disease. Faber and Faber,
1945, better known in the US as Soil and Health when published a few years
later by Rodale. He had 26 years of field experience in widely seperate
centers in India. In that last book he wrote:
"This experience, covering a period of 26 years...convinced me that
foot-and-mouth disease is a consequence of malnutrition pure and simple, and
that the remedies which have been devised in countries like Great Britian to
deal with the trouble, namely, the slaughter of the affected animals, are
both superficial and also inadmissible. Such attempts to control an
outbreak should cease."
"Cases of foot-and-mouth diease should be utilized to tune up practice and
to see to it that the animals are fed on the fresh produce of fertile soil.
The trouble will then pass and will not spread to the surrounding areas,
providing the animals there are also in good fettle. Foot-and-mouth
outbreaks are a sure sign of bad farming."
[For more info on Howard, including further details of his experience with
FMD, check out http://www.soilandhealth.org/ and click on the link to
Agriculture Library, several of his books are online there]
As I understand it, the blood test used to determine the presence of the FMD
virus is known as an ELISA test or enzyme linked immuno-absorbent assay
test. The test delivers the positive reading by detecting proteins and
antibodies in the blood, proteins and antibodies which are presumed to be
there as a result the presence of the virus. This is fine if someone first
properly isolates the virus and then extracts the proteins, genetic
material, etc, from the viral isolate. Then tests can be properly
calibrated, comparing positive results on the test with actual viral
isolation from the same subjects. If you don't have a proper viral isolate,
you can't be sure that the proteins or antibodies are viral in nature. They
could be produced by the subject itself under stress, and are, therefore,
markers of undefined ill health. As I understand it, FMD has not been
properly isolated.
Best Regards,
Pat Fallon
pfallon@bigfoot.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:42 MDT