"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...

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.

What's been superceded? You're going to have to back up
your claims, because I really don't believe a word you say.

[..]

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.

Then the nation's farmers should have been united against it.

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.

The predicted cop-out. Your claim, slacker, you support it with evidence.
Try searching the web, if it ever happened, you'll find it, at the very least,
you'll find reference to it.

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,

Not necessarily Phosmet, and if so, not to the extent the UK did.

'The UK was unique in its use of systemic phosmet in that
it compelled farmers to apply the chemical biannually at a
20 mg/kg dose rate recommending an optional 10 mg/kg
follow-up dose 14 days later. By contrast, the few other
countries that have licensed phosmet in its systemic pour-on
formulation have only licensed it for voluntary treatment of
lice in cattle and/or pigs as a 'one off' dose of 10 mg/kg or
2 mg/kg respectively.'
http://www.markpurdey.com/science_highdose_3.htm

but of course you

'you' what? no smarmy 'witty' idiotic remark at hand?

'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.

I guess that means you'll take their word for it then.

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

No other country used Phosmet to the extent the UK did.

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

continues.... other European countries have adopted voluntary or
non-existent measures, which perhaps explains why no other country
apart from Eire and the UK has so far succeeded in eradicating the fly.
Liebich's study also demonstrates that phosmet was not recommended
for use upon cattle in any other country's compulsory warble control
programme operating outside of the UK (apart from some very limited
use in Eire and France during the late 1970s). This explains why no
correlation exists in the greater majority of BSE endemic countries
outside of the UK linking compulsory warble treatment zones with
the spatiotemporal distribution of BSE incidence. By contrast, in the
UK, where phosmet was employed at high systemic doses, a general
correlation does exist (2).'
http://www.markpurdey.com/science_highdose_3.htm

so if it is organophosphate,

Various countries outside the UK which have attempted to control
the warble fly, such as Switzerland, Denmark, France (33), USA,
Canada, have all employed non-phosmet types of systemic 0Ps such
as trichlorphon, famphur, cournaphos - or the non-OP ivermecti.n.
None of these compounds contains the phthalimido moiety that is
found exclusively within the phosmet compound. '
http://www.markpurdey.com/science_highdose_3.htm

why haven't France and Eire got the same levels as UK and Switzerland.

'Apart from Portugal which only exposed its cattle to an in-feed
source of bioconcentrated phosmet/ prions in the fat/tallow
fraction of MBM imported from the UK, the only other countries
affected with endemic BSE outside of the UK are Eire, the Channel
Islands, France and Switzerland which are the other countries
besides the UK that have exposed their livestock both directly
and indirectly to potentially significant doses of phosmet.'
http://www.markpurdey.com/science_highdose_3.htm

Or perhaps purdy is lying which is your usual accusation when you know
you are lost.

You're lost which is why you resort to the same old tired ad hominem.

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.

and why wouldn't he.