Re: Curtains for Shambo

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:56:20 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <p25pa3d2137ce7f8lrp7jppl666k66gnak@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:08:42 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <nijoa3l32639l982e3m5a2l4vgt3kvh4te@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:16:52 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In article <djuma35mj56s553dfd2vf81hpheukd4mtf@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:58:08 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <32hma3h1rg5qbsth7phomvp3cn7050alk7@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:52:23 +0100, Malcolm
<Malcolm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <el4ma3hc5mqoscrbqr23il8b19kcf63vlc@xxxxxxx>,
amacmil304@xxxxxxx writes

The monks took expert veterinary advice on this issue and concluded
the animal was in good health.

Except that it had bovine TB as was suspected from the tests and has
been confirmed by the PM. In other words, the external appearance of an
animal is not a guide to the presence of TB.

They had to come up with that.

Who "had to come up with that"? If every animal with bovine TB showed
symptoms there wouldn't be the need for testing, would there?

My reply was to what you wrote.

Then read what I wrote.

I did.

No-one "had to come up with" anything.

The PM conclusion could well have been used to justify the decision to
slaughter the animal. Who knows?

The decision to slaughter the animal was justified by it being a TB
reactor. No further justification is or was required.


There was real need to try to justify this slaughter because of the
publicity.

Nonsense. The fact that it tested positive for TB is all the
justification needed.


Get your facts right. It didn't test positive for having TB.

The
animal had tested positive to TB.

But did not necessarily have TB

So what? The government's policy for trying to get rid of bTB is to
slaughter positive reactors. This bullock was a positive reactor.


It's discretionary.

So you've said. Could you please produce chapter and verse on that?

Look it up. I told you, you should read up on it.



There are very rarely any external
symptoms in the early stages of the disease and so for the vet to say it
was "in good health" doesn't actually mean much in the context of TB. He
would have been able to say that it wasn't suffering from some other,
more obvious, disease, but not whether or not it had TB.

So it might not have had TB.

It was a positive reactor. The number of false positives is about 1 in
1,000.


Are you saying that 999 out of 1000 positives actually have TB?

Your knowledge obviously doesn't extend to understanding the difference
between a positive and a false positive or the relationship between the
two. If it did, you wouldn't have asked this daft question.


So you're not saying 999 in 1000 have TB

You're getting there.





Antibiotics could have been used as it was not an animal the was
destined to be consumed for food. Any mammal can be treated for TB
with antibiotics.

Oh dear :-(

I suppose this means, among other things, that you don't know the
regulations governing the use of antibiotics for the treatment of cattle
with TB, that you think it is a quick process during which infection
cannot be passed on to other animals, including humans, and that you've
never heard of drug-resistant TB.

This bullock was not livestock. It was similar to that of a household
pet and should have been treated as such.

How far divorced from reality can you get? This bullock was one of a
herd of about 50 animals among which there are supposed to be other
reactors.

But they're not livestock for human consumption.

So what?

So, they're not livestock for human consumption

So what? They can still infect other cattle and, indeed, humans


It is my recollection that they cannot infect others until the disease
has become full blown. So if it doesn't then they can't infect.

Wrong.

Really? At what time do they infect others?



They are a potential source of infection for animals on
adjacent farms which are.

Not if they were kept in isolation like Shambo.

Shambo was only kept in isolation after he had been found to be a bTB
reactor.


He was probably no risk to other animals even before that.

What makes you think that? What detailed knowledge do you possess of the
circumstances in which the herd is kept?

The monks know. Are you saying they're liars?


This whole episode wasn't solely about the
welfare of one bullock, it was about the welfare of all the cattle in
the neighbourhood, plus the welfare of the farmers.

Not at all. There was virtually no risk if the animal was kept in the
temple.

"virtually" was deemed not sufficient for the Court of Appeal.


Doesn't mean it's right.

Obviously you think it was wrong.

Yes.

But to claim, without any evidence,
that there was "virtually" no risk is meaningless. You just don't have
the information.

Why is "virtually" no risk meaningless? The monks had the
information.


You, like many other
bandwagon jumpers seem to want to ignore this inconvenient fact.


Not at all.

'Fraid so.


No.

No, what?


No to what you said.

It wasn't until it was found to be a reactor that it was
isolated from the others and that the human handlers took any sort of
precautions against the spread of the disease, to other cattle, to
badgers or to humans. Perhaps you would like to tell us how you think
this "household pet" caught TB in the first place.

Any animal can catch TB from a variety of sources.

So what?

Any animal can catch TB from a variety of sources.

Which means that Shambo's TB could have been passed on to other animals.


Not if he didn't have the disease.

He was a reactor to the test. As I've already said, the chances of this
being a false positive reading are 1 in 1000.

But being a "reactor" didn't mean he had TB.




Why don't they test dogs that people take out in the countryside?

Because it is a rare disease in dogs (though notifiable under the law),
and dogs are not considered to be a source from which cattle are likely
to catch it.


Why not?

Ask DEFRA.


You don't know?

Dogs are not considered to be a source from which cattle are likely to
catch it.

Any mammal can catch TB from any other.



I note, in passing,
that you are no longer claiming, as you did, that "Shambo didn't even
have TB". Like to admit you were wrong?


Like I said above, they had to justify their killing.

The animal was killed because it had reacted positively to the TB test.
That was all the justification needed. Positive reactors are
slaughtered. That's the law.

It's discretionary.

Give some examples.


The authorities have said so.

Please provide chapter and verse.


Here's a letter from a real doctor;

You'll see the Welsh Assembly had the power to stop the slaughter.

http://racheljoyce.blogspot.com/2007/07/shambos-treatment-has-been-shambles.html



About 30,000 cattle are slaughtered every
year because of TB but I don't recall you making a fuss about any of
them until now. Why not? Don't you care about all the others?


They're in the human food chain.

So you don't care about them


I have said they should be treated.

How do you suggest they should be treated?

Antibiotics.


Do we have
proof it had TB?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6918618.stm

Doesn't report any more than would be expected from the Welsh Assembly
to justify their action.

Yes, well, you can continue to be so biassed that you refuse to accept
the published information. That won't be anything new for you :-(

Like many others I accept very little that government claims.

So what?

Should I accept everything the government says as truthful?




I assume the monks' vets took DRTB into consideration.

And what's the best way of a vet taking that into consideration, would
you think?

It appears careless treatment is a major factor. I'm sure this animal
was not carelessly treated. Are you saying it was?

Oh look, a typical attempt by you to put words in people's mouths. I
haven't mentioned the phrase "carelessly treated", so how could I
possibly be saying that any animal has been?

I didn't say you had. You're losing the place, Malcolm.

Read what I wrote.

I did.


Well, you didn't understand it.




Anyway, where do you get the idea that "careless treatment" is a "major
factor"? As you've introduced the phrase, does this mean you believe
that other cattle are "carelessly treated"?


No, read up about the causes of DRTB and you might understand what I
meant.

You appear to be in a muddle about this. Read what you wrote and ask
yourself to what you were referring when you used the words "carelessly
treated".


No muddle at all. You need to read up on this.

Lots of muddle. You don't seem to know whether you are referring to the
cattle or the treatment.


It's you that doesn't seem to know :-))



As an expert in everything, I'm sure you'll know :-))

Very probably. It's good to be educating you :-)

You've a long way to go :-))

My word, that's one of the truest things you've ever said :-)

Sure, you need to educate yourself first.

That's already happened. I'm now endeavouring to inform you, but it's
very hard work because you refuse to accept answers you don't like.

No Malcolm. You're not really "educated". You have a little slip of
paper to show you have reached an everyday standard in a single
subject, which will now be out of date, Yet you pontificate on
everything.

Chancer is the word that springs to mind.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Curtains for Shambo
    ... The PM conclusion could well have been used to justify the decision to ... This bullock was a positive reactor. ... herd of about 50 animals among which there are supposed to be other ... They can still infect other cattle and, indeed, humans ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: NAIS
    ... > Or are you so lousy a cattle man that you can't afford the $10 a year ... Identification System (NAIS). ... First Amendment Violations. ... and raise animals for the family's own food. ...
    (misc.rural)
  • Re: A cure for diabetes from 1806?
    ... hormones and anti-biotics for cattle used in the food chain. ... so any feedlot or producer worth his salt will avoid those ... the need for antibiotics (and do eliminate the abnormal corn diet). ... of the feedlot animals get antibiotics almost all the time. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: A cure for diabetes from 1806?
    ... hormones and anti-biotics for cattle used in the food chain. ... the need for antibiotics (and do eliminate the abnormal corn diet). ... of the feedlot animals get antibiotics almost all the time. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Ear Tags
    ... they have attracted heavy criticism in Farmers Guardian this ... have grave doubts about the RSPCA present ... their own faeces has been banned from keeping animals for five years ... cattle and poultry at his farm in Halstead. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)