Protection for British Livestock and Farmers
Open Letter to those interested in the present crisis - written May 20
Do you agree with the following points? I feel that I am holding many baffling pieces of a jigsaw. It needs someone of real ability to put them together.
Maff are hiding the true nature of the culling policy and the total of animals killed- mostly healthy - is likely to reach 6 million and perhaps more - Why? Why are great swathes of small farms being wiped out in the wildest and most tourist-visited areas of Britain? After eleven weeks, Dr Donaldson's denouncements, and the comments of other experts (such as Prof Brown at Plum Island and Paul Kitching, also at Pirbright) no one can seriously think that the 3km contiguous cull has any more credibility. It is also illegal according to EU law - which is why Maff will use all kinds of bluff, emotional blackmail and downright lies (against those who reject compensation) to get farmers voluntarily to agree to the cull. I have many details of instances where farmers have reluctantly agreed in the face of relentless pressure.
The illegality has been challenged by several solicitors - e.g Burgess Salmon of Bristol and Allayne Addy in Devon. Maff has ALWAYS backed down rather than risk losing at court.
WHY? If they are sure that what they are doing is right from every standpoint- why NOT go to court?
b. PUBLIC HEALTH
The government declared no more pyres (in spite of reassurances that they were safe) after the smoke was checked by Nuclear Chemical and Biological warfare teams. Now, we find that there is a BSE connection.
The scientists involved in the flawed modelling that resulted in the contiguous cull are BSE experts and GM apologists (The Oxford Zoology scientist group - David King, Roy Anderson,Sir (now Lord) Robert May FRS, President of the Royal Society & Krebs, ). I believe that Sir John Krebs - Head of the FSA, Head of the Food Standards Agency - has stated that his major worry is the possibility of BSE in sheep and that if it was found it might necessitate the culling of all sheep in the UK. One does not have to be addicted to conspiracy theories to start musing about the exact nature of this outbreak. There have been NO INDEPENDENT tests on the live virus. Not even Plum Island has received samples.
Why - when the two establishments have worked so closely in the past?
c) HOW DID THE FIRST SHEEP BECOME INFECTED?
I cannot see how infected meat could be responsible for giving the disease to sheep.
Some of the people who have been working for maff on the cull in Staffs and Cheshire say that there is much speculation amongst the Maff workers of a case in early January that was hushed up, but of course this is purely speculation. Could it be some sort of vaccine experiment gone wrong? The govt were at some pains to get the results from French tests on imported sheep reversed. Telegraph May 3 (French say FMD was not in sheep before Feb ) Telegraph May 3 - a bizarre story of "tests"
What is the truth behind the real origins of the outbreak?
d. THE APPARENTLY WILLING INVOLVEMENT OF NFU, VETS AND POLICE
Like everyone else, I thought at first that the NFU were simply taking a protectionist stance and had somehow managed to convince Maff to cooperate. But the meat trade will not recover now for a long time nor will Britain regain its FMD-free without vaccination status for the foreseeable future. Why is the NFU STILL acquiescing in this frenzied cull? Why have they REMAINED so set against vaccination? It has been abundantly demonstrated that slaughter can work at first when the outbreak is in its first localised state, but not in a larger, more widespread outbreak. Slaughter does of course work, eventually - any disease can be controlled by killing the whole population.
The current cull policies could not be applied if vets working as TVIs refused to help carry them out. If the BVA and BCVA publicly rejected these flawed policies their members would take notice and Govt/MAFF would have to change the policies. Without that level of support those few brave souls who are prepared to stand up and say something are easily dismissed as 'cranks and trouble makers' by the authorities.
Why this apparent silence from a profession dedicated to animal welfare in the face of the killing - without benefit of blood tests -of thousands and thousands of healthy animals?
( Roger Windsor. MBE. MA (Cantab), BSc (Edin)BVM&S, MRCVS. a Veterinary Surgeon, has called the situation a "total shambles". I spoke to him on May 7th . Mr Windsor said, "The scientist behind all this, the "Professor of Extermination", Professor Roy Anderson at Imperial College, is avid for government grants for projects, and must therefore at all costs show that this policy can succeed. I admit I'm in favour of a limited culling policy if it is necessary - but not for this policy of annihilation. What is happening is illegal.")
Why has there been a demand for all at Maff to sign the official secrets act?
e. WHY HAS THERE BEEN NO RELEASE OF SIMPLE TEN-MINUTE TEST KITS?
I know that there are several kits available for use at the farm-gate. Dr Mike Walker of Genesis Diagnostics has one such kit, imported from the All-Diag company in France. I phoned All-Diag a fortnight ago - to be told that there had been a strange delay in the publishing of the evaluation of this kit. That perhaps, since Pirbright now had it, the French were waiting for Pirbright's results. The next time I phoned All-Diag I was stonewalled and the girl I had spoken to was "not available".
Mick Bates, a Welsh Assembly Member, used the kit over a week ago and was worried enough by the results to request and get (unlike farmers "on suspicion" elsewhere) an official blood test. As far as I know there has STILL been no result given.
As for the Genesis Diagnostic kit itself, I hear that Pirbright and Elliot Morley are "impressed". But why then is it not being fast-tracked? There have been offers from USA of a similar test. Its use could clarify the situation for so many beleaguered farmers.
If the object is really to eradicate this disease would it not have been used as soon as it was shown to be effective?
How - in view of the non-fatal nature of this disease can the expenditure of £20 billion possibly NOT be an election issue?