Rense.com



Virus Hits UK Deer Population -
Mass Cattle Slaughter
Said Unnecessary
From Patricia Doyle, PhD
dr_p_doyle@hotmail.com
5-1-1

Hello Jeff - According to MAFF, the UK outbreak is "fully under control." Yeah right? Now, the worst case scenerio just happened, wild deer infected. Of course, the UK Govt. said that the people tested for human FMD are all negative, i.e. if we can believe the govt. Also, by the time that the testing was done, the people might not show postive. Many people have mild flulike symptoms and never go to hospital for testing. You can bet, we are not being told the truth. Patty
 
 
Foot And Mouth Disease A ProMED-mail post <http://www.promedmail.org ProMED-mail, a program of the International Society for Infectious Diseases <http://www.isid.org
 
 
Date: 4-29-1
From: William J. Barnes wjb@wjbagency.com
Source: The Observer - London 4-22-1 [edited]
 
The foot & mouth disease (FMD) virus may have passed into Britain's wild deer population, making the Government's policy of mass slaughter of farmyard livestock futile.
 
There have been several cases of vets clinically identifying the disease in wild deer, some of which have died, presumably from it. Veterinary experts say it is impossible to vaccinate or cull wild deer and once infected they will act as a reservoir for the virus, repeatedly re-infecting livestock. It will make it almost impossible for Britain to rid itself of the virus, until it dies out naturally in wild deer, which could take years.
 
Last week a roe deer was found dead at Kirk House Farm near Penrith, which had already been confirmed as having FMD in livestock. Local vet Matt Coulston identified lesions on all 4 feet and in its mouth. 'It had signs consistent with foot and mouth disease,' he said. 'There have been loads of people round here reporting dead deer and sick deer. '
 
A Maff spokesman said government vets had tested 9deer for FMD and none had been found positive: 'So far there have been no confirmed cases of FMD in deer.' However, the Maff vets use the ELISA (Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay) test, which was developed on cattle and sheep and is not thought to be so effective on deer.
 
In 1974 the government Animal Health Institute in Pirbright kept a number of deer in proximity to sheep with FMD for 2 hours in a controlled experiment. The scientists found all 6 native species of deer contracted the disease, and several died.
 
In an outbreak of foot and mouth in California in 1924, the outbreak spread rapidly to deer. Slaughtermen culled 22 000 deer in the Stanislav National Park and found that, of those, 2279 were infected.
 
 
Date: 4-29-1
From: Steve Angus SteveA@spc.int
 
FMD: telling the difference between vaccinated and infected animals
 
["Mason said veterinarians needed a vaccine that acted faster and also made it possible to pinpoint the difference between vaccinated animals and animals infected with the virus. The vaccine now available takes several days to take effect. Current [accepted] tests are unable to distinguish between cattle, sheep and pigs which have been vaccinated and those which have the disease." A quote from ProMED digest v2001.n095.]
 
While working as the epidemiologist for the national veterinary epidemiology unit in Bolivia (Jan 98 to Dec 2000) I regularly spend my time investigating FMD outbreaks and surveying parts of the country for evidence of viral activity (i.e. evidence of recent past infection). In Bolivia there was sporadic vaccination against FMD which makes telling the difference between vaccinated animals and animals that had previously been infected critical to this work.
 
There are a number of diagnostic tests which can be used to differentiate between infection and vaccination, most of which rely on the detection of antibodies for non-structural proteins. Although these tests do have the habit of showing up occasional false positives (mainly in older animals with a history of regular vaccination) it is possible to work around this problem by considering the epidemiology of FMD.
 
FMD is not a disease of individual animals, rather herds of animals. Similarly animals are vaccinated on a herd basis, not as individuals. Hence, it is possible to tell whether herds of animals have been infected since it makes no biological sense that only 1 animal in an unvaccinated herd would be infected with FMD. In very extensive beef properties in South America a prevalence of about 15% was normal and in intensive dairy systems it could be over 80%.
 
Identifying an infected vaccinated animal is very difficult and involves attempting virus isolation of probang samples from cattle tonsils.
 
As to including a marker with the vaccine (something which will differentiate infection from vaccination) I accidentally came across a marker for vaccinated animals. Due to regulations and past history trivalent vaccine for types A,O and C were used in Bolivia. However virus type C had not been isolated from Bolivia or any of its neighboring countries for more than 6 years.
 
Animals carrying antibodies to type C were invariably found to have been vaccinated as were animals with antibodies to all 3 virus types. Infected animals have type specific antibodies to the outbreak. Since any FMD vaccination program would be under strict ministry of agriculture control why would there not be a system of marking vaccinated animals, perhaps with distinctive ear tags as with S19 brucellosis vaccination in many countries.
 
This would save some of the problems created by individual animals. Alternatively ear punching could be used as a more permanent marker, but again animals are vaccinated on a herd basis and not as individuals and would presumably be under movement control so the occasional loss of an ear tag would be irrelevant.
 
Should FMD virus remain in circulation in the wild deer population of the UK, then vaccination will again become a very attractive option. Indeed, had the vaccine been used when the epidemic was first recognized to have been "out of control" at the beginning of March [2001] it may have saved the slaughter of more than 2 million head of livestock, a figure which could double before the end of the outbreak. All this at what cost economically and socially to the people of the UK?
 
Dr. Stephen D. Angus BVMS MSc PhD MRCVS SteveA@spc.int Veterinary Epidemiologist Regional Animal Health Service Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Suva, Fiji
 
 
 
 
Date: 4-29-1 Source: Sunday Times London 4-22-1 [edited] Via: Humanitarian Resource Institute <http://www.humanitarian.net/eidnet/fmd
 
Farmers are rebelling over the mass cull of livestock after it was revealed in some farming communities more than 1 in 10 outbreaks of foot & mouth disease were diagnosed wrongly.
 
Cases confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Maff) to have been negative include the outbreak which led to the cancellation of the Cheltenham Festival and another opposite the site of the Royal Welsh Show, which was also abandoned.
 
The mass slaughter is also causing a n increasing health threat. Nearly 200 000 rotting carcasses are waiting to be buried in Devon and evidence emerged yesterday that water supplies were contaminated. Philip Allen, of the National Farmers' Union (NFU) in Devon, said: "People have had dead carcasses on their farms for 3 weeks."
 
Although herds on farms next to outbreaks are not meant to be culled until the case is confirmed by laboratory tests, officials have ordered dozens of culls on adjacent farms -- only to find later the tests gave negative results.
 
There are fears that rivers and drinking water are being contaminated by carcasses and thousands of gallons of disinfectant -- and may be at risk for more than 2 decades. Mike Childs, campaigns director of Friends of the Earth, said: "The Environment Agency says rendering and incineration are the two best options for disposal of carcasses, but Maff is dumping slaughtered livestock into pits which are not even lined."
 
 
 
Date: 4-29-1
From: ProMED-mail Source: BBC, [edited] http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1300000/1300932.stm
 
 
Pyres of animals slaughtered in the fight against FMD may not pose as great a public health threat as feared, according to initial tests at 2 sites. Air samples taken at sites in Cumbria and Powys found levels of toxic dioxins were relatively low. But concerns remain over potential contamination with other pollutants from the burning and burial of carcasses. (In mid-Wales, more than 1400 sheep are to be dug up, after blood began leaching to the surface at their burial site near Welshpool.)
 
The analysis of emissions at a site in Allerdale near Wigton in Cumbria -- which did not begin until the second day of burning -- suggested the level of dioxins was "very low". Initial emissions test results at another burning site, the Eppynt range in Powys, seemed to support the Allerdale findings. Dyfed Powys Health Authority said the risks of ill health from pollution at Eppynt were confined to asthmatics living close to the pyres.
 
Dr Ian Lawes, who carried out the Allerdale emission test, said: "Looking at the dioxin measurements we were quite reassured that they are very low, typically something like 10 times lower than one would expect in an urban environment."
 
Fires lit during the first 6 weeks of the crisis released 63 grams of dioxins into the atmosphere - 18% of the UK's average annual emissions, according to a the Department of the Environment.
 
The total number of outbreaks of the disease stands at 1499 with 13 more cases confirmed on Friday.
 
 
[For more information regarding lessons other countries can learn from this outbreak, please see http://www.humanitarian.net/eidnet - Mod.TG] ...............................mhj/tg/jw
 
 
ProMED-mail makes every effort to verify the reports that are posted, but the accuracy and completeness of the information, and of any statements or opinions based thereon, are not guaranteed. The reader assumes all risks in using information posted or archived by ProMED-mail. ISID and its associated service providers shall not be held responsible for errors or omissions or held liable for any damages incurred as a result of use or reliance upon posted or archived material.
 
Visit ProMED-mail's web site at <http://www.promedmail.org. Send all items for posting to: promed@promedmail.org (NOT to an individual moderator). If you do not give your full name and affiliation, it may not be posted. Send commands to subscribe/unsubscribe, get archives, help, etc. to: majordomo@promedmail.org. For assistance from a human being send mail to: owner-promed@promedmail.org.
 
 
Patricia A. Doyle, PhD "Emerging Diseases" message board: http://disc.server.com/Indices/93896.html
 
 
 
MainPage
http://www.rense.com
 
 
 
This Site Served by TheHostPros