More BSE science

14th October 1999

I listened with interest to the BBC Farming Today broadcast this morning when Professor Wayne Martin of the Ontario Veterinary College discussed BSE causation.

If I understand correctly you will be employing video links for a discussion on BSE today. Professor Martin admitted to a series of inconsistencies regarding the origins of BSE but he also stated that there appeared to be a strong time related link to the ending of solvent use in the rendering process and the onset of the BSE crisis. He also said that laboratory experiments had failed to show any clear link between solvent use and the destruction of the agent believed to be the cause of BSE.

I was thinking about this after the programme and it occurred to me that the solvents used in the rendering process for "extracting fat from the protein and bone material of the carcasses" would have also removed the lipophilic chemicals, including pesticides and benzenes.
Furthermore those chemicals, having been digested and/or transformed the metabolic processes within the living animals, may actually present a greater risk to animals digesting them when present in MBM than they would as residues from veterinary products or pesticides.
By their very nature any chemicals which have undergone metabolic changes would be more acceptable to further metabolic transformation.

Given the suggested time link between the ending of solvent use in rendering and the outbreak of BSE and the failure of science to show that the solvent could have destroyed the prion suggested as being involved anyway I must ask if any scientist has examined the action of the solvents on carcass pesticide residues?

Since OPs such as pirimiphos methyl are known to survive ingestion and to be stored in the fat and that warblecides poured on the skin have the same effect as injection directly into the blood stream it is likely that the solvents were actually removing dangerous levels of OP residues along with the fat.

When solvent use ended the OP and other chemical residues in Meat and Bone Meal are likely to have been high and would have added considerably not only to the overall pesticide burden in the animal but also to the presence in the animal of easily metabolised elements which may have resulted in BSE causation by the pathways mentioned in my submission of 4th October 1999.

It will be interesting to hear the experts’ opinions on this as it seems to me to be an important factor.

No doubt you have already been advised on this issue and if so I apologise for using your time.

18th October 1999

It is with some concern that I write this letter. This evening I have discovered that a doctor working in an official capacity on the Group action for the Organophosphate poisoning cases currently determined by the High Court has not received important information sent to her by fax. Not once, but on at least two separate occasions. One being 11 pages of vital information required by a legally set date. Perhaps I should have checked receipt at the time but with 11 pages successfully sent and the receipt showing successful transmission it seemed an unnecessary expense. Due to past difficulties with telephone communications I use a fax machine which gives reports as to whether the messages are transmitted and received effectively.

On no occasion have the reports indicated any problem but it is interesting to note that the numbers dialled are always accepted by the telephone system and the actual number dialled is printed on the report. There is therefore only one explanation and that is that the communications are being intercepted and diverted by persons unknown.

Suspicion falls on the agencies of government however.
Similar problems have been encountered with E-mail transactions.
It is beginning to look rather sinister.
This is especially so when the E-mail server denies having given permission to anyone to have access. You will understand then why I have posted a copy of the fax sent to you on 14th October 1999.
Sadly the moment has passed now but I believe the information to be important. I would be grateful if you would let me know if you received it OK on the 14th. There will come a time when those responsible for hiding the truth will have to explain their conduct.
I often wonder how they can imagine that the facts of what they have done will remain hidden.

When they have to resort to interfering with communications between innocent individuals it only serves to prove that what they are trying to hide must be exposed. Too many of us have suffered at their hands.

Evil triumphs because good men remain silent.

17th December 1999

Recent developments force further comment.
Those of us who have suffered at the hands of those who advise the Government have offered evidence freely to the BSE Inquiry and others without the need for the presence of expensive lawyers or the need to hide behind the Official Secrets Act, which will serve to protect those who have been less than honest.

The truth of these matters should not be allowed to be hidden for another 25 years for if it is we will see another similar crisis in the new Century.
This is our one chance to return honesty to science for true science does not need to be protected from its critics.

I make no excuses for referring you to my first submission of 14th February 1998. It would seem that the points I raised are still relevant. They included Causation of BSE, Prion Theory, Implementation of feed and Beef controls, Imported meats, Official response to those with alternative theories, Possible common causes of BSE and NvCJD, and the known effects of cumulative nerve toxins in the food of animals and man. My submissions of the 4th and 14th October add further evidence that the accepted causation theory, which resulted in the crisis, and the claimed link with eating beef and the development of nvCJD is neither new nor accurate.
Furthermore that theory has been altered many times as each chosen method to eradicate BSE in cattle failed. Even after all this time there appears to have been no attempt whatsoever to explain the causation of the equally serious and expensive BSE Negative cases.
This too is a neglect of duty on behalf of the scientific advisers to Government.
The prion theory has been opposed by much more knowledgeable minds than mine but it is clear that there are well recognised chemical processes which can deform proteins, viruses and bacteria and that the idea that some new and "unknown" process was at work is pure nonsense since information regarding the replication process is found in standard reference books. Those responsible for implementing the controls on feed and beef sales have obviously failed in their duty but it seems that they decided that they could hide their incompetence by relying on self promoted ideas backed with data obtained from inadequate tests they knew gave inaccurate results.
Knowing that independent testing could expose the scandal it appears that every possible effort was made to keep the testing procedures "in-house" even to the extent of restricting sample availability so that no, or little truly independent work could be done.
This is not science.

Throughout this period and to the present day the restrictions on UK produced beef has not been mirrored by restrictions on imported beef which carries similar if not greater risk. Controls on offal removal and feed ingredients in imports have never been to the UK standard even from countries which have both BSE and nvCJD. There has therefore been, and continues to be, a greater risk from imported meat than from beef produced under UK conditions and yet that risk, which is the only reason suggested for the financial disaster which has been BSE, has been accepted without question by the scientists.

If eating beef from BSE cows caused nvCJD we must ask why France, to whom we exported the majority of meat from older cows most at risk, has such a low incidence of nvCJD. At every stage the official machine spends vast amounts of tax-payer’s time and money in the efforts to discredit those who see means to cause BSE other than the favoured prion "infectivity" theory.

A theory is just what it is and it seems that at no time has that theory obtained conclusive supporting evidence. On the contrary, it seems that efforts to establish proof that feeding "infected feed" causes BSE by groups other than those with vested interests has failed completely.
Despite this all those who offer alternative and often feasible theories are ignored by politicians and scientists alike. Only those which do not present a risk to the profits of the multi-national agrochemical or pharmaceutical companies are given any credibility. This is perhaps why the "virus", "bacteria" and prion theories have gained favour despite the lack of objective evidence and why the obvious link to the chemicals which are capable of mutating those very life forms is denied or ignored completely.

Now we come to the possibility that BSE and nvCJD may be caused by the same agent. . It would appear that SEAC and others will still not consider the possibility that BSE and NvCJD may be caused by a common triggering agent other than eating "infected" beef.

I remain deeply concerned that practices used in the 1980s involving cattle feed are still being promoted for use in the human food chain. I refer to the use of OP products systemic in our food and the use of other food processes such as mechanically recovered meat, restrictions for which it seems there was a great reluctance.

All government agencies from the Prime Minister down refuse point blank to address the dangers of glyphosate and the false evidence of safety provided to the regulators for both glyphosate and the pirimiphos methyl added freely to feed grains. If those practices caused BSE in cattle then it is very likely that if the methods are used for human food then NvCJD cases may well reach epidemic levels.

This brings me to my final points. That of chemically induced protein changes as mentioned in my earlier submissions and other means of transferring BSE from one animal to another if such a means is required.
I believe I have already shown that the knowledge that chemicals can mutate proteins, viruses, bacteria and DNA has been in the public domain for many years, certainly long before BSE. What is new over the last few decades is the increasing exposures to animals and humans of those chemicals whether it be in our food, our environment, in our medicines or even by way of "recreational drugs".

SEAC seem to have avoided all these possibilities in their "search" for the cause of BSE and nvCJD.
I and others have covered the first points and indicated that BSE may be a chance result of enzyme corruption by chemicals found at very high levels in the diet of cattle and particularly in that of dairy cattle for which the incidence of BSE has historically been highest.

We touched on the possibility that the combination of effects from two or more substances might offer the required conditions for causation. This may be a chemical and solvent, both capable of freely entering the brain, or a combination of two chemicals which directly affect the membranes such as OPs and Pyrethroids.
It may even be the result of combinations of exposures to these chemicals and medicines, or vaccines, which themselves may be contaminated with the enzymes necessary for replication in the brain.

Certainly chemicals are known to cause spongiform encephalopathy as was reported in the New Scientist on 20th November page 12. "Why you need heroin like a hole in the head" with a case report on a 21 year old woman suffering from a condition they called "progressive spongiform leukoencephalopathy".

SEAC has, I believe, failed the whole nation in its persistence with the pet theory from MAFF. Evidence that the chemical companies have corrupted science and those who advise Government came recently with the issue of the COT report on Organophosphates which was an unprincipled attempt to hide the truth and to protect themselves from criticism. My own comments on that report to three Government Ministers have not been acknowledged save by a cross-bench member of the House of Lords to whom I sent a copy.

In the same way that Ministers have failed to address the serious flaws in the safety data for chemicals deliberately added to our food they fail to address the serious issues over the flaws in the theories which drive the BSE crisis deeper into the realms of tragic farce.

This is not science. This is naked politics driven by commercial vested interest. The certain truth is that if eating beef did not cause BSE or nvCJD, as seems ever more likely, then the blame must lie with the Agrochemical and Pharmaceutical companies either directly through the known action of their chemicals or indirectly through the experimentation with vaccines and growth promoters introduced by them in order to boost their profitability.

I hope that the BSE Inquiry will be free to tell the entire truth.
I suspect that this will be prevented. Our children deserve better in the new Century soon to begin.

I thank you in anticipation of Justice.

17th January 2000

"Protein that could block CJD" is the headline which prompts this letter. If the research to which that headline refers is accurate then the results offer further evidence that BSE and nvCJD are the result of enzyme process corruption and not of infection.

Clearly if replacing a peptide can reverse the process of CJD then removing a peptide can cause CJD.

Such situations can arise by removing the peptide directly, by inhibiting the enzyme or enzyme group responsible for production of the peptide, or by introducing large quantities of those enzymes which are capable of destroying that peptide.
In all cases, including any beneficial effects obtained by treatment with the missing peptide, the resulting effects remain entirely controlled by enzymatic processes which have been known to science for decades.

If the report on the work done by Claudio Soto of New York University and the Serono Research Institute in Switzerland accurately reflects the research then it seems that treating CJD with a peptide actually reversed the development process of the disease both in the structure and properties of the "Rogue prion".
It appears from the reports available to me that the structure of the prion was returned to its original state so that its "infectivity" was reduced by up to 95%, delaying onset of symptoms and preventing the formation of the "beta-sheets".

Interestingly similar reversals are reported to have been found using the peptide in Alzheimer’s disease which indicates, as has long been suspected, a similar causation factor.

I refer you to my letter of 4th October 1999 in which I gave a breakdown of the known biological pathways which could lead to just such results and I am becoming increasingly concerned as to how it is that our senior scientists have failed to grasp this knowledge.

Interestingly in correspondence with the Pesticide Safety Directorate it seems that they do not understand the basic science as they actually asked me to tell them which enzyme processes can be adversely affected by organophosphates.
Furthermore it has become clear that the main testing point used in the hen test to determine the degree of potential harm from OPs and other compounds, Neuropathy Target Esterase, has never been isolated by science and its action in the disease process is not understood.

How then can science claim to be able to comment on the safety of such products when even the enzymes they claim to understand are not fully researched?

Clearly the potential for chemical inhibition and, or, corruption of the protein forming enzymes has been overlooked as a causative factor in BSE and nvCJD.
Those enzyme processes are themselves inextricably linked to the hormone system and I was interested to hear that many of those with nvCJD were involved with sport and the music scene for in both areas of life the use of freely available drugs of various forms are rife.
A friend’s daughter was in a relationship with a regular user of a gymnasium in London and it became apparent that all manner of "body enhancing drugs" have become freely available.
They included products as seemingly innocent as "fat burners" to the deadly steroids which ended our friend’s relationship when he killed himself in a mad rage by head-butting the wall of a hospital ward.
All these drugs act by interfering with the enzyme processes, as do the "recreational drugs" such as ecstasy for which figures suggest that high proportions of those attending "raves" are regular users.
It would be wrong to suggest that any of the victims used such drugs but it would be equally wrong and unscientific to dismiss such possible causation factors in the search for answers about nvCJD.

Clearly when even a cabinet Minister admits to smoking cannabis the drug culture has become part of life. Perhaps we should not overlook the fact that the same cabinet Minister has recently suffered with a brain tumour and it might be wise to consider if such effects might result from the use of untested drugs.

Cattle too were subjected to a cocktail of drugs, from vaccines and wormers to fly control products with the additional onslaught from the range of chemicals in their diet.
As already mentioned the safety data for at least two of those most regularly used is grossly flawed but the PSD refuse point blank to act on the information repeatedly given to them.
All of these chemicals are capable of disrupting the enzyme systems upon which growth hormones and others depend but the cattle had the additional problem caused by imbalances induced by the regular treatment with hormones for fertility problems and embryo transplants.

Incidentally it has recently been suggested that manganese and copper imbalances may be responsible for BSE. Dietary excesses of manganese are apparently excreted readily and there are claimed to be no reported risks for overdose at levels normally encountered.
There are known risks from inhaling manganese dusts and vapours which are capable of inducing Parkinson-like illnesses. Deficiencies of manganese are serious as fertility, thyroid and sex hormone production, cholesterol, and therefore all major hormone production, insulin and glucose storage and also bone formation all depend on adequate levels of manganese.

It should be noted that deficiency diseases can be found when dietary intakes are adequate if other factors such as a deficit or excess of another vital vitamin, mineral or enzyme inhibits uptake. Manganese is vital for enzyme processes and is known to be inhibited by imbalances caused by calcium and phosphorus. Similarly copper and molybdenum are inter-dependent and diagnosis of copper deficiency is difficult.

In correspondence with Edinburgh University on a fertility problem in the 1980s it became apparent that even copper levels in blood samples are only estimations based on calculation. Interestingly medical advice has been to treat Phosphate poisoning with Copper sulphate solutions to induce vomiting as a means to expel the phosphate from the body. Also of some importance is the fact that excess molybdenum can inhibit phosphates and cause the symptoms of phosphate deficiency. Calcium and sulphate levels also play a part and if these elements are in excess then the copper requirement also rises. Methionine can replace dietary inorganic sulphate.

Clearly this is a complex area and any induced imbalances in the enzyme systems will have far reaching effects.

What is plainly true is that even if all dietary levels are normal the same symptoms of excess or deficiency can be induced by any chemical or hormone which is capable of inhibiting enzyme processes. Because of the part manganese plays in enzyme function and in particular those dealing with the protection mechanism against free radicals it is likely that deficiency of manganese rather than excesses present risk.

However. The research does add strength to the view that enzyme disruption can cause BSE and nvCJD.

Which returns me to the issue of inducing imbalances by injection.
Using hormones to treat infertility resulting from imbalances chemically induced in the cow seems to me to be a sensible and understandable risk to take provided the hormonal material is sourced safely.

However, using those same hormones in fertile cattle simply to induce multiple ovulation is not the same thing.

This will create a massive hormonal imbalance in the cow with which its metabolism must deal if she is to return to normal health.
In much the same way the body builder or drug user is inducing imbalance when there is no need and this overload may well result in the absence or excess of a variety of otherwise vital substances which as I have suggested in earlier submissions are known to lay dormant for some time before being reabsorbed.

I find it hard to understand why science has allowed such activities to take place when the risks from injecting hormones derived from carcass sources had been known for years and when it is obvious that the same science has not fully understood the consequences of using genetically manipulated or chemical hormone replacing substances.

Breast cancer is a case in point. Hormones used to control oestrogen induced tumours are known to be capable of inducing endometrial cancer.
On this subject it has recently been shown that, as with CJD, the lack of a protein has been linked to highly malignant breast cancer. In this case it seems to involve the protein E-cadherin which is involved in adhesion in cells and the signalling mechanisms across the cell walls. This too is a GTP dependent process which is vulnerable to OPs but it is also calcium dependent and linked to the immune system and once again to growth factors.

Lindane is considered to cause breast cancer and organochlorines also inhibit the calcium channels. There seems little doubt that BSE was not an infection but was indeed the result of enzyme disruption.

16th March 2000

It is with some concern that I write on the subject of what will become of the information now in possession of the BSE Inquiry. I am given to understand that the 30 year rule under the Official Secrets Act continues to be enforced in respect to some of the information provided to the Inquiry and that the papers will be handed to MAFF when the final opinions have been made public.
These aspects present areas of considerable concern for those of us who care about the safety of food.

If there was nothing to hide then there would be no need to invoke the 30 year rule and it is strange that the papers handed to the Inquiry will be handed for "safe keeping" to the very Ministry most criticised by those outside of the "inner circle" as being most responsible for both the outbreak of BSE and the control of public and scientific opinion in respect to the cause of the disease.
As I mentioned in my 17th December 1999 submission the BSE Inquiry is in a unique position in that it can expose the failings of science and of the system which has failed to protect the health of us all.

If mistakes or even deliberate attempts to hide the truth are not exposed by the Inquiry then those who were, or are, responsible will continue to believe that the law cannot touch them and those attitudes will inevitably lead to more mistakes, more corrupt actions and even more serious human health tragedies.

We have, after all, been lucky with BSE as the predicted disaster in human health has not yet materialised.

Interestingly reports from Switzerland strongly suggest that the meat and bone meal theory is dangerously and fatally flawed since their latest cases are reported as home grown and born ten years after the ban.

Scares generated by the recent mother and baby case involving suspected NvCJD only add to the confusion since the fear involves not only maternal transmission but the transmission via surgical instruments.

Science seems confused on these matters and ignores completely the injected hormone risk. I suspect that this is because the smoke-screens generated to protect those responsible also cover vital truths.

One of those truths is that vets never destroyed their surgical instruments between cattle or other animals and yet that transmission method has never been suggested as being involved in the BSE epidemic.
Perhaps this was overlooked to protect the profession - or would it have been a fatal blow to policy?
Other reports continue to support the view that BSE, CJD and other neurological diseases are the result of the corruption of the protein production systems of the metabolism by chemicals, especially OPs.

A recent quote suggested that both the scrapie and CJD disease processes could be reversed simply by injecting "missing" proteins of which there are thousands which could potentially present "cures".

Some have even been considered for use as vaccines against BSE in "at risk" cattle and it is of great interest to note that the reasons why those animals are especially "at risk" is not stated.

All this and much more indicate that all the information given to the Inquiry should be freely available both to research scientists and for appraisal by the general public.

Nothing should be held back as it is plain that the smallest indicators may lead to exciting discoveries which may have great benefits to mankind.

What is certain is that many individuals have offered freely of their time and knowledge in their efforts to help the Inquiry find the truth behind BSE.
Unlike the officials of Government they have no protection and they did their work for no reward save to help the search for truth.
They deserve better than this.

I suggest that many will find other ways to get the information to the public if the Inquiry fails them.

17th April 2000

UK Law, Human Rights and the "Duty of Care"

No doubt you are aware of the recent change in the Law which removed Legal Aid from the victims of Personal Injury and that this came into force from 31st March 2000 - just in time for All Fool’s Day.

This has considerable interest for those families in which members are, will be, or have been, suffering as a result of the BSE crisis for unless they are financially secure they will have no chance to gain their rightful compensation for injuries inflicted on them.

I am reliably informed that the No-Win, no-Fee system requires a considerable down-payment in addition to insurance premiums of at least £12,000 and that no insurers will cover those cases which may be controversial and/or likely to result in multiple high claims.

This includes the OP cases which may have a direct link to your work in the Inquiry.

Effectively this means that Governments and large companies can be in breach of their statutory duties and endanger their staff or the general public in the knowledge that Legal Action against them will be difficult.

I suggest that this will result in the further erosion of safety standards and greater risk to the public whose basic Human Rights seem to be increasingly compromised.
We may have the "Right" to life and a "Right" to Justice if our lives are threatened but those Rights are becoming increasingly difficult to enforce.

You may remember that I listed the evidence your staff required to show that it was an almost impossible task to get straight answers from various Government departments in my submission of 29th March 1998.
That situation continues and the PSD still refuse to address the issues of the safety of glyphosate and pirimiphos methyl.
They have admitted that glyphosate adversely affects the mitochondria which contain DNA sufficient to form several important proteins but they deny its anticholinesterase properties despite written confirmation in a paper by Dr Marrs and evidence from sample results of a victim in the USA.

They even refuse to name the toxicologist who claimed that the adverse effects on the proteolytic enzymes caused by pirimiphos methyl and the other safety data errors did not present cause for health concerns.

It is clear that another Government Agency, the Department of Social Security is also fond of hiding uncomfortable truths and their former colleagues in the DoH have shown their willingness to do the same when they produced that highly unprincipled document - the COT report on OPs last November.

Now we have what seems to be the deliberate introduction of false evidence into the Court proceedings for OP victims, as seen in my own case which has supporting documentation. Lord Archer seems to have demonstrated the dangers of such actions and yet we have Legal firms acting against their clients by using just such methods.

I have to say that it is with some surprise that I have to report that this is the third firm of solicitors to have attempted to hide the true facts of my own case.

This fact and evidence to support it has been sent to the Legal Aid Board - or the Legal Services Commission as it now appears to call itself.

There is therefore an increasing need for the BSE Inquiry to show that it cannot be intimidated by these vested interests and I was concerned to read that the Inquiry’s brief was to ignore all but scientific opinion.

Science is increasingly becoming detached from reality, as the letters I have from the PSD clearly show, and there is a real danger that if those of us who have made every effort to demonstrate the on-farm situation are ignored then those who have vested interests in hiding the truth will succeed.

p.s. I see the French suggest a "Mysterious Third Way" of BSE Transmission. I suggest it is no mystery!

Dated 16/9/2000

Go to top

  Return to Front Page;   Return to BSE file;