Talk:Bovine spongiform encephalopathy/Archive 1

Comments from 2003
Given the number of cases there have been in Europe, this article is a real shame in its current state Bon d'une cythare


 * This article definitely needs more work, including whole-sale wikification. --Dante Alighieri 19:11 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I would suggest someone peek into Promedmail.org.

That prions cause BSE is more controversial than this article suggests. There is credible scientific evidence that prions are a result of BSE not its cause. There are at least two other credible hypothesis with good scientific evidence to explaining the cause of BSE/TSE and nvCJD. Organophosphate posioning, which is already known to produce similar brain lesions. Excess Managnese causing a copper deficiency is another possible explaination.


 * Credible scientific evidence is present both against and for the prion hypothesis. The fact that cannibalism of infected cattle is the main mode of transmission smacks of other prion diseases, particularly Kuru in humans, occurring in the Fore tribe of New Guinea via ritual cannibalism of the brains of ancestors. Prions do not have to be the known cause. The cause of Alzheimer's disease may be due to one of two proteins, or to environmental aluminium. This does not make the amyloid cascade hypothesis any less valid as the most likely cause of Alzheimer's disease. We do not yet understand enough about the way prions work, and this is probably what has led to the statement above.
 * Secondly, the organophosphate theory states that prions are the infective agents, which again resembles the beta amyloid protein in Alzheimer's disease (see http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Environment/organo.htm for the reference). Organophosphates are simply one way for these prions to be generated.
 * Also, how does excess manganese cause a copper deficiency? True, radioactive strontium can replace calcium in bone due to their similar chemical properties and oxidation states. However, manganese oxidation states tend to be higher than those of copper.
 * Finally, look at the epidemiology. How could "epidemics" of BSE occur due to excess manganese? I doubt that large quantities of manganese suddenly appear in feed all through the United Kingdom.


 * According to this article, "UK's Mad Cow outbreak immediately followed the government's attempt to eradicate the parasite warble fly from cattle. Most farmers were required to treat their cows' spines and skulls with Phosmet, an organophosphate pesticide."

I smell efforts to defend the US' shoddy practices, too...eg passing on reassuring mouthnoises from politicians.Kwantus 16:58, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bon d'une cythare that this article is mighty US-biased; the 1999/2000? European BSE epidemic should be mentioned. -- till we *) 15:45, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)


 * The article seems to place the blame for BSE squarely on the shoulders of the United Kingdom, but the occurrence of a case in the US demonstrates that the same procedures (viz. slaughterhouse feed meal) are probably being carried out by at least some US farmers.

Material deleted from article
I moved this section from the article, because it isn't supported by known facts. See my annotations below. --Sheldon Rampton 07:10, 28 February 2004

[The following is offered as contrary to the prion proposal, based upon more recent information]:
There have never been any confirmed cases of a communicable prion disease, and In Britain there should be an epidemic of vCJD from consumption of BSE beef by now; this has not yet materialized.


 * It's simply ridiculous to say that there are no confirmed cases of a communicable prion disease. Scrapie, Kuru and BSE and transmissible mink encephalopathy have all been transmitted in laboratory experiments. Moreover, there is a voluminous body of research, beginning with the research for which Stanley Prusiner won his Nobel Prize, detailing the involvement of the "prion protein" (PrP) specifically in TSE transmission. Prusiner has succeeded in inducing the disease in lab animals simply by modifying their PrP gene, and he has shown that once the disease is thus induced, it can be transmitted to other lab animals. As for the claim that there "should be an epidemic of vCJD by now," the number of human cases thus far (143, last time I checked) is perfectly within the range that scientists predicted in 1996 when the scientific evidence first appeared showing that BSE had passed into humans. At that time, leading scientists involved in TSE research stated that the number of cases in humans could end up being anywhere between a few dozen and a few million. 143 falls within that range (thankfully, near the low end). Given the long incubation period for TSEs, however, it is still possible that there may eventually be thousands of cases in humans. Hopefully that won't happen, but even if the total stops at 143, the results will be consistent with the prion hypothesis.

The fact is that even vegetarians have contracted vCJD, but out of caution the British Health Services did not wish to rule out the possibility that some form of BSE could be transmitted to humans through consumption.


 * I'm aware of one vegetarian who contracted vCJD in the UK. Maybe there are others I don't know about. The one I know of was a girl who worked in a pet shop where she came into frequent contact with animal feed derived from rendered British cattle. It's possible she got the disease through accidentally ingesting pet food (or from inhaling it; some TSE researchers such as Carleton Gajdusek believe that inhalation of dust from meat and bone meal may transmit the disease as easily as eating it). Moreover, some vegetarians actually eat meat surreptitiously or accidentally. In short, the existence of vCJD in a couple of vegetarians doesn't really tell us enough to seriously challenge the prion hypothesis.

Beef, in fact, does have many problems as a food source, and it might be a good thing to be aware of potential risks, however, consumption of BSE cattle alone is almost certainly not a valid threat for vCJD.


 * It's ridiculous to say that consumption of BSE cattle is "almost certainly" not a valid thread for vCJD, in light of the fact that every leading health agency and scientist involved in studying TSEs says that BSE cattle almost certainly are the source of vCJD. This sentence is approximately as defensible as saying that the earth "almost certainly" does not revolve around the sun!

Scrapie in sheep has been known for many years, and some few Elk in Montana and Wyoming also suffer from a similar condition. Professor Alan Ebringer, Kings College, London has studied the problem and found a potential link between Multiple Sclerosis and BSE; vCJD could be a more aggressive form of MS and BSE is very possibly a form of MS in cattle: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kis/schools/life_sciences/life_sci/ebringerR.html


 * Ebringer belongs to a fairly small minority within the scientific community that still doubts the prion hypothesis. His doubts aren't "new information." It would be reasonable to say that a few scientists including Ebringer and Laura Manuelidis at Yale continue to doubt the prion hypothesis, but the mere existence of a few doubters doesn't disprove the hypothesis. As for scrapie in sheep and chronic wasting disease in Montana and Wyoming (and, more recently, Wisconsin), the fact that they've been around for years doesn't in any way invalidate the prion hypothesis. Scrapie and CWD are prion diseases. Many (not all) scientists in fact believe that BSE originated when scrapie passed from sheep into cows!


 * In any case, a discussion of doubts about the prion hypothesis belongs in the prion article before it belongs in the BSE article.

table formatting
The table added to the article should probably be converted to wiki table format. May attempt at a text version did not go well, and I'm out of time. Volunteers? ww 19:53, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. - MattTM 06:06, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

research on treatment
I suggest this section be moved to the vCJD article as it concerns that disease and not BSE. --69.5.156.155 06:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

vCJD vs CJD
I removed a sentence that stated, "because vCJD cases greatly outnumber those of CJD, the underestimate appears unlikely to be very significant." This sentence is simply untrue. According to the UK's National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit, from 1990 to June 3, 2005 (the latest date for which figures are available as I write this), they recorded 1,045 cases of CJD of all forms, of which 150 were classified as vCJD. Clearly, vCJD constitutes less than 15 percent of CJD cases even in the UK. --Sheldon Rampton 06:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

removed experimental treatment paragraph
the following paragraph was removed in a recent edit:


 * On September 26, 2003, it was reported that an experimental treatment given to a Northern Irish teenager, Jonathan Simms, halted the progress of brain damage caused by Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). The drug, called pentosan polysulphate and commonly used to treat cystitis, was injected into the patient's brain.  The patient's weight and heart rate returned to normal levels after receiving the treatment.  Several other treatments have been proposed, including a vaccine, but none has reached human clinical trials, nor is any in even experimental use. There is currently no cure or even much palliative treatment for vCJD, a fatal disease.

i like this information, but am concerned that i have missed a reason that it has gone away. it probably was in the wrong place, i would like to hear any reasons why i shouldnt re-add it in a more appropriate place.


 * ah, i noticed after writing this that the link is broken, but a quick googling found this and i am sure a cleaner/better site could be found with slightly more effort. also, pentosan polysulphate has two good offsite links. i will be happy to redo that paragraph, i am just concerned my lack of expertise here is causing me to miss a reason why it is no longer useful. Burgher 23:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

also, the new paragraph about the CDC's policies (and lack of) has good info. it did go in the right place. i combined it with the preceding paragraph about reporting CJD/vCJD. i also took out one sentence, i thought it was trying too hard to make the CDC look stupid. if there was a better way to explain the decision not to report it, i would like to have it in there. here is that sentence:


 * The agency has not chosen to make CJD a reportable disease because "making it reportable is not necessarily directly helpful in surveillance, because in some states where it's reportable you may not get the physician to report it," said Dr. Ermias Belay, CDC's medical epidemiologist working on CJD.

Burgher 23:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE 2011 SCJD VS NVCJD AND BSE (all strains)

Seven main threats for the future linked to prions

The NeuroPrion network has identified seven main threats for the future linked to prions.

First threat

The TSE road map defining the evolution of European policy for protection against prion diseases is based on a certain numbers of hypotheses some of which may turn out to be erroneous. In particular, a form of BSE (called atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), recently identified by systematic testing in aged cattle without clinical signs, may be the origin of classical BSE and thus potentially constitute a reservoir, which may be impossible to eradicate if a sporadic origin is confirmed. Also, a link is suspected between atypical BSE and some apparently sporadic cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. These atypical BSE cases constitute an unforeseen first threat that could sharply modify the European approach to prion diseases.

Second threat

snip...

http://www.neuroprion.org/en/np-neuroprion.html

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Atypical BSE in Cattle

To date the OIE/WAHO assumes that the human and animal health standards set out in the BSE chapter for classical BSE (C-Type) applies to all forms of BSE which include the H-type and L-type atypical forms. This assumption is scientifically not completely justified and accumulating evidence suggests that this may in fact not be the case. Molecular characterization and the spatial distribution pattern of histopathologic lesions and immunohistochemistry (IHC) signals are used to identify and characterize atypical BSE. Both the L-type and H-type atypical cases display significant differences in the conformation and spatial accumulation of the disease associated prion protein (PrPSc) in brains of afflicted cattle. Transmission studies in bovine transgenic and wild type mouse models support that the atypical BSE types might be unique strains because they have different incubation times and lesion profiles when compared to C-type BSE. When L-type BSE was inoculated into ovine transgenic mice and Syrian hamster the resulting molecular fingerprint had changed, either in the first or a subsequent passage, from L-type into C-type BSE. In addition, non-human primates are specifically susceptible for atypical BSE as demonstrated by an approximately 50% shortened incubation time for L-type BSE as compared to C-type. Considering the current scientific information available, it cannot be assumed that these different BSE types pose the same human health risks as C-type BSE or that these risks are mitigated by the same protective measures.

This study will contribute to a correct definition of specified risk material (SRM) in atypical BSE. The incumbent of this position will develop new and transfer existing, ultra-sensitive methods for the detection of atypical BSE in tissue of experimentally infected cattle.

http://www.prionetcanada.ca/detail.aspx?menu=5&dt=293380&app=93&cat1=387&tp=20&lk=no&cat2

Evaluation of the Human Transmission Risk of an Atypical Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Prion Strain

Qingzhong Kong,1* Mengjie Zheng,1 Cristina Casalone,2 Liuting Qing,1 Shenghai Huang,1? Bikram Chakraborty,1 Ping Wang,1 Fusong Chen,1 Ignazio Cali,1 Cristiano Corona,2 Francesca Martucci,2 Barbara Iulini,2 Pierluigi Acutis,2 Lan Wang,1 Jingjing Liang,1 Meiling Wang,1 Xinyi Li,1 Salvatore Monaco,3 Gianluigi Zanusso,3 Wen-Quan Zou,1 Maria Caramelli,2 and Pierluigi Gambetti1* Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106,1 CEA, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale, 10154 Torino, Italy,2 Department of Neurological and Visual Sciences, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy3 *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106. Phone for Pierluigi Gambetti: (216) 368-0586. Fax: (216) 368-2546. E-mail: pxg13@case.edu. Phone for Qingzhong Kong: (216) 368-1756. Fax: (216) 368-2546. E-mail: qxk2@case.edu ?Present address: Department of Patient Education and Health Information, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195. Received November 30, 2007; Accepted January 16, 2008.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the prion disease in cattle, was widely believed to be caused by only one strain, BSE-C. BSE-C causes the fatal prion disease named new variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease in humans. Two atypical BSE strains, bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy (BASE, also named BSE-L) and BSE-H, have been discovered in several countries since 2004; their transmissibility and phenotypes in humans are unknown. We investigated the infectivity and human phenotype of BASE strains by inoculating transgenic (Tg) mice expressing the human prion protein with brain homogenates from two BASE strain-infected cattle. Sixty percent of the inoculated Tg mice became infected after 20 to 22 months of incubation, a transmission rate higher than those reported for BSE-C. A quarter of BASE strain-infected Tg mice, but none of the Tg mice infected with prions causing a sporadic human prion disease, showed the presence of pathogenic prion protein isoforms in the spleen, indicating that the BASE prion is intrinsically lymphotropic. The pathological prion protein isoforms in BASE strain-infected humanized Tg mouse brains are different from those from the original cattle BASE or sporadic human prion disease. Minimal brain spongiosis and long incubation times are observed for the BASE strain-infected Tg mice. These results suggest that in humans, the BASE strain is a more virulent BSE strain and likely lymphotropic.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2268471

P26 TRANSMISSION OF ATYPICAL BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY (BSE) IN HUMANIZED MOUSE MODELS

Liuting Qing1, Fusong Chen1, Michael Payne1, Wenquan Zou1, Cristina Casalone2, Martin Groschup3, Miroslaw Polak4, Maria Caramelli2, Pierluigi Gambetti1, Juergen Richt5*, and Qingzhong Kong1 1Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA; 2CEA, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale, Italy; 3Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Germany; 4National Veterinary Research Institute, Poland; 5Kansas State University, Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology Department, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA. *Previous address: USDA National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA 50010, USA

Classical BSE is a world-wide prion disease in cattle, and the classical BSE strain (BSE-C) has led to over 200 cases of clinical human infection (variant CJD). Two atypical BSE strains, BSE-L (also named BASE) and BSE-H, have been discovered in three continents since 2004. The first case of naturally occurring BSE with mutated bovine PrP gene (termed BSE-M) was also found in 2006 in the USA. The transmissibility and phenotypes of these atypical BSE strains/isolates in humans were unknown. We have inoculated humanized transgenic mice with classical and atypical BSE strains (BSE-C, BSE-L, BSE-H) and the BSE-M isolate. We have found that the atypical BSE-L strain is much more virulent than the classical BSE-C. The atypical BSE-H strain is also transmissible in the humanized transgenic mice with distinct phenotype, but no transmission has been observed for the BSE-M isolate so far.

III International Symposium on THE NEW PRION BIOLOGY: BASIC SCIENCE, DIAGNOSIS AND THERAPY 2 - 4 APRIL 2009, VENEZIA (ITALY)

http://www.istitutoveneto.it/prion_09/Abstracts_09.pdf

my comments to PLosone here ;

http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F04ce2b24-613d-46e6-9802-4131e2bfa6fd&root=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fannotation%2F04ce2b24-613d-46e6-9802-4131e2bfa6fd

14th ICID International Scientific Exchange Brochure -

Final Abstract Number: ISE.114

Session: International Scientific Exchange

Transmissible Spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) animal and human TSE in North America

update October 2009

T. Singeltary

Bacliff, TX, USA

Background:

An update on atypical BSE and other TSE in North America. Please remember, the typical U.K. c-BSE, the atypical l-BSE (BASE), and h-BSE have all been documented in North America, along with the typical scrapie's, and atypical Nor-98 Scrapie, and to date, 2 different strains of CWD, and also TME. All these TSE in different species have been rendered and fed to food producing animals for humans and animals in North America (TSE in cats and dogs ?), and that the trading of these TSEs via animals and products via the USA and Canada has been immense over the years, decades.

Methods:

12 years independent research of available data

Results:

I propose that the current diagnostic criteria for human TSEs only enhances and helps the spreading of human TSE from the continued belief of the UKBSEnvCJD only theory in 2009. With all the science to date refuting it, to continue to validate this old myth, will only spread this TSE agent through a multitude of potential routes and sources i.e. consumption, medical i.e., surgical, blood, dental, endoscopy, optical, nutritional supplements, cosmetics etc.

Conclusion:

I would like to submit a review of past CJD surveillance in the USA, and the urgent need to make all human TSE in the USA a reportable disease, in every state, of every age group, and to make this mandatory immediately without further delay. The ramifications of not doing so will only allow this agent to spread further in the medical, dental, surgical arena's. Restricting the reporting of CJD and or any human TSE is NOT scientific. Iatrogenic CJD knows NO age group, TSE knows no boundaries. I propose as with Aguzzi, Asante, Collinge, Caughey, Deslys, Dormont, Gibbs, Gajdusek, Ironside, Manuelidis, Marsh, et al and many more, that the world of TSE Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy is far from an exact science, but there is enough proven science to date that this myth should be put to rest once and for all, and that we move forward with a new classification for human and animal TSE that would properly identify the infected species, the source species, and then the route.

http://ww2.isid.org/Downloads/14th_ICID_ISE_Abstracts.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.176.156 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated info on herds of origin
I added two little bits - one saying that the cow found in 2003 was from a Canadian herd, and one to say that the most recent cow was of US origin.

tencentmagician 09:36 19 July 2005

Angus Beef
There was a controversial decision by the U.S. government to deny a beef company (Angus probably) to be allowed to test each of their own cows, in fear of creating a monopoly-like situation that would benefit Angus. This could be mentioned in the article. [posted by anon]


 * This is a very significant issue that should definitely be mentioned in the article.
 * Try this Google: "private bse testing" This LA Times article is a good summary of the situation:  --Dforest 10:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Angus is a breed of Cow, not a beef company.

Cloak&amp;Dagger (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 

David Osborne Hagger
The article David Osborne Hagger was nominated for deletion. However, it seems like some of the contents could also be merged here, only that I don't know if they are of any verifiable accuracy. Maybe someone who knows about this should look into this before the page is deleted? --Tito xd 01:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The VfD failed and the David Osborne Hagger article remains. -- Corvus 00:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

fu 12/24/2003 U.S. Prepares for Mad Cow Impact - Officials Investigate How Animal May Have Been Infected - 12/24 AP

The risk to human life is extremely low, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman told reporters, even as country after country slapped import bans on American beef.

Federal and state-level officials worked to trace the Holstein's history before it came to its last home, Sunny Dene Ranch in Mabton, Wash., in 2001. Agriculture Department chief veterinarian Ron DeHaven said officials have identified two livestock markets in Washington where the animal could have been purchased, but he did not identify them.

Because the brain-wasting disease is usually transmitted through contaminated feed and has an incubation period of four to five years, it is important to focus on the feed where she was born, DeHaven said.

Once we have the birth herd, we'll want to know what animals have come into that herd and what animals have left that herd and all the feeding practices for that herd, DeHaven said.

The human form of the disease, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob, is thought to be contracted by eating meat from an infected animal, specifically from the brain or spinal cord. Officials stressed that these parts of the sick cow were removed before the rest of the carcass was sent to processing plants.

Consumers had a mixed reaction to Tuesday's announcement of the first apparent U.S. case of mad cow disease - formally known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

''I'm content to have a freezer full (of beef), said Helen Spinetto of Cambridge, Mass. But if I had to purchase it again, maybe I'd think twice.

However, the mad cow case reinforced the opinions of Barbara Seaton of the Albany, N.Y., suburb of Colonie. She does not eat beef, and said there it will absolutely not be on her holiday table.

On Wall Street, stocks in meatpacking companies and restaurant chains took a hit. Among the losers: McDonald's Corp., Wendy's International and Tyson Foods.

U.S. beef exports totaled $2.6 billion in 2002, with Japan, South Korea, Mexico and Hong Kong the biggest importers. They all have banned U.S. beef, along with at least seven other countries.

Agriculture Department officials told a briefing the cow was culled from its herd and slaughtered Dec. 9, after she became paralyzed, apparently as a result of calving. Preliminary tests showed the cow, believed to about 5 years old, had mad cow disease.

Tissue samples were sent to Britain's Veterinary Laboratories Agencies, a world leader in mad cow identification, for confirmation. We should have a result within a few hours of the initial test, said Steven Edwards, chief executive of the lab in Weybridge, west of London.

Politically, Democrats jumped on Republicans who removed a ban on processing meat from downed animals - those that are ill when they reach the plant - from a massive agriculture spending bill.

This is something that's a potential disaster, said Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., a leader in supporting the processing prohibition. This was so predictable by anybody following the issue.

Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., said the mad cow case does not have to result in any widespread panic in our country, because the likelihood of there being any effect on humans is extremely remote.

Contaminated feed has been blamed in other countries for carrying the misshapen animal proteins, called prions, that can transmit mad cow. The United States since August 1997 has banned the use of cow and sheep byproducts for animal feed.

Investigators were at processing plants in Oregon, where meat from the infected cow had been turned into boneless beef, said a spokesman for the Agriculture Department. Authorities want to know where the meat was sent, although they stressed that the cow's brain and spinal cord, the only parts that are considered able to transmit the disease, did not enter the food supply.

The animal was one of 20 slaughtered Dec. 9 at Vern's Moses Lake Meat Co. in Moses Lake, Wash. All 10,410 pounds of beef from those carcasses have been recalled in an abundance of caution, Veneman said.

We continue to believe that the risk to human health from this situation is extremely low, and people should continue to feel very confident in the safety of our meat supply, Veneman said.

President Bush, spending Christmas with his family at Camp David, Md., was getting regular updates, a White House spokesman said.

The beef industry sought to reassure Americans.

It's important to recognize what we learned from Canadian consumers, Terry Stokes, CEO of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, told reporters. They had confidence in Canadian beef and we feel American consumers will follow accordingly.

Canada had an isolated case of mad cow disease earlier this year. The United States banned imports of Canadian beef immediately after that announcement but has gradually begun allowing them.

Investigators are trying to determine whether the case in Canada is linked, a USDA official said, but a connection is unlikely because the animals were of different breeds.

Consumer activists expressed concern. Consumer confidence in the safety of the U.S. meat supply will be damaged by the finding of a domestic animal infected, said Carol Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America.

But Flavius Barker, head of the Tennessee Farm Bureau, said, The isolated finding in Washington state gives no reason for consumers to fear the safety of their beef products.

Sentence deleted

 * The two countries insist that every animal being prepared for beef has to be tested for BSE for them to lift the ban.

This sentence, referring to Japan and South Korea, is not supported by the reference link given, so I removed it. I have doubts about its accuracy, because I understand only a small fraction of a percent of U.S. cattle are tested, yet recent news suggests Japan is very close to lifting its ban on U.S. beef imports. --Dforest 09:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Link list
This is a good article. It does seem, however, that the list of external links is a bit excessive. Perhaps someone could incorporate information from the relevant links as references and then pare back the list. See WP:EL for a description of appropriate external links. Cheers, Lbbzman 23:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have looked here first, heh. Anyways I just sorted and removed a few redundancies. Will start going through links more closely soon, I agree that list was too long and completely un-organized, not to mention it's missing a few key sites that I'll be adding in later too.

proposed changes
I think this article needa a bit of a tidy up. Three things I would like to change first of all:
 * 1) It states that scientists were "shocked" by the discovery of prions - this is not quite true, the existence of prions had been hypothesised for many years but had been thought highly speculative.
 * 2) It says that there is no proven link to vCJD, This is really spltting hairs; it would take a hell of a lot to disprove the link. The two diseases are epidemiologically inseparable, have identical PrPSc strain types, and transmission experiments in animals expressing human PrP have pretty much nailed it.
 * 3) This is heavily biased towards the USA. I think it needs to be more balanced towards the bulk of BSE/vCJD cases, which is probably what people want to read about when they look this up. --Purple 19:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all those points Joelholdsworth 11:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Prevention
Yo, how come nobody talks about prevention? Does cooking beef thoroughly prevent transmission to humans?


 * No, cooking does not prevent transmission. Prions are extremely tough proteins: "134 degrees Celsius (274 degrees Fahrenheit) for 18 minutes in a pressurised steam autoclave may not be enough to deactivate the agent of disease." See Prion - Karl gregory jones (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What are Europeans doing to stop the spread of the disease amongst their herds?

And contraction... if the method of infection (or whatever you want to call it) is by eating contaminated material, then why do tourists have to have your shoes cleaned at European airports after going out into the countryside?

There's some key details missing here. Plenty of statistics and details on the outbreak itself, but lots lacking in the mechanics of how the disease (or whatever you want to call it) works and the steps that various governments have taken (besides complete bans on beef from countries where "infections" are discovered) to contain/prevent the disease. Lantoka 06:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleaning shoes, tyres etc is to prevent the spread of hoof and mouth disease, not BSE.--Anchoress 01:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

prion peer review
I've nominated the prion article for peer review, any comments welcome here! -- Purple 02:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
I did not see in the article if it was listed as to food preperation. If people cook the meat well done, can they still get mad cow disease? Grandeandy 01:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's well understood what role cooking might have in reducing (or eliminating) the pathogenesis of vCJD, I believe the scientific community is still divided on the question (a quick scan of the US CDC pages on BSE and vCJD turns up nothing re: food preparation). Infectious prion material may withstand thorough cooking for all we know.


 * I found this on the USDA website: "Will cooking (including microwave cooking) kill the BSE agent? Current scientific research indicates that cooking will not kill the BSE agent." They don't give any further references.
 * --Bk0 (Talk) 02:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably cooking won't kill the BSE prions, because you need a temperature of 400 °C to do so.

Cooking will not kill prions. 

The prions involved in TSE's (including BSE, CJD, nvCJD etc) have the ability to survive in excess of 1100°F, therefore no amount of cooking, nor the "steam boiling process" will destroy the prion(s) and render infected material suitable for consumption.

On a related note, this sentence (in the intro) isn't logical (or maybe I'm just reading it wrong). Could someone who knows what they're trying to say fix this? "The infectious agent is distinctive for the high temperatures it is able to survive; this contributed to the spread of the disease in Britain, which had reduced the temperatures used during its rendering process.[4]" --joe056


 * Are you seriously saying that prions could survive immersion in molten lead?MidlandLinda (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

detection
How is it detected in humans? 20:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably can be detected by some scanning methods as CT or MRI, where you can see the structure of brain without the need to cut it out. These methods are quite expensive and you need the people to stay without moving for a long time, which makes them impossible for use by cattle ...


 * MRI will show abnormalities, but they can also be explained by other diseases. Like Alzheimer's, a definitive diagnosis can only be made by examining the brain tissue after death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.194.154.102 (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Actually, definitive diagnosis can only be made post-Morten, and the aggregations can looking similar on scans to Alzheimer's. However, working diagnosis is normally made on the basis of clinical symptoms (ie. the patient presents with atypical neurological symptoms which progress rapidly) and this is then confirmed post-Morten. Work continues to find an effective way to definitely assay prions in a non-destructive manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.145.236 (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

BSE statistics by country
27 May 2006: The BSE statistics by country table looks good but it needs to quote a source for the information and to give a "statistics correct as at" date. There are occasional new cases so the current table will get out-of-date, unless some kind soul has set himself/herself the job of maintaining this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.213.28 (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Were there really 100+ human cases in the UK???!!!! Phr (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, about 150 cases to date. UK has had by far the most cases, which makes sense considering they had by far the most infected animals. ike9898 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to have an up-to-date table showing cases in the last year. From this data it is not possible to see which country is currently safest - for example, since the UK became aware of it first, is it now relativly BSE free compared to other countries where it is either not yet been exposed or where the countries have had less time to tackle it?--82.68.5.202 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Testing for Mad Cow
Some links and/or discussion on the testing procedure for the disease in cattle would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.164.2 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it called Mad Cow disease
What are the symptoms in cows of this disease. The article focuses entirely on the transmission (prions, etc) and the potential for human infection, but says nothing about the actual disease in cows. --WhiteDragon 18:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The cow starts doing crazy things, like mooing out incoherent songs and trying to flirt with fence posts. A crazy cow usually starves to death is it tries to eat the clouds in the sky as it sees them, but if there are no clouds on any given day then what is the cow to eat? That's right, nothing. It is truly a sad disease and it very much stigmatized in bovine communities, it really destroys entire cow families : ( JayKeaton 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He's right, however. This article is completely devoid of any details of the disease itself in humans or bovines. Gustavo Chapman 3rd of Normandy (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This Is Where It Comes From. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_Empire#The_curse_of_the_mad_cow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.162.139 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did it originate from?
Geographically speaking,if it was in britain (at least the confirmed uh,sources) in what specific area did the outbreak occur/was detected? El Gostro 02:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"which contain ingredients undreamed of by Mother Nature"
I think the whole first paragraph of "The BSE epizootic in British cattle" section needs to be carefully checked for neutrality. Statemets like "which contain ingredients undreamed of by Mother Nature", are not the sort of neutral language one would expect in an encyclopedia Joelholdsworth 18:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording to make it sound better. I also wonder about the line that states cattle eat grass and grains in nature. Where do wild cattle get grains? I know cows will eat any thing they can find including brush, trees, fruit, vegetables, etc. 99DBSIMLR 12:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done, that's really good work! Joelholdsworth 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen anything about the supposed mad-cow symptoms caused from feeding cattle waste orange peels from orange juice production. Does anyone know of a reliable resource? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treefroglover (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No clear structure – no clear article
The article is seriously lacking for structure. It “dives” into very specific details from the start, providing no comprehensible introduction. At least “Symptoms” section should be added somewhere in the beginning, since the disease is almost unknown in countries with zero cases of BSE. Thank you.

The article, only one for mad cow disease on wikipedia fails to cover the BSE crisis development, the France (worth an estimated £220 million) and then EU boycott of British Beef, followed by the Worldwide ban of British Beef export. The treasury decision to cover farmer costs where cattle were slaughtered at an estimated £4.6 billion for nearly 2,000,000 cattle. The growth and development of this crisis should be covered to make this article complete. 87.82.12.120 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Iain

virus
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11168-virus-in-the-frame-for-prion-diseases.html I don't know, if this is interesting for the article or not, so i put this link here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.7.195 (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

phosmet
www.mercola.com/2000/dec/17/bovine_spongiform_disease.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.15.170.121 (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Australia/New Zealand
"It is noticeable that there are no cases reported in Australia and New Zealand where cattle are mainly fed outside on grass pasture" I was under the impression that the lack of cases in australia at least partially came from the quaranteen regulations keeping the diseas out. I'm not sure if this is true, or where I know it from though —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.149.52.26 (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

radiation
german researchers found massive traces (indirect) of radionuclids in tissue of mad cows (source of ionizing radiation). i will try to translate the complete text. i copied this sentence to my notes, so i am able to recreate it daily. they say, maybe the food was irradiated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.15.194.91 (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

graph of frequency
One question I came to this page with was what is the trend in frequency. The EU is currently considering removing bans on feeding animals to animals--I guess assuming that the outbreak is over. It raises the question of what the current trend and levels are. If someone knows of an information source, especially by country (online or in print) I'd be happy to compile an image for the page. Pdbailey 16:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

More material
After spending time away from wikipedia I was gratified to see this article being extended and added to with good information.

Feel free to use my note on my website to add more. While I have not touched it in a year, it is still ahead of this article in material.

http://www.didgood.com/health/BSE/MadCow_BSE.html

meatclerk 02:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Add info to table
A good article... although it does have a spin that points at Britain as the cause. I thought they changed the British rules in response to a relaxation in the EU rules?

Anyway, I noticed two countries conspicuous by their absence from the table of BSE and vCJD cases reported: Britain and France. GB figures are in the article, but does anyone know where to get some reliable figures for France? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.15 (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute, hang on, there they are! Table is a bit odd, perhaps need to separate the two sets of columns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.15 (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Mad Cow Disease Joke
Having come across a couple of versions of this, I mention it here:

Says Esmerelda the cow: "I'm worried about this mad cow disease. What about you?" "I'm not worried - I'm a duck."

Jackiespeel 18:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Brain picture
It would be nice to find a picture that shows the effect the disease has on brains (spongy look). I'm unable to find any free ones, but hopefully if someone with more resources reads this they could either take a photograph themselves or obtain permission from someone who has taken a picture. 65.93.161.249 (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Husbandry practices.
... when I were a lad (1982) I worked on a dairy farm for a year. The primary feed was grass, naturally in the summer, and from silage (grass pickled in its own juice in effect) in the winter. Various silage additives were tried, principally molasses and sulphuric acid to try and improve quality especially in the wet weather in the uk (the very reason we make silage instead of hay which the girls love).

In the winter a premium was paid for milk. Not much, but bear in mind that a small farmer (milking 100 cows in a herd of 150) was working on a profit margin of a few percent. The three traditional supplements were:

1. Cattle cake. Small pellets fed at milking time to bribe the cow into giving more milk. Your true small dairy-man knew every cow intimately and gave "nudges" of feed during the milking. Loading this stuff into the loft (above the milking parlour) was dusty work, as it was blown out of the lorry along a big pipe. I hope there weren't any prions in that dust! I believe it was mostly dried grass cuttings, urea (chicken shit) and left overs from pressing oil-seed rape.

2. Grains. The left-overs from brewing. Approx one shovel full at breakfast per four cows.

3. Beet pulp, usually with molasses, the two ends of the sugar industry. I used to feed 50kg every evening to the milkers, say 500g each although the boss cow got 1kg I am sure.

Then a couple of things happened. Milk quotas came in, basically capping growth when the general business view was "grow to survive", and a health conscious public reduced the price for high fat milk. Well that traditional approach I have just been describing, especially if your farm had a high proportion of red poll or jersey cows, made a lovely, creamy milk. Uh oh! All of a sudden holstein herds on high protein diets were very much the vogue.

The beef boys were always split into two parts. One dealt in the high end of the market with pedigree beef cattle (aberdeen angus and belgian blue etc), taking a real pride in "corn fed" or "reared on grass" to get the price up, and the other provided cheap mince and pies and took the by-product (it's all about by-product) of the dairy industry; calves for fattening - and the cheaper the better. Not too surprising then that the renderers would find a handy purchaser.

Before we get all righteous, it's not the first time, and it won't be the last. The Great Scandle of swill-cattle in New York (google: swill cattle new york) (if you have a hard stomach google swill cattle and see some more recent examples).

80.177.22.199 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)cowboy

Political issues/bias questioned
"A contributing factor seems to have been a change in British laws that allowed a lower temperature sterilization of the protein meal." As well as not being cited, this article seems irrelevant to larger discussions, particularly when considering Indonesia et al have reported BSE/vCJD - far from Britain and British markets. It should be removed altogether until clarification is obtained.

Some refs:

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume13/chapted3.htm http://veterinaryrecord.bvapublications.com/cgi/content/abstract/143/1/6

The change from solvent based extraction (followed by steam heating to remove the solvent) to a lower temperature process around 1980 whilst not conclusively proven was too much of a coincidence. The recommended sterilisation process now is rather similar. NB all the apocrypha about 1000°F need to be scrubbed; PrPSc is a protein. If you combust it then it's not a protein any more. A good old hydrolising seems to do the job (or if the viral theories are correct it kills the virus, but given the noted resistance to heat I have trouble with the virus theory)

80.177.22.199 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)cowboy

The article provides a reference to suggest that feed from India was a possible source for BSE. However, common sense can rule this theory out. India has highest population of cattle in the world. Yet with over 280 million heads of cattle (over 20% of cattle in the world, there is not a single case of BSE in India. Aren't cows from India more likely to be fed feed from India? 76.15.116.224 (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC) VS


 * Common sense is WP:OR and not a basis for changing the article. Find some reliable references to support this and include it in the article. Bob98133 (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Legate sentence is unclear
"Robert Legate is also very susceptible to this disease, he was first caught with it in the late 1980's" -- consider removing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Table problem
Currently the table claims that there were more cases in the UK than in the world. I believe this is impossible. Unless there is something about the UK I don't know... --128.200.33.178 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Denial
I removed the claim that the Indian response was a non-denial denial as it was not supported by either source. It is not appropriate for wikipedia editors to decide whether something is a non-denial denial, we need a WP:RS to do that. In any case, I question whether it can be characterised as a non-denial denial given that they said it was 'misleading' and 'figment of the imagination'. Also I removed the mention of the fact that they did not 'refute' as it was also unsupported by any source and it seems unnecessary to mention it in any case. Just mention what was said by the Indian government and researchers about the theory and let readers decide Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2008

Comments
Jakob Disease Surveillance unit, the total number of CJD referrals from 1990 to 2008 was 2,278. There have been a total of 1,267 deaths to date, thereof only 163 have been confirmed as vCJD.

source: from 165 to 163 based on and. The "six elsewhere" should probably be adapted as well. We should really look into what the correct numbers are. Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Updated the "six elsewhere" to "37 elsewhere", which is the amount given in the table (see ). I think the previous author used the last column, while the first column actually displays the cases + survivors. Also updated "June 2007" to "April 2008" as the table in the source indicates that it is current for April 2008. Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

cite
can someone cite the stats table at the bottom I need to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.222.107.170 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Table still needs a citation
The table still needs a citation, as a quick google did not come up with any similar results. 166.192.135.196 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in deaths from vCJD
The introduction states 163 people have died from vCJD in Britain, but when reading section 2, it says 165. I was just wondering what the correct figure was/is? londonsista | Prod  03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it in the introduction to 163, because that is what the reference said in April 2008. See also my comment here: The reference  was updated (September 2008) to 164 primary cases with 3 survivors; thus 161 people died. The reference also notes 3 cases of blood transfusion that did not survive. So that means a total of 161 + 3 = 164 people in the UK died of vCJD. The reference reports 40 people died elsewhere of vCJD. I updated the article accordingly to these numbers. Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Effect on beef industry
Is there any information regarding the effect on beef industry concerning other countries as it only mentions Japan and USA? Of course this can't be added to the article, but I'm sure I remember hearing on the news years ago that France banned imports of beef from the UK? londonsista | Prod  03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As a further but unrelated question (sorry, I'm in question mode this morning) is there any cited info as to why BSE is also known as mad cow disease? I presume it's due to the characteristics/behaviour an infected cow, but maybe it could be incorporated into the article? Dunno if it would be notable tbh though :s londonsista  | Prod  03:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No need; the name "mad cow disease" is self-explanatory and self-defining: it's a disease affecting cows that causes them to show symptoms of madness. —Lowellian (reply) 06:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference found for currently unsourced statement
In the section entitled ‘The BSE epidemic in British cattle′, the following sentence is marked as needing citation: "It is estimated that 400,000 cattle infected with BSE entered the human food chain in the 1980s.[citation needed]" I have found a source that supports these claims from the National Agricultural Biosecurity Center:. Please add this source and cite it for the above excerpt.

--Subversive.sound (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

the CJD article. help needed
the CJD article has almost nothing about vCJD, and doesn't mention it's relationship with BSE, or that it is (probably) caused by consuming infecting meat. however as vCJD and similar titles redirect to CJD this seems highly irregular. i'd appreciate it if anyone with good medical/scientific understanding of the issues could rectify that. thanks.--Mongreilf (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Eyes Is Vandalism And Needs To Be Removed
I'm sitting with a vetenary inspector whose speciality is bse. He assures me it does not cause red eyes and that this is vandalism. But we can't edit this article. Could we at least get a citation needed on that false "fact"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.214.43 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

--Also, none of the sources referenced list 'Red Eyes' as a symptom. The way it's stuck in in the summary but not mentioned elsewhere makes it look like vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threefhex (talk • contribs) 07:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was added in this edit by Special:Contributions/70.96.84.94, who vandalized some other articles. I removed the 'red eyes' part from the article. Van der Hoorn (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated Statistics
USMEF added 2008 Beef statistics, and it seems to continue its upwards trend to 985,000 metric tons of beef exported from U.S. in 2008. Still 1/4 less than it was prior to 2004. HardJeans (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Export of contamination?
I've heard that, after the causal link between BSE and contaminated animal feed was established, the UK banned the sale of this feed in the domestic market but continued to permit exports of the (unlabelled) feed, thereby spreading BSE to European countries such as France (where apparently this is known as the crime anglais).

Can anyone shed any light on the truth or otherwise of this story?

--Vvmodel (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How Do Diseases Survive Burning?
Right at this moment, I am watching an episode of Dirty Jobs in which our entrepreneurial host is working with a material called bone black, which is the charred remains of cow bones. It is briefly mentioned that during the process of making the material for the process, the spine and skull of the cow is never used for fear of the mad cow disease. Likewise, I remember watching another documentary in the past about human endocannibals that live in the region of Papua New Guinea. Government and scientists had to convince the tribal people that the reason they were dying off, was not from sorcerers as the tribe believed, but from Kuru, which was spreading by the consumption of the cremated remains of their recently dead. It was the practice that when one of their own died, they would cremate the relative into ash, mix with water, and then drink the mixture so that the relative becomes a part of the individual - a way to live on and add strength to their heirs.

Why I am having difficulty in understanding, is how such diseases seem to survive being cooked down to ash, and still spread death. Does anyone have an answer to this question? I believe this is relevant, and should be included in the main article. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the infectious agent cannot be killed by the heat of cooking, since it was never alive in the first place (the infectious agent is just a non-living protein). —Lowellian (reply) 06:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

US Government ban on testing for BSE?
I found this: "we are definitely against the current government regulations which prohibit meat processors from doing extra prion tests at their own expense!" at http://lifeboat.com/ex/bio.shield 2010-04-08. Is this so?, if it is the confidence in US meat is gone. Electron9 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bovine?
Is it only in Bos primigenius taurus, or can Banteng, Gaur and co get it, too? And symptoms are totally lacking!!!! (What does a cow do/show if infected?!) Please do not focus on the beef and UK so much. --Eu-151 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)--Eu-151 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy → Mad-cow disease – Per WP:COMMONNAME, many news outlets use "Mad-cow disease" instead of the medical term. The common name is best known by its nickname. --   Luke      (Talk)   22:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposed' - I vote no, a redirect to the real name is the best. There is a thin line between making sure the title is common enough and also accurate enough.  Ensuring the colloquial term is in the first sentence I think is the best. &#124; pulmonological talk • contribs 03:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposed - and I agree with Pulmonological. Mad cow is a media name.  The public hadn't heard of it before they coined it so.  A redirect from the name is more than sufficient.MartinezMD (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't like WP: COMMONNAME. It's not a valid reason to oppose, but it's the reason I oppose. Rip-Saw (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. BSE is the real name. We redirect from Mad cow disease to here. Google redirects from "mad cow disease" to here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For. I vote for the change of the name Alpedio (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia's Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles is very specific on this issue. It states:


 * The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)...


 * This guideline was result of many discussions going back to 2004. If you believe that the guideline should be changed, you can raise the issue on MOS:MED, but until the guideline is changed, this article needs to be named by the medical name, i.e., Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. The article on the human manifestation of the disease can remain as a separate article named Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  16:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't read MoS before creating this discussion. --   Luke      (Talk)   01:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So end of discussion then. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree that the science term should be the core entry and common or general names refer to science term John Blue 19:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)  — comment added by Innovationcreation (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose. Not for the reason anyone else has opposed, but because "Bovine spongiform encephalopathy" actually is the COMMONNAME in scholarly works. Compare 25,800 results for "Bovine spongiform encephalopathy", compared to 22,200 for "Mad cow disease". Jenks24 (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- We should use the correct medical term. but it is appropriate to keep a redirect from "mad cow disease". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per MOS:MED DocTree (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Role of glia
The author of this book claimed on the radio that glia are involved in BSE. If so, it would be interesting to have more information about that in the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Autopsy" in Epidemiology
In the second paragraph under Epidemiology it states that, "Even so, currently the only reliable test is examination of tissues during an autopsy." Autopsy refers to studying the dead of ourselves, I believe what is intended here is a necropsy, which is the study of an animal after death. This paragraph is discussing tests for detecting BSE in cattle and so I believe they mean to say the study of cattle after death.TravisAndEmma (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)TravisAndEmma
 * I made the change for you, but be bold. You could have done it too. MartinezMD (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Overcoverage
It displays a bias towards USA in the article, due to the specific section for USA, where no sections for any other country exists.
 * I'm not sure this section is unwarranted. The US has a huge beef industry which was strongly affected by BSE even though the country experienced few cases. The remainder of the article concentrates on the situation in Europe, particularly the UK, where cattle feeds have historically been different. Are there other non-European countries which should be covered? If so, which? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Table of incidents per country
Woah! Hundreds of thousands of infections of BSE in the UK in one year? Wait, is this for 2012 or 2011? Wait, is it for one year or for all time?

This is an important distinction. The table does not make it clear if the information is for all time or for a specific time period. Some of the references may do, but perhaps not all the references use the same time period.

Two things need to be done. Firstly, the table needs a title (Presumably "Infections Per Country Ever", unless the UK really does have hundreds of thousands of infections per year. if it did I'd hope the BBC would tell us.) Secondly, the references need to be checked to see if they all concur. If the reference for France is a count for all time, but the reference for Germany is only a count for 2003 then the numbers are of little use. Finally, if the reference for Spain is actually twenty different studies for the years 1992-2012 and the numbers are added together for the table then this is unnacceptable under Wikipedia rules for Original Research.

Now I may be an IP user kicking up a fuss over nothing, or I may be a secret shopper testing the signed-in folk on their dedication to quality. 86.183.51.125 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)