Lotus wrote in message
...
(new thread- 'line 3 too long')

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

Lotus wrote in message
...

Some dairy farmers certainly,

picking and choosing again.

How many other dairy farmers have conducted research?

as many who got the same funding as Purdy did.

Not all dairy farmers then.

hardly surprising given the costs of the research. You have to
know the
right people to get that sort of money and Purdy does.

-Some- dairy farmers were actually trying to find out what
was going on then. Some, like we see from the rampant denial
coming from uba, just poo-pood the risk and hoped for the best.

no, it is just that you are merely repeating a lot of hysterial
rubbish
that even people like Purdy dismissed as nonsense ten years ago.

No one's dismissed anything. You're just spewing any old crap.

wrong again, Purdy, like everyone else, has looked at the new evidence
constantly coming forward and has modified his opinions. I think you are
going to have to get up to speed with the debate and stop just quoting
mid 1990s stuff which has been superceeded.


[..]

but from what does 'British
Dairying' get a substantial part of it's income .. ?

I lay odds it will get nothing from the UK government.

No, but plenty and then some from those implicated.

like the UK government, who gave the instructions.

Like the ag'chem' companies.

please explain how ag chem companies can be blamed when the UK
government passed a law which said which products had to be
used.

The government made the pouring of a highly potent neurotoxin
the length of an animal's spine compulsary upon reassurance from
the ag'chem's that it was safe to do so?

no, the government just told us to do it.

Sure, and you did it, like a good little farmer, no questions asked.

it is called the law, if I had not done it I would have faced a large
fine and possible imprisonment.

They have their own scientists, they have their own tests.

I don't believe it. Show me the 'tests' done on phosmet by
'government scientists'.

look for them yourself, I have better things to do than drive to the
local university library to look for 1930s, 40s, and 50s scientific
papers.


Some
of these products were manufactured in the Irish republic.

So what? Those companies are trans-national.

exactly, I'm glad you are beginning to feel you way back to reality.
The
UK government, like many other governments, made the use of
organophosphates compulsory. Yet only the UK had BSE in any major
way.
But a lot of other places used more organophosphate than we did.

Do you ever stop lying?

Ireland used it, a lot of the world used it, but of course you


'In the UK only, a compulsory high dose treatment with an
Organophosphate (OP) called Phosmet was being used in
a new oil based formulation to treat cattle. '
http://www.aquafeed.com/bsesg.html

interesting that, links to Cargill animal nutrition who were major
sellers on meat and bone meal on the international market.

Other countries also have BSE if you hadn't noticed.
That those countries used more than in the UK is unlikely

so unlikely that you haven't got any figures. Go and look at the
figures. From Purdy's own paper that you quote

Apart from the UK, Eire, France and Switzerland, which have adopted
compulsory warble control measures

so if it is organophosphate, why haven't France and Eire got the same
levels as UK and Switzerland.
Or perhaps purdy is lying which is your usual accusation when you know
you are lost.


This is why everyone has realised that the organophosphate idea is a
dead end, even Purdy has moved on and last time Iheard is now
wondering
if there might be a heavy metal connection.

Spatiotemporal epidemiological correlations between
phosmet use and BSE incidence Last updated 14-Aug-2002
http://www.markpurdey.com/science_highdose_3.htm


do what I did, phone him and talk to him, he is happy enough to discuss
is findings and ideas.