Slashdot Mirror


New Test Spots Human Form of Mad Cow Disease With 100-Percent Accuracy (scientificamerican.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Scientific American: Eating beef from an animal infected with mad cow disease can lead to an untreatable condition that attacks the brain and is universally fatal, but symptoms can take decades to emerge. Thankfully, Claudio Soto, a neurologist at McGovern Medical School at UTHealth in Houston, and her team, as well as a team led by Daisy Bougard of the French Blood Establishment in Montpellier, France, have developed new blood-screening technology that can spot Mad Cow Disease (known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) with 100 percent accuracy -- perhaps years before it attacks. From the Scientific American: "Misfolded proteins called prions cause both mad cow and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Once they invade the brain, they begin recruiting normal proteins and forcing them to adopt the same abnormal shape. The prions and the blighted proteins clump together forming increasingly large aggregate deposits that wreak havoc on the brain and invariably lead to death. The disease, however, has a long incubation period. In the interim, the prions hang out in non-brain tissues such as the appendix and tonsils, and because they do not cause symptoms, the infected person becomes a silent carrier. [The two teams] ran the test on blood samples from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease patients in the U.K. and France. The two teams used slightly different methods, but the basic idea was the same: the test essentially mimics the progression of the disease in an accelerated, artificial environment. First the prion proteins are separated from the blood and combined with normal proteins, which take on an abnormal shape, forming aggregate clumps. Then, the aggregates are pulled apart and recombined with more normal proteins. The process is repeated over and over again, in effect replicating the prion proteins until very small quantities are amplified enough to be easily detected. If there are no prions present in the blood, nothing happens. Between the two studies, the test was able to identify a total of 32 cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease with 100% percent accuracy, and there were no false positives among the 391 controls, which included regular blood donors, patients with a different form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, and patients with other neurological diseases. In addition, Bougard's group was able to diagnose variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the blood of two patients 1.3 and 2.6 years before they developed clinical symptoms." The two studies -- "Detection of prions in blood from patients with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease" and "Detection of prions in the plasma of presymptomatic and symptomatic patients with variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease" -- were published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

133 comments

  1. One cow to another... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Two cows begin talking about mad cow epidemic.
    One says to the other how afraid he is of contracting the disease.
    The other seems unconcerned.
    The first cow becomes agitated at the indifference his friend is showing towards a threat which is affecting the whole cow community.
    The second cow replies "I can understand why you are so upset, but why should I be concerned? I'm a helicopter".

  2. VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please consider a lifestyle not of eating animal but of compassion.

    Most ppl. here are probably posting from a place that has three/four or five supermarkets within a 5 mile range of their residence.

    That supermarket has aisles full of cruelty-free and healthy alternative foods that you can buy.

    What is your excuse for eating meat, ***three*** times a day, at ***every** meal?

    Please meditate on this question. If you live in the developed Western word, what is your excuse for consuming animals when all sort or cruelty-free alternatives exist?

    I don't think you have any. That's just my AC opinion.

    1. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Most ppl. here are probably posting from a place that has three/four or five supermarkets within a 5 mile range of their residence.

      Nope. Sounds like you are suffering from dense overpopulation. Have you considered eating each other to thin the herd.

    2. Re: VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well I don't eat meat three times a day at every meal, but thanks for your blind assumptions.

      The reason meat is popular is because it's a cheap source of varied nutrients. Yes you can get a lot of nutrition from pure vegetable sources, but it's a lot harder to get a balanced diet. I cook vegan most of the time but I can tell you that a lot of people, maybe most can't cook and don't have the first clue about nutrition. If you force them to eat vegan then one hell of a lot of them will suffer through malnutrition to varying degrees. Animal suffering is bad, however; given a choice between a human suffering and an animal suffering then I'd choose for the human not to suffer every time.

      Campaign to change laws so that nutrition and cooking are taught in schools. Change them so animal suffering is reduced. Maybe then we can stop meat consumption but until then don't shout at random people on the Internet telling them that meat is murder. You'll be guilting them irrationally into malnutrition and that is wrong.

    3. Re:VEGAN by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please consider a lifestyle not of eating animal but of compassion.

      Most ppl. here are probably posting from a place that has three/four or five supermarkets within a 5 mile range of their residence.

      That supermarket has aisles full of cruelty-free and healthy alternative foods that you can buy.

      What is your excuse for eating meat,

      You ask that as if I need an excuse to eat food.

      Let me turn it around on you. What's your excuse for eating dead plants?
      What's your excuse for eating food that was grown by people that disturbed the natural soil just so they can make money?
      What's your excuse?

      Please meditate on this question.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re: VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      For every cow you don't eat, I'm going to start eating three. Your vegan ways have now officially caused more animals to die, good job.

    5. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me turn it around on you. What's your excuse for eating dead plants?

      Since you don't actually believe that eating plants is wrong, that is just a stupid rhetorical question.

    6. Re:VEGAN by quenda · · Score: 1

      So its OK to kill and eat plants or fungi, but not animals?
      I'll bet you would hold a different opinion if your were a plant.

      If there's one thing I hate more than a racist, it's a kingdomist.

    7. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would your BELIEF have to have an effect on me.

    8. Re:VEGAN by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Since you don't actually believe that eating plants is wrong, that is just a stupid rhetorical question.

      The question is what makes an animal superior to a plant. And the answer is fuck-all. Plants have senses and memory and can actually react in realtime to individuals who have done them harm. Plants engage in chemical warfare against one another, while animals do it the new-fangled way with tooth and claw.

      There's nothing morally superior about being food, which is what you are when you become a herbivore. You will be delicious when the climate apocalypse comes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you considered eating each other to thin the herd.

      That's actually another known vector for prion disease.

    10. Re: VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since he is not eating all the cows you would have to eat 3 times the number of cows on the planet.
      That seems quite impossible to me.

    11. Re:VEGAN by tsotha · · Score: 5, Funny

      Q: How can you tell someone is a Vegan?

      A: Don't worry, they'll fucking tell you.

    12. Re: VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plant fear reactions have been debunked since the 70's: http://skepdic.com/plants.html
      And animals need to kill a lot of plants in order to become a small amount of meat anyway.
      Please argue your point using facts.

    13. Re: VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't need an excuse to eat meat, any more than the wolf, the lion, or the eagle. Having said that, I don't eat meat at every meal, and not even at every dinner. Your portrayal of people who eat differently than you choose to as some kind of out of control gluttons is far too simplistic.

    14. Re:VEGAN by geekmux · · Score: 2

      Since you don't actually believe that eating plants is wrong, that is just a stupid rhetorical question.

      The question is what makes an animal superior to a plant. And the answer is fuck-all...

      Ironically, you answered your own question below, and you're wrong about that "fuck-all" part.

      There's nothing morally superior about being food, which is what you are when you become a herbivore...

      Nature itself has provided the answer, and morals or beliefs has nothing to do with the answer here, so we can remove that whole "human" part of the equation to avoid the shit man has injected into arguments for thousands of years, justifying warfare and bloodshed.

      Yes, nature has provided the answer. It's called the natural food chain. You answered the question yourself with the word herbivore, as in an organism that survives and thrives by consuming the plant life around them. Those creatures within our ecosystem that remain herbivores have no need or desire to become carnivores, but they are certainly superior to plants in the food chain that was created out of a natural need for balance.

      The animal that became a carnivore did so without any human interaction. Again, to feed and survive, creating the balance required for our entire ecosystem to thrive. Humans are even tasked today with hunting and killing certain animals in specific areas as part of a licensed cull, a necessary activity to protect and preserve this natural balance as well.

      And now we reach the top of the food chain; the human. Thousands of years ago, humans hunted animals because they were mentally superior enough to hunt and kill them. Had nothing to do with morals or beliefs, much like the animals they were hunting. It had to do with survival, and our caveman ancestor likely found that a large animal would feed an entire family a lot easier than a handful of plants, well before we had the knowledge about protein. And yes, today there is little need for humans to consume animals in order to survive. We have proven that many alternative diets work just fine. This fact does not dismiss the superiority of the creature armed with logic and opposable thumbs within the natural food chain, so yes, there is superiority.

      TL; DR - Morals or beliefs has nothing do with the fact that a natural food chain has defined superiority for thousands of years. Stop trying to bring the human elements in the argument that truly have nothing to do with it.

    15. Re:VEGAN by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      That's why I try avoid eating Vegans.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    16. Re:VEGAN by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Unless he is "the Audrey 2" (which he can't be because he's Vegan and Audrey 2 ate blood), I don't think he would have an opinion if he were a plant.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    17. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like the natural order so much, leave all your modern belongings behind and go live in a cave like those cavemen.

      Humans have evolved over million of years. You are simply using the "natural food chain" because you do not want to change. You really are a caveman.

    18. Re: VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FACT 1) Meat is delicious
      FACT 2) Plants aren't very appetizing
      FACT 3) Neither animals nor plants nor shitposters on slashdot amount to a hill of beans, metaphorically speaking

    19. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a vegan, and I approve this joke.

    20. Re: VEGAN by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

      agreed.

      I don't eat meat very much at all. There are some circumstances where, to be polite I will eat meat. But usually I will just ask "does this have meat in it?" and pass if it does or just pick the meat out.

      But if I am left to my own choice, I will not eat meat or drink milk.

      The vegetarian options have really exploded within the last 10 years or so. There becomes less reason to eat meat every day as more options become available.

      Heck, even BK has a veggie burger option now which is really encouraging.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    21. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three times a day? That would be awesome! I don't get bacon or sausage for breakfast very often. Who does?
      My 16-year-old daughter went vegan last year, and I can tell you, it's freaking EXPENSIVE.
      Those alternative foods you mention cost a lot more for equivalent nutrition to an omnivorous diet.
      Most people who "live in the developed Western world" just plain can't afford it.
      But that's okay, because animals are a great source of nutritious, delicious foods at much more reasonable prices.

    22. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill yourself. As slowly and painfully as possible.

    23. Re:VEGAN by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That supermarket has aisles full of cruelty-free and healthy alternative foods that you can buy.

      Your philosophy seems to be predicated on minimizing cruelty. Please meditate on the following.

      Contrary to what you learned in Disney movies, it is incredibly rare for an animal to die of disease or old age. The ultimate fate of nearly every living non-human animal on this planet is to be eaten alive. The fortunate ones die early in the process. Being diseased simply makes it easier for something to catch you and eat you (usually while you're still alive).

      You are incorrectly assuming a zero base state - that by not consuming meat, you are somehow saving these animals from suffering being eaten. That is not the case. You are merely delaying the inevitable. If you allow these animals to live out their natural lives, you consign the vast majority of them to suffer a cruel death just like in the above videos.

      OTOH, when I go fishing, I bleed my catch prior to taking it home to prepare as food. Based on testimony from people who have almost bled to death, this is one of the best ways to die - it feels like falling asleep. So given that (1) everything eventually dies, (2) your actions almost always lead to animals suffering a natural death by predation, and (3) my actions lead to them suffering the most painless death possible, my way actually results in less cruelty than yours.

      Put another way, your philosophy is based on the incorrect belief that an action (eating meat) means you are responsible for the consequences (an animal has to die), but inaction means you are not responsible for the consequences. But everything has consequences - both action and inaction. Choosing the route of inaction may make you feel better in a self-centered world-view, but in this case it actually increases the amount of cruelty that animals suffer.

    24. Re: VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's really stupid, you and your daughter should read a little. There's a huge cost plus industry behind all these vegan substitute foods, that are non foods. Save your money.

    25. Re:VEGAN by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Vegetarians and vegans are mobility bigots. They believe that if a life form doesn't move, it's fair game to be killed and eaten. They hold a deep seated prejudice against plants, or, as plants prefer to be called, "We Who Stand Still." This hateful philosophy is predicated on the idea that movement equals consciousness, or, if you will, a certain level of sacredness. To put it simply, if it walks, flies, or swims, or comes from something that does, it should not be ingested. If it doesn't, yum-yum.

      Of course when you ask vegetarians and vegans, they say no, they're only opposed to eating flesh. But what could be more fleshy than a mushroom? Or avocado? Or eggplant? The ugly truth is they are cowards who murder and devour anything that can't run away. These people, who act so high and mighty, so spiritually elevated, have somehow constructed a style of cuisine that would justify them eating my Uncle Murray, a man known for sitting still for hours at a time, staring at a TV that is turned off. So the next time you order a salad consider this: Prince told us that doves cry. But what if kale does too?

      Please meditate on this question.

    26. Re:VEGAN by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Err..we pretty much have to eat, what's wrong with choosing foods that do the least harm?

      Further, what do livestock eat? A lot of their food (grains) grown by humans - so if your concern is about humans, eating livestock doesn't make sense either since it requires *even more* human use and natural disruption, etc.. Less disruption would come if we ate the plants themselves, rather than inefficiently processing them through livestock. I welcome your renewed meditation on these questions. =)

    27. Re:VEGAN by geekmux · · Score: 1

      If you like the natural order so much, leave all your modern belongings behind and go live in a cave like those cavemen.

      Humans have evolved over million of years. You are simply using the "natural food chain" because you do not want to change. You really are a caveman.

      Wrong. I'm pointing out the fact that the natural food chain means that morals and ethics have nothing to do with the debate over what is superior. Nature has defined that quite well.

      And there's nothing superior about eating meat, because we have evolved in knowledge to determine that consuming meat is unnecessary for a human being to survive and maintain their health. That said, we have also evolved in our knowledge about the natural balance of our ecosystem, and hunting to cull the population of certain animals down has become a necessary activity to maintain that balance, so the killing of animals is not always for a basic need for food.

      Ironically, governments also maintain the ecosystem through laws and policies that affect our health in an effort to control the population of humans, who are the most harmful organisms on the planet.

    28. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern plants are highly evolved organisms. I remember to thank the plants and animals on my plate for their sacrifices. The soil the plants grow in is also alive, so I thank the microorganisms for creating the highly evolved growing environment that allowed those plants to grow. All life is connected.

    29. Re:VEGAN by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      "Cruelty Free" Last I noted , per Peter Thompkins research, that plants were capable of feeling. Does not eating beef mean that you're incapable of writing sentences without using silly abbreviations?

    30. Re:VEGAN by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I live in ranch country. You are mostly incorrect. For MOST OF THE YEAR cattle graze on grass which, last I noted, grew quite naturally in areas such as where I live, which of limited agricultural fertility with relatively small amounts of rainfall, but grows incredibly good grasslands. For a FEW WEEKS before slaughter they are fattened up with hay and grain. So, no, this is NOT inefficient.

    31. Re:VEGAN by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I pointed out that same information a few weeks ago. You can see what good stating facts is in this discussion.

      I grew up on a small produce farm in the upper midwest. I know how much labor and water it takes to grow a season of vegetables. But these fools still think they could plow up the grasslands and plant a vegetable garden easier than you raise your cattle.

      Merry Christmas.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    32. Re:VEGAN by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      In some areas yes, they graze, but other areas they hardly graze and are kept mostly confined. They eat a LOT at feedlots as well, I bet in those 'few weeks' one bull eats many times more grain than any human eats over several years (isn't it something like 20lbs a day?) And that's just cattle, only ~100 million of the 10 billion livestock animals in the US. And of them, many are dairy cows who are also kept confined and do not graze. The other 9.9 billion pigs and chickens don't graze, and have the crops grown for them. Do some research into how much of America's soy, wheat and corn goes to livestock: around 80% of each, and the return on nutrition is pretty pathetic.

      I'd prefer to see grasslands returned to nature and allow wildlife to reoccupy the space.

    33. Re:VEGAN by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Please see my reply to the reply on your post.

    34. Re:VEGAN by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you are trying to tell farmers and ranchers how they perform their jobs, right? You can keep making claims that aren't real, or ones that don't mean what you think they mean. We can keep correcting you.

      A) Most beef cattle graze on the grasslands for their first couple years, then are sent to feedlots for fattening before slaughter. Most milk cattle are fed with hay and corn stalks, not just the corn grain.

      B) You can't stop growing hay and feed corn, then grow a garden full of vegetables to feed to people. The soil support grass and grain, not tomatoes and lettuce. Not to mention the labor involved in vegetables is a lot more than rows of corn, let alone fields of grass with a herd of cows eating it.

      So after you get actual experience in raising your own food, come back and let us know how it goes.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    35. Re:VEGAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I eat meat, but the obvious counter to your argument is that if no one ate meat, the population of such food animals would decline to practically nothing (after so many generations of artificial selection for plumpness, the cattle will have little chance in the wild, though I wouldn't bet against some wild pigs surviving) and so suffering would be minimized.

    36. Re:VEGAN by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      You're just as guilty at assuming, you have no idea what my background is, and you conveniently ignored the vast majority of concerns in my post. I will assume you agree with the rest of my points, thanks!

    37. Re:VEGAN by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      And again, I don't see your point; for most of the years, the animals eat grass. Humans do not eat grass.

    38. Re:VEGAN by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Wildlife DO occupy the space. You MUST be an urban person -- those of us who actually live in the great empty between NY and LA really do know what we're doing. Remember, if humans weren't here we'd have continuous grass fires.

    39. Re:VEGAN by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Are you being dense on purpose? The vast majority (99.99%) of the 10 billion livestock in the US aren't roaming cattle. Now you tell me: what do all the chickens and pigs eat? 70% or more of all corn, soy and wheat grown in the US are fed to livestock. How is that efficient? You're using the person who smokes a few cigarettes a year to prove that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

    40. Re:VEGAN by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Your point regarding cattle is well taken. I was merely considering cattle. Interestingly enough since chickens and pigs eat food items that humans don't (aka 'chicken food' is often made from items in agriculture that do not become part of the food chain for humans) it still isn't clear to me that your claim is valid - or is it that we're reducing wasted consumable items that humans don't eat?

  3. Denny Crane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Denny Crane: Let me tell you something. When you got polar ice caps melting and breaking off into big chunks and you got Osama still hiding in a cave, planning his next attack, when you got other rogue nations with nuclear arsenals, and not to mention some wack-job, home-grown that can cancel you at any second and when you got...mad cow, now gets high priority. And when you're still on the balcony on a clear night, sipping scotch with your best friend, now is everything.
    Alan Shore: Here's to that.
    Denny Crane: Here's to now.

    1. Re: Denny Crane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      osama is indeed still hiding in a shithole awaiting to reunite with his cousin barak. Sand nlggers hijacked the white house, stirred civil wars and almost got hillary elected.

    2. Re: Denny Crane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Osama and GWB are the same man, now living in Dallas Texas. His death was staged, that's why he was fake buried at sea.

  4. Hopefully this will spot by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    The mad-cow disease before it mutates into "mad person disease" and then into "mad zombie disease".

    1. Re:Hopefully this will spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too late. 47% of USA has Mad Trump Disease.

      -9 political troll

    2. Re:Hopefully this will spot by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That's redundant.
      -10

    3. Re:Hopefully this will spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -9 political troll

      That's one nice political troll that doesn't interrupt the party as often.

    4. Re:Hopefully this will spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "47% of USA has Mad Trump Disease."

      Actually, it's more like ~19.37%. The Disease-Free Clinton got ~20.25%.
      The other ~60.38% either didn't vote for whatever reasons, or voted Third Party. In other words:
      "Four out of five Americans do not recommend Donald Trump."

      That is somewhat comforting to the four out of every five. Only one out of roughly every five Americans have Mad Trump Disease, and even then, it is only two out of every five, who have a symptomatic IQ below the Median of 100, that is infected. (Yes, correlation is not causation, but stupid is as stupid does.) The rest are Disease-Free.

      There have been various proposals to "fix" the situation where a Madman may actually be chosen, not elected, to the position of President. Most advocate the modification or elimination of the Electoral College, but perhaps the opposite path should be chosen: the Final Elimination of both the Electoral College _and_ the Popular Vote, leaving the choice of President up to Congress, which the Electoral College was designed to stand in for in the first place. This, coupled with a reasonable means for removal, involuntary if necessary, of Presidents who fail a No-Confidence procedure and following vote, may restore Sanity to the Body Politic.
      This may be something that four out of five Americans may find even more comforting.

      Captcha: option

  5. Gender in summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Claudio is not a "her".

  6. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "all these beef eaters" makes it sound like there's a lot. There's been about 200 cases ever since the disease emerged. A big fuss was made at the time and America banned British beef forcing beef eaters over there to do some their own growth-hormone treated tasteless beef.

  7. John Titor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Titor was right about that at least.

  8. Eathing meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised most ppl. on /. have such a hard time with this. What gives?

    1. Re: Eathing meat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're all hippy web developers, all the engineers are gone these days.

  9. Understanding the cause, prevention, maybe a cure by DanDD · · Score: 1

    Prions & protein folding diseases are no laughing matter.

    In all seriousness, for anyone interested in a possible prevention or cure, you might enjoy reading The Storied Man, about Paul Alan Cox, an ethnobotanist who has been chasing protein folding diseases around the world.

    I also highly recommend flying on Southwest Airlines.

    --
    "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
  10. Oh good, John Titor right again! by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

    lol. Remember that time traveler_0 from the 90's?

  11. the test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The test is simple: "Are You PMSing?"

  12. Have they tested Trump yet? by shanen · · Score: 1

    You knew the low-hanging fruit had to be harvested, eh? Like all those sour celebrities that Trump didn't even want to show up at his little ceremony next month...

    On the actual article, the process sounds quite a bit like the way they replicate DNA for analysis, but I don't understand the disease mechanism well enough to understand if that's really a good description of what they are doing. The notion of any diagnostic test that is completely reliable but which isn't working at the DNA level seems hard for me to buy into...

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  13. As I understand it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not that difficult. It occurs on a fairly regular monthly cycle.

  14. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red meat is good for you

  15. The real question: Who made who? by burni2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a feeling that many cannot remember the "mad cow crisis" in the 90s. Because after the crises var-CJD/MCD has not gotten much attention lately.

    Background:
    The interesting thing was, that there was some evidence that MCD was being transmitted onto cows by feeding them carcass meal (pulverized dead leftovers from slaugther - everything not sold .. like brain, eyes, bone, spinal matter, ..) which was then restricted.

    There were secondary hints, that the initial prion mutation could be the effect of a chemical agent used some years before in agriculture.

    Note: those prions could really multiply every generation through this kind of "recycling".

    However that crises took shape in england where it was observed that a higher than usual incident rate of CJD in humans occured and a conclusion was finally drawn between MCD and vCJD. Hint: "piri piri"

    Which finally lead to carcas meal ban in Summer 1996.

    The UK was at the center of the outbreak with very high incident rates. Public was kept in the dark for some time.

    Stastics:
    Now the interesting fact is in [1] which tells us, that there was a peak in 1992 contrary to the ban of 1996 I cannot explain that drop, it could be that using brain and spine for carcas meal production was forbidden.

    For a long time there was an import ban on bovine meat from UK in the EU.

    Interstingly there was a test developed for live cattle[2],
    which is not being used.

    The "walking dead" moment:
    Now the interesting point is that MCD-crisis is not really over, and this testing method explains that we might be infected by prions from cows with MCD, and even if a cow is not diagnosed with MCD - only cows older than 24 months are tested. A normal cow could carry those prions and we ingest those prions. However those cows never get diagnosed because not reaching the age where they'd show symptoms.

    And yes the sad moment is "some might be infected"
    the question who is infected?

    Sometimes it is only good to know for others (blood donation recipients) but not for you ?!

    Another conclusion can be drawn, that when having still cows with MCD it is likely that even now people get infected by MCD-prions, as of now.

    [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/w/ind...

    [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

    1. Re:The real question: Who made who? by BlackSupra · · Score: 1

      1995, the year CJD was a plot line in X-Files

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:The real question: Who made who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cows got Mad Cow Disease from being fed feed made from sheep that had scrapie another prion disease. There is a similar disease (Kuru) in New Guinea that is/was spread by eating the infected brains of your dead ancestors.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)

      I lived in the UK at the time of the infected meat, so I have a special interest.

  16. Chemical agent group of interest: Phosmet by burni2 · · Score: 1
  17. Rate of prion conversion dep. on ingested amount by burni2 · · Score: 1

    The problem with prions is that they need to multiply over time.

    Having a very early onset means you'd likely had ingested huge amounts of prion contaminated beef. But even if you have ingested some amount you might get hit later on, this is what they meant with "decades".

    So his conclusion is correct.

    Because he reduces the prion ingestion - there are still cows getting diagnosed, but the diagnoses is only done on older cows and on cows that show symptoms!

    And because the symptoms show up lately the unsymptomatic cows might have also infected you before.

  18. A VERY rare disease! by HuskyDog · · Score: 1

    The University of Edinburgh has a vCJD monitoring unit which records the instances of the disease in the UK. See their latest report. When reading it, it is important to note that it covers all types of CJD, but only the vCJD info is relevant to the mad cow issue (other types of CJD have, for example, genetic causes).

    The key take home facts are that (a) the total number of deaths so far in the UK since the disease emerged in 1995 is 178 (128 definite and the rest probable). 28 people died of the disease in 2000 and it has been in decline since then. In the last five years only TWO people have died of it, one in 2013 and one this year. There are ZERO current suspected living cases.

    It is of course possible that there could be a second wave of deaths since risk is known to be linked to genetic markers and their could be another genetic group with a much longer incubation period. But with each year with no deaths this seems less and less likely.

    1. Re:A VERY rare disease! by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      The tragedy is that in 1996 there where over a thousand excess deaths from salmonella as people switched from beef to other meats assuming that the choice was zero risk. So the scare back in 1996 resulted in roughly 1000 people losing their lives trying to avoid a disease that if they where going to get they where already infected as the really dangerous material for infection had already been removed from the food chain.
       

    2. Re:A VERY rare disease! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the numbers are going down is because most facilities refuse to test for it because it is nearly impossible to properly sterilize the equipment once contaminated with prions.

      They either have to bring the temperature up to ridiculous levels or else gut the lab and destroy the equipment once it is contaminated.

  19. Re:Rate of prion conversion dep. on ingested amoun by Sique · · Score: 1

    As far as it is currently known it is not possible to get Mad Cow Disease from eating the meat. Apparently it's only bone marrow, joint tissue or brain tissue that might contaminate you. The Mad Cow Disease was spread because non-meat remainings of cattle and sheep (with the similar disease Scrapy) were used in cattle and sheep food pellets to increase the protein content. Most interestingly though, certain Manganese compounds seem to trigger the creation of the prions that lead to Mad Cow Disease even in non-contaminated cows and sheep. So it's much more complicated than eat beaf = get Mad Cow Disease.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  20. Too little, too late by dr.Flake · · Score: 1

    The president elect had been formally elected by the electoral college.

    Testing him now will not change that.

    --
    Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
  21. Re:Rate of prion conversion dep. on ingested amoun by burni2 · · Score: 2

    From what is known this cannot be correct.

    1.) Because the test is a blood test, testing for prions present in the blood and multiplying them. Also do the prions accumulate in the tonsils and so on.

    Meaning: you will ingest prions and they can/will accumulate in you.

    2.) even by todays slaughtering standards, like separating the brain early out and sucking away the spinal mass. It cannot be excluded to contaminate the meat.

    Because to get to the spinal mass you need to cut it open. Also is the carcass split into halves by a chainsaw,
    does cut bones open to the marrow.

    And many industrial slaugthering houses do not adhere fully to the standards, its a very rough business.

    3.) the cases of vCJD in the UK cannot simply be explained to be only have been transmitted through brain tissue, because these people ate meat but perhaps they ate hamburger meat where you'd cannot really tell or taste if there was a brain among.

  22. Blast From the Past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Denny Crane

  23. Cannibalism in the UK by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    "the infected person becomes a silent carrier."

    How does one go about catching a prion infestation from such a person?

    1. Re:Cannibalism in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was waiting for someone to call out the use of terms that don't apply or at the very least give the wrong impression. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in all it's variants comes from genetic issues, ingesting tissue, or transplanted tissues.The prion is not a living thing. not like you can "catch" it. and as their is no treatment, the only use for this test is to screen tissue.

    2. Re:Cannibalism in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eat the person's brain and/or spinal tissue.

    3. Re:Cannibalism in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if that person dies, has their organs harvested, and you get implanted with the organ there is a slight chance you'll catch it from their tainted organs.

    4. Re:Cannibalism in the UK by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Tissue donation - aka corneal donation. Organ donation should the person happen to die of, say, a motor accident. I'm not sure about blood donation.

  24. 100-Percent accuracy? by MindStalker · · Score: 1

    I'm really bothered by this 100% accuracy claim. Based upon the study they can at best claim near 100% accuracy, or 99.9% accuracy. There isn't enough data to say its 100% accurate, there will always be some rate of error.

  25. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I *do* think about it when I eat beef: yum, tasty beef. I made stir fry with some top sirloin the day before yesterday, along with carrots, onion, broccoli, garlic, and ginger; served with basmati rice. It was great! I'm an omnivore.

  26. Theresa Mayhem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that's a mad cow.

  27. Just wondering... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Q: "Why do they call it PMS?"

    A: "Mad Cow Disease was taken."

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  28. Who gives a shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who gives a shit? Under 10 people have died from this in the US. More people die by falling in slippery showers. It is completely true that the money spent developing this test could have saved vastly many more lives by figuring out how to reduce the number of those sorts of fatalities realistically.

    The US keeps the dirty European meat out.

  29. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    America banned British blood too. Red cross in the US won't touch my blood with a 39.5 foot pole.

    Which really sucks because I do want to donate blood, and not just because my company gives time-off to people who donate (and we have a very stingy time off policy otherwise- and I can't take part in this).

    I wonder if this test will lead to me being able to donate blood in the future.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  30. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I gave blood very often until this policy came into effect. I'm O negative which they really like to get. I was in the Air Force and spent enough time in England to be included in the ban. So, all of these years, I have not been able to donate.

    I sure hope this means they will change this policy.

  31. Just to add on how rare by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    There has never been a case of vCJD associated with US or Australian beef. If I remember right all case were associated with European beef.

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:Just to add on how rare by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      There have been cases of cows infected in the US (and I think Australia, not sure), and people infected in the US and Australia, but I think all the people who were in the US and Australia had eaten British, or European beef at some point, so that is the assumed mode of infection.

      I suppose it's possible they could have been infected by US beef, but it would be a coincidence if they had, after eating British/European beef.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Just to add on how rare by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

      That's true. If you look at the stuff on Wikipedia it's 4 cows that tested positive and 3 people in the US with vCJD.(Although to be fair the tests on the cows apparently will always report negative on animals below a certain age.) However when you do a bit deeper digging with a link to the CDC you find all 3 people almost certainly got it from European beef. If I remember correctly 2 were British nationals and the other was a Saudi national.

      --
      Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  32. NO need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spin Black Sabbath's, Am I Going Insane. After listening, you will know if you are or you aren't.

  33. Re:Rate of prion conversion dep. on ingested amoun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about beef broth? I'd assume the bones are used for that. At least that's how I make chicken broth. Never tried making beef broth.

    Or what about gelatin?

  34. Uh oh... by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

    I'd better hide...

    --
    I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
  35. Don't eat the carcass by foolishness · · Score: 1

    There was a documentary made https://www.youtube.com/watch?... about a tribe that ate it's dead and got the human form of mad cows disease. From what I recall the disease is mostly concentrated near the bones. Cows got this disease because carcases were being ground up and mixed into their feed.

  36. Re:VEGAN-not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat natural food.

    This means that the cows for beef should eat the natural cow food, and this means grass, not corn.

    Corn makes cows sick, that is one reason they load them up with antibiotics.
    Grass fed beef has 90% less e. coli than corn fed beef. It has a more healthy fat profile for humans.

    Eating meat is not bad for people, eating contaminated factory meat can be bad for people.
    (antibiotics, bacteria, and hormones).

    As for suffering, animals should lead decent lives, then die quickly and painlessly as possible.
    Life in the food chain baby , it has been that way for millions of years.

  37. Here is the test, right here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Is the subject over 300 pounds?
    2. Does the subject have purple hair?
    3. Does the subject screech about "patriarchy" and "colonial oppression"?

    If the answer is yes, the subject is a mad cow.

  38. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is "cisgender" a way to label heterosexuals as sissy?

    No. Gender and sexuality are orthogonal. Male homosexuals are only sissies in Hollyweird and whatever gay lifestyle The Advocate wants to exist. Feminism needed some way to make sure that assigned males understood they were inferior beings no matter what body part was between their ears by labeling and othering trans women, which ultimately turned into trans women labeling womyn-born-womyn with a term that knocked them down a few notches on the ladder of authenticity. How this spilled over into needing label men I don't know.

    While feminism rejects trans men as traitors, the MRM seems welcoming to trans men. Feminism continues to view trans women as invaders and metaphysical rapists, and the MRM believes that trans women, despite the preponderance of libertarians in that demographic, are communists who want to feminize them for reasons they can't quite articulate. There's also a sense in the MRM, as it is with feminism and trans men, that trans women are traitors.

    And is adding "queer" to LGBT redundant?

    No. That's what LGBTQ is for. Other letters to add on to the LGBT thing are F for family and A for allies.

    Maybe LGBTP for "pan" is more informative?

    Not sure what pansexuality has to do with the above, but that works for me. (Though honestly not sure what pansexuality is.)

  39. Re:Please don't eat beef...!! by Revek · · Score: 1

    I do think about what I eat. Every tasty day.

  40. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I enjoyed the same meal, without the disgusting animal products, and I saved money!!

  41. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I refuse to give or take blood since the only way they have of screening for GRID/AIDS is to exclude homosexual men. Being a man who happens to be homosexual, does not have GRID/AIDS, and does not wish to be a part of the Hollyweird Gay Lifestyle The Advocate wants me to think is normal by getting GRID/AIDS, the best thing I can do is avoid accepting blood at all.

    I absolutely would rather die from blood loss than get sucked into this "gay lifestyle" where dying of GRID is a normal life stage. If I were to get blood, the only thing keeping me from getting GRID would be the honors system. Fuck that noise.

  42. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I absolutely would rather die from blood loss than get sucked into this "gay lifestyle" where dying of GRID is a normal life stage. If I were to get blood, the only thing keeping me from getting GRID would be the honors system. Fuck that noise.

    I'm a little confused by this, why would you have to get AIDS if you received blood? You would get it from the blood banks like everyone else, which, hopefully, is AIDS free.

    Personally, I don't think you shouldt shoot yourself in the foot and not accept blood just because the system is biased against you. That's not going to change their system or right any wrong, you would just suffer a needless death.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  43. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That sounds delicious. Do you use any sauce in particular with it?

  44. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GRID/AIDS can be transmitted by blood. It's not just anal sex that causes the disease. If a man with GRID were to lie and donate contaminated blood and if I were unlucky enough to have that blood pumped into my body, I would get GRID.

    I would rather die a clean, disease-free death from blood loss than die from GRID. I am very proud of not having GRID no matter how much Hollyweird says having GRID is a part of this "gay lifestyle." Everybody will die sooner or later, from old age, from disease, from an injury, etc. I refuse to die from homosexuality. I was born that way. It doesn't define who I am. If GRID weren't supposed to be some "natural" life stage of being homosexual, I would view it as any other disease. However, because the Narrative is that homosexuality causes death, I refuse to die simply because I had the misfortune of being homosexual. I don't believe that homosexuality needs to be a disease, no matter what Hollyweird and Christians say.

    On my deathbed, I want to be able to give Hollyweird and Christians a big fucking fat middle finger and say that I died because death is a natural part of life, not because I was a homosexual faggot freak.

    I can't do that if they put blood that's been contaminated with GRID in my body. Does that make sense?

  45. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the late 80s I met someone who had this way before it was ever in the news. He worked at a dairy somewhere around Fallston, MD. Don't know how he was diagnosed, but he knew he had it at the time and how many years he had left.

  46. the real story by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    And they ran the test worldwide and found that 100% of cases are Paypal customer support workers. I always suspected.

  47. Accuracy? by tempo36 · · Score: 1

    Someone feel free to correct me, but when I last did statistics we didn't use "accuracy" we always used sensitivity and specificity to talk about the likelihood of false positives and false negatives in samples. They do say that there was no false positives, so the test is 100% specific based on their sample to date (though no statistical formula will actually spit out 100%...let's just ignore that for a second) They don't mention sensitivity, and that's really the question if you're talking about screening blood donors. You don't want false negatives. They say they detected 32 cases but is it known that only 32 people had the disease? If 36 had the disease and the test didn't detect it in 3, it's only 90% sensitive. TL:DR I'm not sure that the article really knows what it's saying when it talks about "accuracy."

  48. Denny finally has his day. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    He can finally prove that he suffered from Mad Cow.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  49. Re:Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please go away. I'm tired of people such as yourself telling others what to eat.

      I'll make you a deal. You stop telling people to stop eating beef, gluten,salt, fat, or whatever the latest thing to be afraid of is, and I'll stop telling you to grow a pair.

  50. Re:Rate of prion conversion dep. on ingested amoun by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    The slaughter process explains this - if a capture-bolt gun is used (which is the majority of non-Halal western abattoirs), they basically punch a hole through the cow's skull, rupturing the brain. No doubt brain matter ends up in the bloodstream and gets carried through the body this way before the heart stops beating. The whole slaughter process is a really messy affair, there's also fecal matter everywhere - that's where a lot of the B12 in meat actually comes from (not the meat itself.) Yum.

  51. Happened to someone I know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CDC says that between 1996-2014 - 229 CJD cases were known world wide, four of those in the US. Yet I knew one person that
    died from it, rapidly and horribly. To me it seems improbable that of those four deaths one would be in my immediate very small circle.
    Sure it's just chance, but it always caused me to wonder if we were being told the truth.

  52. Further consideration.. by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    My apologies, I'm quite short on time today, but some facts that are worth considering (and I hope someone can dig these up):

    - they do very little testing for CJD in cattle in the US, if memory serves, it's like 1 in 10,000.

    - same with humans, very few humans are ever actually tested postmortem, although symptoms can be difficult to determine, and are very similar to Alzheimer's disease, of which we have a lot of people diagnosed with (previously the only way to test for vCJD was with a brain biopsy, which isn't a great idea in living people, and once they're dead, they often don't check)

    - when the article says it takes a long time to show, they mean a LONG time, as much as 40 years, last I read.

    If these facts are true, we really have no idea what the actual situation is like, both from the position of how many cattle have it here, and how many people are actually infected. Again, sorry I can't provide links today, but this ought to point people who are sincerely concerned in the right direction.

  53. Misplaced angst by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Please consider a lifestyle not of eating animal but of compassion.

    I prefer to acknowledge that I am an omnivore and be grateful that I have high quality food to eat including sources of animal protein.

    That supermarket has aisles full of cruelty-free and healthy alternative foods that you can buy.

    Does it really? Was your produce picked by well paid and well treated people? Furthermore I dispute your attempt to frame the argument to imply that all animal protein comes from sources that were cruel to the animals. That is demonstrably not true in a non-trivial number of cases. Furthermore you and I might have very different ideas of what constitutes cruelty.

    What is your excuse for eating meat, ***three*** times a day, at ***every** meal?

    I don't. I might have a piece of meat once a day under normal circumstances, often once every 2-3 days. As for an excuse, I don't need one and don't apologize for eating animal protein if the mood strikes me. I'm an omnivore and I'm ok with that. I'm grateful to the animal that gave it's life so that mine may continue. I also raise chickens and consume the eggs which provides significant percentages of my protein needs. My making a choice to not eat meat will not improve the lives of a single animal. Not one. The meat will still be produced and sold even if I don't buy it. If you are concerned about how animals are treated then you need to look at the other end of the supply chain and work to improve regulations ensuring the humane treatment of animals.

  54. Can finally donate blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, in the US when you donate blood one must fill out a questionnaire. One of the questions is did you ever live in Europe between years X to Y (I think the 80's and 90's). Well, having done that 20+ years ago, and also eaten one burger in Europe apparently I, (and others), are not allowed to donate blood. Lest we still be diseased!

    Finally a test that can prove someone is fine.

    * well at least I think so, I mean just because I still like to wear a horned opera helmet and moo at passing cars does not mean I'm infected. It's a legitimate hobby I tell you!!!

  55. Good thesis but sloppy argument by sjbe · · Score: 2

    OTOH, when I go fishing, I bleed my catch prior to taking it home to prepare as food. Based on testimony from people who have almost bled to death, this is one of the best ways to die - it feels like falling asleep.

    Yeah except for that rather nasty knife cut that hurts like hell. And the hook. And the oxygen hunger from being yanked out of the water. Other than that it's just peaches and rainbows.

    Seriously, it's ok to fish and I have no problem with that. Just don't think I'm deluded enough to think that fishing is some sort of comfortable death for the fish. It isn't. It's approximately as nasty as being caught by any other predator. Maybe gentler than an immediate evisceration but not by much.

    your actions almost always lead to animals suffering a natural death by predation,

    That does not apply to domesticated livestock in most cases. You are correct but kind of talking apples and oranges.

    my actions lead to them suffering the most painless death possible, my way actually results in less cruelty than yours.

    Baloney. If you shop at a supermarket that is not true by definition. I don't actually have a problem with consumption of meat but pretending that the animals who were slaughtered to bring you your meal were treated kindly. Sometimes they were but often they weren't. Industrial scale meat production isn't easy to reconcile with humane treatment of animals. A sad but true fact.

    But everything has consequences - both action and inaction.

    Quite right. I agree with your general thesis, just not some of the parts of the argument. I think your conclusion is correct but your path to get there needs a more robust set of supporting arguments.

  56. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by tempo36 · · Score: 1

    Or, ya know, you could be aware that we test donated blood by PCR now. The likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS via blood transfusion is vanishingly small in the US. I would go so far as to say that it approaches zero. Nothing is perfect...but PCR HIV screening of blood products is pretty damn near it. My quick literature review shows one case of transmission in 2008 since we started more advanced screening in 1999. That's pretty good screening.

  57. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it doesn't. You sound angry at the system but I don't think anyone would deliberately treat you with infected blood. The hippocratic oath is to "Do no harm". It isn't "Do no harm, unless they're homosexual".

    That said, I'm pretty sure there's infected blood in the system and I'm reasonably sure I'd be unlucky enough to receive it. I'm also sure the doctor performing the transfusion would give zero shits before or after the fact because it would be impossible to prove. That's not malice that's negligence, and it doesn't matter if you're gay or not.

  58. Re: Please don't eat beef...!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm also sure the doctor performing the transfusion would give zero shits before or after the fact because it would be impossible to prove.

    That's an important point. If you're heterosexual and you develop GRID because of this kind of negligence, people will view you as a victim and you'll still be able to die honorably. Since I'm homosexual, people will assume that I got GRID from sexual promiscuity, which I do not engage in, and I would die without honor. That's where it matters whether you're gay or not.

    I had meant to imply that if GRID were like any other disease, then I would be ok with accepting the risk. GRID is not like any other disease. It does not matter that they call it AIDS these days and can show that even babies can be born with it from mothers who have AIDS. Most people still view GRID as god's punishment for homosexuality.

    If I'm angry at any party here, I'm angry with god for making me homosexual.

  59. Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any progress in understanding, diagnosing and eventually treatment is welcome.

    My Mother in law died this year from Multiple System Atrophy(MSA). This disease is said to be diagnosed at rate of about 1 per million per year. We didn't receive a diagnosis for her symptoms until 6 months before she died. No pattern of diagnosis has been established through DNA or Exposure. Its progress is thus; you get the disease, then you get support therapy while a part of your brain fails then die.The field of prion research still seems in its infancy. I wish Robin Williams had suffered through the indignity of his disease (Lewy body dementia) to bring awareness to it. MSA, BSE-CJD ALS, LBD ect.

    Even the basic understanding of the brain lymphatic system is surprising recent, 2014!
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/opinion/sunday/goodnight-sleep-clean.html

  60. ascending the food chain by CmdrTamale · · Score: 1

    And now we reach the top of the food chain; the human.

    ...top of the food chain; the WORM...

    FTFY

    --
    Vegans produce more methane than omnivores do...
    Vegans CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING!

  61. Red Cross by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Red Cross needs these tests ASAP. As a former Gallon blood donor, I would like to restart my donations. However, in the US, if you lived overseas during the 80's, (Which I did), you are banned from giving blood, due to fears of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.

    This could be a great boon to the blood banks, as my A+ blood is the most commonly needed...