Re: RC: Re: Animal by-products in feed

["Truman Prevatt, PhD" <truman.prevatt@netsrq.com>]

This argument has been raging for a long time and the whole problem with it is
there is very little research to back up most of the claims - on both sides. For
example there is evdience coming out of universities that the current trend in
immunizations is producing autoimmune. The response from the public heath
community that we should question thier approach to immunizations because that
appraoch wiped out smallpox.  So what? Just because it wipped out smallpox, does
not meet the level of experimental proof established in the scientific method by
Sr. Issac Newton. The should be the first to jump into funding extensive
research to determine if such ties do in fact exist.

On the other hand the hard line proponents on the other side of the question
insist that anything that did not originate with the Chinese 3000 years ago is
no good - in fact probably harmful.

The bottom line is both communities should be interested in finding the truth
rather than protecting their turf.

Much of the practice common today in vaccinations for example is based more on
economics than science. You make a lot more money selling a rabies vaccine every
year to the same dog owner than you do by selling it every three years. Also the
FDA has approved yearly rabies vaccinations, they have not approved 3 year
interivals. To get FDA approval the durg company would have to test and apply
for 3 year interval approval. So they would have to spend a lot of money to
prove that 3 years was sufficient just so they could sell 1/3 as much vaccine.
Now the CEO that did that would be fired tomorrow. So we are probably over
vaccinating our pets not to mention our  kids.

The out breaks and the inability to control Mad Cow disease in Europe shows that
we don't know all there is to know and we had better take care. Maybe we are a
bit caviler in the US, but according to a wire story a few weeks ago there is a
herd of dairy cattle in the US that is under observation for Mad Cow. So it may
just be here.  The helter skelter use of ground up animal products may not be
the smartest thing that could be done, in fact Mad Cow sort of leads one to
believe it isn't.

One final observation, many years there was a mircle product. It was a great
insulator, it probably even saved many lives by preventing the spread of fires.
It save countless people money in their heating bills. The stuff was wonderful.
It is asbestos. Of course today we know the whole of the story about asbestos.
DDT was also thought to be wonderful, until we found one little side effect on
the environment which ended up in the human body.

Do we really know the whole story about all the currently used perservatives -
some of which are recalled periodically because of side effects - I doubt it. Do
we know the whole story about the current trends of immuizations - probably not
and we probably won't know for 15 or 20 years. Should we stop using such things
cart blanch, that seems to be as much as individual decision as anything else.

I would just like to see more cold hard scientific investigation be applied to
the entire problem, the plus side and also the minus side.  For every thousand
dollars being spent to establish the effectness of a procedure, chemical or
biological agent, there is probably about one dollar being spent to examine the
long term effects of such.  Usually only after the side effect becomes obvious
in the public and to the public do such side effects become an issues. This
whole approach seems a bit one sided.

And finally before I get off my soap box, there is a difference in the goals of
"public health" and individual health.  Public health is concerned about the
health and well being of the population as a whole. Success is measured in
statistical.  It is a success when some procedure, chemical or biological agent
reduces some condition by some large percentage, with a side effect rate of some
acceptable level. This level is not zero.  Public health is a noble goal and the
professionals in that field have done a good job.

But if you are an individual that gets that side effect, then it is not a
success. So what is good for the masses is most likely not good for all
individuals. The next challenge for the public health establishment is to
maintain the health of the public in general while at the same time determining
all the potential side effects of procedures, chemical and biological agents
used to accomplish the goal and informing the public so each individual can make
an informed decision about how to manage their own health. All sides should be
working together on this.

T