In article ,
The moderator wrote:


[ Re vCJD ]

I think you made the OP's point. The worst plausible scenario was not
plausible.

You're wrong. It was horribly plausible, given what was known at
the time.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
wrote:

In article ,
The moderator wrote:


[ Re vCJD ]

I think you made the OP's point. The worst plausible scenario was not
plausible.

You're wrong. It was horribly plausible, given what was known at
the time.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Bottom line for me is try not to eat any thing that eats it own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_...ncephalopathy„

Bill

--

Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA

http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/

dont eat anything that has been FED its own.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:28:58 -0400, Bill who putters wrote:
Bottom line for me is try not to eat any thing that eats it own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_...ncephalopathy„

Bill
Somewhere between zone 5 and 6 tucked along the shore of Lake Michigan
on the council grounds of the Fox, Mascouten, Potawatomi, and Winnebago

wrote:
In article ,
The moderator wrote:


[ Re vCJD ]

I think you made the OP's point. The worst plausible scenario was not
plausible.

You're wrong. It was horribly plausible, given what was known at
the time.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

To twist the original thread name, your reply is bullshit. "Horribly
plausible"? To consider what might occur there is Definite, Probable,
Possible, and Plausible. It was plausible that the earth was flat until
proved otherwise. I suppose it was plausible that the moon was made of
green cheese before the facts were examined carefully.

I suggest you go back and read some of the "scientific" comments made at the
time. I had access to all the main medical and general (such as "Nature")
journals at the time (1996) and could not believe what I was reading in
them. I was ashamed to be called a scientist. The term "junk science"
appeared a dozen of so years earlier, and many of the comments were junk
science in spades. After reading several of the "plausible" scenarios I made
the very simple decision to continue eating beef - even mince. I put my
mouth where my money was to turn a saying. I did really well as the price
of beef fell. In fact, I was wrong in my original posting - the main
pathogenic effect was on unfortunate famers. I haven't checked the figures,
but I would guess that more beef farmers have died through stress or suicide
as a result of financial worries caused by MCD than those people who have
died from MCD.

Here is a comment from the first news archive in
http://www.mad-cow.org/00/archive_frame.html
'Few understood that when it comes to safety in food, the perception of risk
is not mathematical. It's psychological. One young man who gave up beef
explained his decision this way: "They say the risk of getting the disease
is one in a million or about the same as winning the lottery. And that may
be true. But every week I play the lottery."'

Someone will win the lottery, and someone will die of MCD, but the figures
are heavily in favour of the lottery. In over 13 years since MCD appeared,
there have been only 200 deaths or so WORLDWIDE from it, with just under 170
in the UK.

Hopefully, we will both be contributing to this newsgroup in 25 years time
or so. One of us will have been proved wrong. It won't be me.

--
Jeff

In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

To twist the original thread name, your reply is bullshit. "Horribly
plausible"? To consider what might occur there is Definite, Probable,
Possible, and Plausible. It was plausible that the earth was flat until
proved otherwise. I suppose it was plausible that the moon was made of
green cheese before the facts were examined carefully.

I am afraid that it is YOU who are bullshitting! Let me remind you
of the facts when the news first broke:

1) There was a scrapie-like disease that was MUCH more aggressive,
was widespread in cattle and had been seen in humans.

2) This was believed to be a variant of scrapie that had crossed
the species boundary and mutated, due to the practice of feeding
processed sheep offal to cattle.

3) The agent was known to be unaffected by cooking.

4) It was known to be mainly in the central nervous system, but
there was good evidence that it also occurred in musculature and in
milk.

5) We didn't have a clue what proportion of the UK cattle herd
was infected, and educated guesses ranged from 0.1% to 99%.

6) We didn't have a clue of how infectious it was, or how soon
after infection it could be transmitted, either in cattle or humans.

7) We didn't have a clue about how long its symptoms took to
develop, except that it was not a matter of months.

8) We had no test except an autopsy, and even that was very
unreliable except in advanced cases.

The nightmare scenario was that it was highly infectious, but very
slow developing. If that were the case, 99% of the UK cattle herd
could have been infected, possibly 70% of the UK human population,
but the symptoms wouldn't peak in the latter for 2-3 decades.

The optimal scenario was that it wasn't very infectious at all, and a
large proportion of infected subjects showed symptoms within a couple
of years. There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to distinguish this one in
plausibility from the nightmare scenario.

The government was attempting to ignore the problem, and to carry
on, but the experts used the the press-induced hysteria to force it
to (a) stop feeding ruminant protein to ruminants and (b) investigate
vCJD as a matter of urgency. They were right to do so.

What evidence do YOU have that the optimal scenario (which seems to
be the case) could have been determined to be more plausible than
the nightmare one USING ONLY INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

I suggest you go back and read some of the "scientific" comments made at the
time. I had access to all the main medical and general (such as "Nature")
journals at the time (1996) and could not believe what I was reading in
them. I was ashamed to be called a scientist. ...

I did. I also extracted the information from them and did my own
analysis. Nature's statistical quality is traditionally awful, so
I obviously didn't rely on any conclusions published there.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

To twist the original thread name, your reply is bullshit. "Horribly
plausible"? To consider what might occur there is Definite, Probable,
Possible, and Plausible. It was plausible that the earth was flat until
proved otherwise. I suppose it was plausible that the moon was made of
green cheese before the facts were examined carefully.

I am afraid that it is YOU who are bullshitting! Let me remind you
of the facts when the news first broke:

1) There was a scrapie-like disease that was MUCH more aggressive,
was widespread in cattle and had been seen in humans.

I assume you are referring to nvCJD. Yes, BSE was much more aggressive in
cattle, but by putting that phrase "and had been seen in humans" in the same
sentence you are drawing an unsubstantiated conclusion that the disease is
much more aggressive in humans. Even if the BSE prion and nvCJD prion are
the same (I have not checked this) can the conclusion be drawn that they
behave identically in cattle and humans?


2) This was believed to be a variant of scrapie that had crossed
the species boundary and mutated, due to the practice of feeding
processed sheep offal to cattle.

3) The agent was known to be unaffected by cooking.

4) It was known to be mainly in the central nervous system, but
there was good evidence that it also occurred in musculature and in
milk.

5) We didn't have a clue what proportion of the UK cattle herd
was infected, and educated guesses ranged from 0.1% to 99%.

How can you use the term "educated guess" and "ranged from 0.1% to 99%"?
Why is a smiley missing from the end of that sentence?

6) We didn't have a clue of how infectious it was, or how soon
after infection it could be transmitted, either in cattle or humans.

7) We didn't have a clue about how long its symptoms took to
develop, except that it was not a matter of months.

8) We had no test except an autopsy, and even that was very
unreliable except in advanced cases.

So why draw only the worst conclusions? It's like multiplying all degrees
of error together to come up with the worst possible outcome.


The nightmare scenario was that it was highly infectious, but very
slow developing. If that were the case, 99% of the UK cattle herd
could have been infected, possibly 70% of the UK human population,
but the symptoms wouldn't peak in the latter for 2-3 decades.

No, even though it was highly infectious in cattle, nothingcould be
concluded about its infectivity in humans. And based on the lack of
transmission of scrapie to humans, despite sheep brains being on the menu
for years, why draw the unobvious conclusion about the BSE agent? Or are
you making a kuru comparison? If so why the latter and not the former?


The optimal scenario was that it wasn't very infectious at all, and a
large proportion of infected subjects showed symptoms within a couple
of years. There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to distinguish this one in
plausibility from the nightmare scenario.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. If a large proportion
of infected subjects showed symptoms within a couple of years, isn't that a
nightmare scenario - early onset disease and no cure? Delay for 30+ years
might mean a cure being found in the interim.


The government was attempting to ignore the problem, and to carry
on, but the experts used the the press-induced hysteria to force it
to (a) stop feeding ruminant protein to ruminants and (b) investigate
vCJD as a matter of urgency. They were right to do so.

Here we are in agreement. But I am not sure if the Government was acting
only in what they do well at - ignorance - rather than being totally malign.


What evidence do YOU have that the optimal scenario (which seems to
be the case) could have been determined to be more plausible than
the nightmare one USING ONLY INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

I no longer have access to the original papers, but this is from a review
paper by Peter Campbell on BSE/MCD (Med Principles Pract 1998;7:172-186).
It is thus only a couple of years on from the original papers on the
subject.
(http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB...rtikelNr=26039)

"In view of the long incubation period of 5-10 years for nvCJD, based
largely on the assumption that the greatest chance of people eating infected
beef was between 1980 and 1988 when the ban on MBM was instituted, no sound
estimate could be given of the likely scale of the epidemic of nvCJD, but
the possibility was mentioned that it could run into thousands of cases.
Fortunately, so far the worst predictions have not been fulfilled since the
number of new cases is about 1 per month with a total to date of 23."

Note: "...no sound estimate could be given of the likely scale of the
epidemic of nvCJD, but the possibility was mentioned that it could run into
thousands of cases...". So here, only a couple of years on from the
original publications, we have a reviewer noting the connection between "no
sound estimate" and that the "worst predictions have not been fulfilled".
So why was an "epidemic" and "thousands of cases" mentioned when it was not
possible to give a sound estimate? Because the "worst possible scenario"
sells papers. And of course the journal paper gets referenced many times
(useful if you are after a DSc. of course). That's the point I am trying to
make. Yes, based on the worst possible case we could all be mad and/or dead
now. But previous experience (The Plague, Spanish flu, HIV/AIDS) shows that
the worst possible scenario just doesn't happen. And that's when we have
good information about a disease - not surmise upon surmise. It wasn't
science as it should be, carefully peer reviewed; it was "jump on the
bandwagon" stuff.

At the time, one scientist, Professor Richard Lacey, was quoted as saying
that "due to BSE, in the years to come our hospitals will be filled with
thousands of people going slowly and painfully mad before dying". So what
new evidence did Lacey have that the Southwood Report did not have only a
year earlier? The Southwood Report may have been derided for its comment
that the risk to human health (from BSE) was remote, but the report did
include certain caveats as to the risk to humans if certain assumptions were
to be proven incorrect. What's Lacey's excuse, or was he quoted
incorrectly? Where are these thousands of people going mad and dying?


I suggest you go back and read some of the "scientific" comments made at
the time. I had access to all the main medical and general (such as
"Nature") journals at the time (1996) and could not believe what I was
reading in them. I was ashamed to be called a scientist. ...

I did. I also extracted the information from them and did my own
analysis. Nature's statistical quality is traditionally awful, so
I obviously didn't rely on any conclusions published there.

I can't comment on Nature's statistical quality, but obviously someone
believed them. And what did your analyses show? If based on the sort of
information you alluded to in point 4 above, was there any point in doing
them?

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Jeff

"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

To twist the original thread name, your reply is bullshit. "Horribly
plausible"? To consider what might occur there is Definite, Probable,
Possible, and Plausible. It was plausible that the earth was flat until
proved otherwise. I suppose it was plausible that the moon was made of
green cheese before the facts were examined carefully.

I am afraid that it is YOU who are bullshitting! Let me remind you
of the facts when the news first broke:

1) There was a scrapie-like disease that was MUCH more aggressive,
was widespread in cattle and had been seen in humans.

I assume you are referring to nvCJD. Yes, BSE was much more aggressive in
cattle, but by putting that phrase "and had been seen in humans" in the
same sentence you are drawing an unsubstantiated conclusion that the
disease is much more aggressive in humans. Even if the BSE prion and
nvCJD prion are the same (I have not checked this) can the conclusion be
drawn that they behave identically in cattle and humans?


2) This was believed to be a variant of scrapie that had crossed
the species boundary and mutated, due to the practice of feeding
processed sheep offal to cattle.

3) The agent was known to be unaffected by cooking.

4) It was known to be mainly in the central nervous system, but
there was good evidence that it also occurred in musculature and in
milk.

5) We didn't have a clue what proportion of the UK cattle herd
was infected, and educated guesses ranged from 0.1% to 99%.

How can you use the term "educated guess" and "ranged from 0.1% to 99%"?
Why is a smiley missing from the end of that sentence?

6) We didn't have a clue of how infectious it was, or how soon
after infection it could be transmitted, either in cattle or humans.

7) We didn't have a clue about how long its symptoms took to
develop, except that it was not a matter of months.

8) We had no test except an autopsy, and even that was very
unreliable except in advanced cases.

So why draw only the worst conclusions? It's like multiplying all degrees
of error together to come up with the worst possible outcome.


The nightmare scenario was that it was highly infectious, but very
slow developing. If that were the case, 99% of the UK cattle herd
could have been infected, possibly 70% of the UK human population,
but the symptoms wouldn't peak in the latter for 2-3 decades.

No, even though it was highly infectious in cattle, nothingcould be
concluded about its infectivity in humans. And based on the lack of
transmission of scrapie to humans, despite sheep brains being on the menu
for years, why draw the unobvious conclusion about the BSE agent? Or are
you making a kuru comparison? If so why the latter and not the former?


The optimal scenario was that it wasn't very infectious at all, and a
large proportion of infected subjects showed symptoms within a couple
of years. There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to distinguish this one in
plausibility from the nightmare scenario.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. If a large proportion
of infected subjects showed symptoms within a couple of years, isn't that
a nightmare scenario - early onset disease and no cure? Delay for 30+
years might mean a cure being found in the interim.


The government was attempting to ignore the problem, and to carry
on, but the experts used the the press-induced hysteria to force it
to (a) stop feeding ruminant protein to ruminants and (b) investigate
vCJD as a matter of urgency. They were right to do so.

Here we are in agreement. But I am not sure if the Government was acting
only in what they do well at - ignorance - rather than being totally
malign.


What evidence do YOU have that the optimal scenario (which seems to
be the case) could have been determined to be more plausible than
the nightmare one USING ONLY INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

I no longer have access to the original papers, but this is from a review
paper by Peter Campbell on BSE/MCD (Med Principles Pract 1998;7:172-186).
It is thus only a couple of years on from the original papers on the
subject.
(http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB...rtikelNr=26039)

"In view of the long incubation period of 5-10 years for nvCJD, based
largely on the assumption that the greatest chance of people eating
infected beef was between 1980 and 1988 when the ban on MBM was
instituted, no sound estimate could be given of the likely scale of the
epidemic of nvCJD, but the possibility was mentioned that it could run
into thousands of cases. Fortunately, so far the worst predictions have
not been fulfilled since the number of new cases is about 1 per month with
a total to date of 23."

Note: "...no sound estimate could be given of the likely scale of the
epidemic of nvCJD, but the possibility was mentioned that it could run
into thousands of cases...". So here, only a couple of years on from the
original publications, we have a reviewer noting the connection between
"no sound estimate" and that the "worst predictions have not been
fulfilled". So why was an "epidemic" and "thousands of cases" mentioned
when it was not possible to give a sound estimate? Because the "worst
possible scenario" sells papers. And of course the journal paper gets
referenced many times (useful if you are after a DSc. of course). That's
the point I am trying to make. Yes, based on the worst possible case we
could all be mad and/or dead now. But previous experience (The Plague,
Spanish flu, HIV/AIDS) shows that the worst possible scenario just doesn't
happen. And that's when we have good information about a disease - not
surmise upon surmise. It wasn't science as it should be, carefully peer
reviewed; it was "jump on the bandwagon" stuff.

At the time, one scientist, Professor Richard Lacey, was quoted as saying
that "due to BSE, in the years to come our hospitals will be filled with
thousands of people going slowly and painfully mad before dying". So what
new evidence did Lacey have that the Southwood Report did not have only a
year earlier? The Southwood Report may have been derided for its comment
that the risk to human health (from BSE) was remote, but the report did
include certain caveats as to the risk to humans if certain assumptions
were to be proven incorrect. What's Lacey's excuse, or was he quoted
incorrectly? Where are these thousands of people going mad and dying?


I suggest you go back and read some of the "scientific" comments made at
the time. I had access to all the main medical and general (such as
"Nature") journals at the time (1996) and could not believe what I was
reading in them. I was ashamed to be called a scientist. ...

I did. I also extracted the information from them and did my own
analysis. Nature's statistical quality is traditionally awful, so
I obviously didn't rely on any conclusions published there.

I can't comment on Nature's statistical quality, but obviously someone
believed them. And what did your analyses show? If based on the sort of
information you alluded to in point 4 above, was there any point in doing
them?

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

--
Jeff






yawn!

This is getting ridiculous, so I shall not continue after this.

In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

1) There was a scrapie-like disease that was MUCH more aggressive,
was widespread in cattle and had been seen in humans.

I assume you are referring to nvCJD. Yes, BSE was much more aggressive in
cattle, but by putting that phrase "and had been seen in humans" in the same
sentence you are drawing an unsubstantiated conclusion that the disease is
much more aggressive in humans. Even if the BSE prion and nvCJD prion are
the same (I have not checked this) can the conclusion be drawn that they
behave identically in cattle and humans?

That is close to trolling. No, I didn't draw that conclusion, and I
didn't even imply it. I said that it was much more aggressive than
scrapie, which it was. If I recall, the VERY few human cases were a
lot more aggressive than the few cases where 'normal' scrapie had
been observed in cattle.

Obviously, no conclusion could be drawn, most especially not the one
you seem so keen on (i.e. that it was not going to be aggressive in
humans). The real experts said that they didn't have a clue.

5) We didn't have a clue what proportion of the UK cattle herd
was infected, and educated guesses ranged from 0.1% to 99%.

How can you use the term "educated guess" and "ranged from 0.1% to 99%"?
Why is a smiley missing from the end of that sentence?

Because I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I am not going to
give a seminar on parameter estimation, but educated guesses are what
experts use when they have to make an estimate based on very incomplete
data. It's a perfectly valid statistical technique, though a bit beyond
most scientists.

8) We had no test except an autopsy, and even that was very
unreliable except in advanced cases.

So why draw only the worst conclusions? It's like multiplying all degrees
of error together to come up with the worst possible outcome.

I didn't, nor did any expert I read. I could respond to you by:

So why draw only the best conclusions? It's like multiplying all
degrees of error together to come up with the best possible outcome.

But a more informed answer is that people who have to take serious
decisions use the appropriate analysis (based on game theory), where
the risk is the probability of an outcome multiplied by its cost.
Only politicians and other ignoramuses rely solely on the probability.

In particular, the cost of the worst plausible scenario combined with
a laisser faire attitude (as you are saying should have been adopted)
was horrific. The probability of the worst case was low, but the risk
of the combination was huge.

The optimal scenario was that it wasn't very infectious at all, and a
large proportion of infected subjects showed symptoms within a couple
of years. There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to distinguish this one in
plausibility from the nightmare scenario.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying here. If a large proportion
of infected subjects showed symptoms within a couple of years, isn't that a
nightmare scenario - early onset disease and no cure? Delay for 30+ years
might mean a cure being found in the interim.

No. Because it would mean that only a small proportion of people were
infected. Even in the early days, we knew that it was a few years
(about 5?) from first symptoms to death. If the first symptoms didn't
show for 30+ years in most people, it could mean that the majority of
the UK was infected.

Yes, a cure MIGHT be found. But relying on fairy godmothers isn't
something that any competent person does.

What evidence do YOU have that the optimal scenario (which seems to
be the case) could have been determined to be more plausible than
the nightmare one USING ONLY INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

I no longer have access to the original papers, but this is from a review
paper by Peter Campbell on BSE/MCD (Med Principles Pract 1998;7:172-186).
It is thus only a couple of years on from the original papers on the
subject.

"In view of the long incubation period of 5-10 years for nvCJD, based
largely on the assumption that the greatest chance of people eating infected
beef was between 1980 and 1988 when the ban on MBM was instituted, no sound
estimate could be given of the likely scale of the epidemic of nvCJD, but
the possibility was mentioned that it could run into thousands of cases.
Fortunately, so far the worst predictions have not been fulfilled since the
number of new cases is about 1 per month with a total to date of 23."

Aargh! That paper was TEN BLOODY YEARS after the action was taken!
Yes, BY THEN, we knew that the nightmare scenario was implausible.
But why do you claim that was obvious in 1986-1988?

Given what we know now, if the government had not been pressured into
acting until 1998, the problem would be something like ten times worse
(not a major issue). But, BASED ON THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN 1987,
we had NO reason to believe the best plausible scenario over the worst
plausible one (or conversely). And, if the latter had been the case,
a ten year delay would have been CATASTROPHIC.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

As I teach my students "a scientist who is speaking outside his area of expertise is
no better than a layman". MCD is in my area of expertise, and MCD lacked several
characteristics necessary to become a pandemic.

People tend to think of viruses and bacteria as static or "simple". But microbes
spent most of evolution, some 3.5 billion years evolving those genes that survive to
this day, those same genes with which all higher life forms are built. Because
bacteria and viruses have a single genome (and many viruses are RNA viruses anyway)
they mutate at extremely high rates. For this reason there are always small numbers
of them that are on the "cutting edge" of infectivity if not ahead of host immunity.
They are inherently unstable. MCD is an infectious protein (prion). It does not
rapidly mutate and transmission is difficult within species and very difficult
outside of species. It is called other names in other animals and the only place it
is rampant is in mink because after taking the fur the body of the mink is processed
into food for growing mink. The only place it USED to be rampant was in those small
populations of humans who ate the brains of family members for ritual reasons. Now
that has stopped so has Kuru.

Ingrid

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:47:29 +0100, "Jeff Layman" wrote:
I suggest you go back and read some of the "scientific" comments made at the
time. I had access to all the main medical and general (such as "Nature")
journals at the time (1996) and could not believe what I was reading in
them. I was ashamed to be called a scientist. The term "junk science"
appeared a dozen of so years earlier, and many of the comments were junk
science in spades.
Somewhere between zone 5 and 6 tucked along the shore of Lake Michigan
on the council grounds of the Fox, Mascouten, Potawatomi, and Winnebago

wrote in message
...

"As I teach my students "a scientist .......
MCD is an infectious protein (prion). ........... The only place it USED
to be rampant was in those small
populations of humans who ate the brains of family members for ritual
reasons. Now
that has stopped so has Kuru."

Ingrid

Not to get into your debates here, but I would like some info/leads on the
groups where this was rampant.
TIA
Gunner

In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

wrote in message
...

"As I teach my students "a scientist .......
MCD is an infectious protein (prion). ........... The only place it USED
to be rampant was in those small
populations of humans who ate the brains of family members for ritual
reasons. Now
that has stopped so has Kuru."

Ingrid

Not to get into your debates here, but I would like some info/leads on the
groups where this was rampant.
TIA
Gunner

New Guinea
See:
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
by Jared Diamond
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Ste...393061310/ref=
pd_bxgy_b_text_b
--

- Billy

"For the first time in the history of the world, every human being is
now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of
conception until death." - Rachel Carson

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7843430.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI29wVQN8Go

"Wild Billy" wrote in message
...
In article ss,
"gunner" wrote:

wrote in message
...

"As I teach my students "a scientist .......
The only place it USED
to be rampant was in those small populations of humans ,,,,,,,"


New Guinea


The New Guinea cannibal tribes? how disappointing, but thank you for the
information anyway, although I do have to tell you there are better
information sources than the
Amazon book buying hype, unless you are getting paid for hits.

The Fore of Papua, New Guinea.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:51:44 -0700, "gunner" wrote:
Not to get into your debates here, but I would like some info/leads on the
groups where this was rampant.
TIA
Gunner

Somewhere between zone 5 and 6 tucked along the shore of Lake Michigan
on the council grounds of the Fox, Mascouten, Potawatomi, and Winnebago