If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
toxoplasma gondii
Pat's Note: I have just been doing some checking. For once my use of Google
has rather let me down. Many articles dealing with toxoplasmosis, don't actually use the word, prefering instead to talk about the actual parasite, rather than the condition. The explosive piece in the The Herald http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/67850.html this morning is merely representative of many others along the same lines published all over the place recently. That makes it merely a matter of time before the French Food Standards Agency allegations that Britain's Food Standards Agency has been covering up toxoplasmosis in pigs, becomes common knowledge. Even more explosive was the removal of the only article in the British media from the WWW, overnight following publication. Fortunately, I caught it during the short time frame it was available and, if you recall published it on the newsgroup uk.business.agriculture. For the convenience of readers, here again is the text of the supressed article - and I follow it with the a report published in English on the Continent dealing with the same allegations. As you can see they differ and from the dates you can see that it was probably the French publication that forced the UK pig industry to publish an article, which was quickly removed almost certainly as a result of pressure from the British Food Standards Agency. http://www.npa-uk.net/ June 13 Toxoplasmosis endemic in British pigs, claims French expert By Digby Scott According to some researchers, outdoor pigs are over 20 times more likely to be infected with toxoplasma gondii than indoor pigs. And now a respected French food safety expert, Dr Pascal Boireau, is claiming toxoplasmosis is endemic in the British national herd, where about a third of sows are kept outdoors. This claim could have important implications for the way British pork is marketed. As trichinella has not been detected in British pigmeat for 26 years consumers are gradually being weaned off the idea that pork has to be overcooked to be safe. All the evidence suggests that slightly pink pork is perfectly safe, and certainly more succulent and tender. But if toxoplasma gondii really is becoming a problem in outdoor pigs - and the evidence has yet to be produced - pork may once again be seen as a meat that must be handled with special care. Outdoor producers might therefore consider intensifying rodent control. They should also do what they can to discourage cats, which shelter toxoplasma gondii in their faeces. It will also be helpful if Defra decides to kill-out the pockets of feral wild boar in Britain. Pigs can be infected with toxoplasma gondii through ingesting contaminated feed, water, and soil, and by eating infected rodents. Toxoplasma gondii infection in food-producing animals is acknowledged as a potential public health problem by the Food Standards Agency. Infection can be transmitted to humans through the handling and consumption of raw or undercooked meat containing the organism. Although it does not present a hazard to normally healthy adults it can pose a threat to unborn children and to immunocompromised individuals such as the ill and elderly. It has been shown by researchers that pigs kept indoors are far less likely to be infected with the organism. Conversely, the problem of infection with outdoor pigs may be greater than was hitherto supposed. Researchers in Brazil found over 86 percent of outdoor pigs tested had antibodies to toxoplasma gondii. There is also evidence that the prevalence of toxoplasma gondii increases with age. Dr Pascal Boireau, a director of the French equivalent of the United Kingdom's Food Standards Agency, has suggested Britain is underplaying the risk of contracting toxoplasmosis from British pigmeat. He claims the toxoplasmosis threat is real and probably growing, and says more studies are needed, especially into animal-to-animal transmission. He acknowledges the truth in Britain's claim that the national pig herd is free of the parasite trichinella but says no such claim can be made for toxoplasmosis. He is also concerned about the situation in France where there are greater opportunities for outdoor pigs to be cross-contaminated from wild boar, where infection rates are running at 10-20 percent. http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/new...UK _pigs.html French scientist warns of dangerous parasite in UK pigs By Rick Pendrous Published: 12 June, 2006 The UK is underplaying the risk of contracting toxoplasmosis from home-reared pig meat, according to a French food safety expert who claims the parasite that causes the disease is endemic in the national herd. Dr Pascal Boireau, a director at AFSSA, the French equivalent of the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA), and a specialist in parasitic contamination of the food chain is carrying out research into the extent of the infection in his own country. He said the threat was real and probably growing, but more studies were needed, especially into animal to animal transmission. Although there are no figures to show the extent of infection in the UK, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) denies that toxoplasmosis is endemic. Meanwhile, the Food Standards Agency, which is more candid about its existence, warns pregnant women - who are at higher risk - against handling and eating raw and undercooked pork cuts, mince, and ready-meals. Since the 1960s, when the UK herd was declared free of the potentially dangerous parasitic zoonoses trichinella, consumer advice from the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC)¬ has implied that rare pork was no longer a source of danger. Boireau disagrees. "The UK is OK for trichinella, but for toxoplasmosis, no," he said. Elsewhere advice is confused. In the Irish Republic rare pork is declared safe to eat, while Northern Ireland follows the FSA's line, creating problems for organisations giving dietary advice across the island of Ireland. Although toxoplasmosis can also be found in the soil and is known to be present in cat faeces, Boireau claims "80% of contamination is from meat". He is particularly concerned about outdoor reared pork and the potential for cross contamination from wild boar, among whom infection rates in France are running at 10 to 20%. At a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food held at the FSA headquarters last week, the potential dangers of consumers contracting Heptitis E from undercooked pork joints were also highlighted. In France, where there is still a problem with trichinella infected horse meat, Boireau's team is working on an automated microscopic technique for measuring trichinella larvae in muscle using artificial digestion. The technique will be presented at a scientific conference later this year. -- Regards Pat Gardiner www.go-self-sufficient.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
toxoplasma gondii
Jill wrote: x posted to Cat groups! bless Hello "Carry on Stalking" Jill Thank you for raising the matter. Of course, I cross posted to the Cat groups, but for pressure of time I would have cross posted to pregnancy,radio therapy, compromised immune system and aids groups. Others will redistribute on my behalf, I expect All these groups of people are at special risk from toxoplasmosis. It is very important that the source and spread of the disease is understood. Senior scientists of the French government have made very serious allegations of a cover-up in Britain - the kind of cover-up that carries serious human health risks. That and the removal of British media reports reporting the allegation from the internet is a matter of public interest throughout the world. Some of the more outspoken "nationalist" groups are drawing all kinds of far-reaching conclusions from some of the associated research. I understand toxoplasmosis is rare in Israel! If Britain's pigs do have high levels of toxoplasma gondii, I can imagine what non-pork eaters will make of it. Toxoplasmosis might make commond ground between the Jews and Arabs. On the other hand, those living in temperate regions will draw the opposite deducations. It is a real hot potato. Regards Pat Gardiner www.go-self-sufficient.com -- regards Jill Bowis Pure bred utility chickens and ducks Housing; Equipment, Books, Videos, Gifts Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine nursery Working Holidays in Scotland http://www.kintaline.co.uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
toxoplasma gondii - more
"Pat Gardiner" wrote in message ... Pat's Note: I have just been doing some checking. For once my use of Google has rather let me down. Many articles dealing with toxoplasmosis, don't actually use the word, prefering instead to talk about the actual parasite, rather than the condition. Do you really think that Britain's corrupt veterinarians are going to keep this under wraps for ever? French government scientists have recently accused Britain's Food Standards Agency of hiding up toxoplasmosis in pigs. It is one "nasty bug" as the Germans would have it. Not the kind of bug that Britain's bent veterinarians should be caught hiding up Now, tonight, the Germans are on the move: http://www.innovations-report.de/htm...cht-69107.html Discovery of metabolic pathway for parasite could lead to new controls for diseases 15.08.2006 Discovery may benefit pregnant mothers and those with compromised immune systems Toxoplasma gondii is one nasty bug. A microscopic parasite, it lives in the intestinal tract of cats but can be carried by most warm-blooded animals. In humans, it can harm or even kill a developing fetus, and it can as well sicken those with compromised immune systems, such as AIDS patients. Now, for the first time, cellular biologists at the University of Georgia and the University of Pennsylvania have shown that fatty acid synthesis in T. gondii is essential for the parasite's survival. The discovery could lead to the development of new drugs to make the parasite's effects much less troublesome in both humans and animals. "New drugs with novel mechanisms of action are urgently needed," said Boris Striepen, a cellular biologist in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences and the Center for Tropical and Emerging Global Diseases at the University of Georgia. "This new study presents us with a viable target for such new drugs." The research was published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Other authors on the paper are Jolly Mazumdar, formerly a doctoral student at UGA and now a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, and Emma Wilson, Kate Masek and Christopher Hunter of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Toxoplasma belongs to a group of parasites that harbor a chloroplast-like organelle, the apicoplast. Chloroplasts are the home of photosynthesis in plants and algae and are responsible for the green color of leaves. Apicoplasts have long puzzled scientists. What does a parasite living in the brain or blood of humans have to do with a structure associated with harvesting sunlight? It turns out that the chloroplasts have additional functions, and it is these functions that the parasites require. Striepen and his team discovered that a special chloroplast fatty acid synthesis (FAS) pathway in T. gondii is essential for the parasite's ability to cause disease and to survive. Finding a way to turn off the functions of this pathway could make T. gondii a toothless tiger. "This is the first robust genetic evidence that a specific chloroplast pathway is essential to the organism," said Striepen. Humans also have a fatty acid synthesis pathway, but because it is entirely different from the one uncovered in T. gondii, drug developers could turn off the pathway in the parasite without harming the one in humans. This makes the parasite's vital FAS pathway a perfect target. This isn't the first time that the apicoplast has been seen as a target for drug intervention. The closely related malaria parasite also harbors an apicoplast. As early as 1998, researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia published a paper suggesting the apicoplast as a target for new antimalarial drugs. The new paper, however, is the first to explain that the fatty acid synthesis pathway in T. gondii is necessary for the parasite's survival and why. Toxoplasmosis often remains undiagnosed, and in healthy people, T. gondii causes few noticeable health problems. Its relatively benign status as a disease-carrying parasite, in fact, makes it ideal to study in the laboratory. It is also very amenable to genetic experiments and can serve as a model for such Apicomplexans as Plasmodium, the cause of malaria, one of the deadliest diseases on Earth. According to the World Health Organization there are 300 to 500 million clinical cases of malaria each year resulting in 1.5 to 2.7 million deaths. For pregnant women and those with compromised immune systems, the problems are much more dangerous. For instance, Toxoplasma encephalitis is one of the leading causes of death among AIDS patients. Fetuses that contract the disease from infected mothers may be born with learning disabilities, vision problems or mental retardation. Infections in those who are symptomatic are treatable; however, this treatment is not always effective and is often associated with toxicity, which is especially problematic in treating pregnant women. -- Regards Pat Gardiner www.go-self-sufficient.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
toxoplasma gondii
"Oh No" wrote in message oups.com... Thus spake Jane Gillett snip I think the point is that cats infect all other mammals, including humans. This is why the incidence of the toxo runs at ever higher levels (something in excess of 1/3 of us are exposed without knowing it). Most people develop immunity, but there is a threat to unborn children. The threat is much more widespread than that. Anyone with a compromised immune system is at risk. There are a number of conditions that give immunity problems, not least, but also not confined to, aids. My understanding is that most cancer sufferers will be at risk during chemo and radio therapy. When you set this against the French allegations that the British FSA have been covering it up in pigs, the BBQ season and attempts to encourage the undercooking of pork, the matter is extremely serious. Bear in mind this was the advice the British pig industry were giving "All the evidence suggests that slightly pink pork is perfectly safe, and certainly more succulent and tender." Domestic cats, although they obviously implicated in the life cycle of toxoplasmosis gondi, may not be the direct risk to humans they seem. Factory farmed pork may be the reason some nations have a big toxoplasmosis problem and others, the non pork eaters, have much less problems. Cats may well be off the toxoplasmosis hook. The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through civil sevice corruption. -- Regards Pat Gardiner www.go-self-sufficient.com Regards -- Charles Francis substitute charles for NotI to email |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
toxoplasma gondii
Pat Gardiner wrote: The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through civil sevice corruption. I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you make charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce documented evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that would stand up in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges of slander. Unless you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence is solid, you should reduce your accusations to a level that people can take seriously, otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of treatment you often get round here. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
toxoplasma gondii
"Oh No" wrote in message oups.com... Pat Gardiner wrote: The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through civil sevice corruption. I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you make charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce documented evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that would stand up in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges of slander. Unless you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence is solid, you should reduce your accusations to a level that people can take seriously, otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of treatment you often get round here. No, I said corruption and I meant it. The latest one uncovered is the small slaughterhouse scam, where the SVS "adapted" the EU regulations to ensure the employment of their fellow vets when cheaper non-vets were all that was needed. I do not think any of the government organisations I have criticised would dare take any action. They have too much to hide. You can't go suing people when hiding your own crimes behind crown immunity. With the greatest respect (genuine!) much of what most people believe of libel and slander is simply wrong. As one small example, I could not be guilty of slander, my comments are with one exception, when I called the SVS a bunch of crooks, I think, on BBC radio and got invited back as a result, are always in writing - hence potentially libellous - not slanderous. I say potentially because in almost every case they are not libellous in the legal sense, and even where they may be a bit sharp, all of the usual defences to libel apply. Do you know what the defences are? Check. Also, one thing you learn in business is that irrespective of the letter of the law, practicality rules. The practical day to day rules of commonsense will always come into play and mitigate against casual defamation actions. Charles, there was nothing I could do to make myself popular on uk.business.agriculture. The politburo decided on an all out gang attack. You know perfectly well, I was constantly abused and accused of not having given evidence to a Select Committee. I had - and Malcolm, in fairness, was the man to confirm it. How he got hold of a copy of the document is of no consequence. I took gratuitous abuse for a long time, before defending myself by retaliating. As you can see, the retaliation was effective. Now, let's turn to a more interesting point. I have always told all of you quite bluntly that the Americans were watching. If was no bluff, I knew that the American security services were fully appraised of what was going on here in Norfolk from September 2000. People who knew me well from my previous career, and that I knew were from the US security services, were reading and reported. You will appreciate that it is a federal offence to identify them. Surely by now, the more intelligent readers must know that I have enough commonsense to be unusually truthful in a sometimes frightening situation. Why would I lie? The attack on my former business career was ridiculous, and easily disprovable by reference to Companies House. I ran 17 companies, many in sensitive fields, had no busters, no bad debts and an impeccable record. I sold out twice, partly due to ill health, and in both cases solvent groups. I actually don't give a bugger whether anyone here believes me or not. The fact that they organise attacks using deliberate lies rather than simply ignoring me raises questions about their motives What I mostly care about is the human health risks caused by covering up animal epidemics in the UK. It has to stop and I regard it as an absolute moral imperative to do my best to improve matters. Fate put me at the centre of events and with the relevant experience to handle the situation. You don't walk away from something like that. As you probably realise I was given four months to live back in September 2004 and even after a successful rare operation, the five year survival rate was only 20 percent. I'm doing rather well, but do you seriously think that I would bother with all this, if I was not convinced of the truth, justice and importance of the case. I partially housebound for much of the time - and that together with the long term prognosis made litigation ridiculous in both directions. So I have to take the libels on the chin, but that won't stop me kicking the perpetrators all over the Usenet. -- Regards Pat Gardiner www.go-self-sufficient.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
toxoplasma gondii
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:45:56 +0100, "Pat Gardiner"
wrote: "Oh No" wrote in message roups.com... Pat Gardiner wrote: The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through civil sevice corruption. I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you make charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce documented evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that would stand up in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges of slander. Unless you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence is solid, you should reduce your accusations to a level that people can take seriously, otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of treatment you often get round here. No, I said corruption and I meant it. The latest one uncovered is the small slaughterhouse scam, where the SVS "adapted" the EU regulations to ensure the employment of their fellow vets when cheaper non-vets were all that was needed. I do not think any of the government organisations I have criticised would dare take any action. They have too much to hide. You can't go suing people when hiding your own crimes behind crown immunity. With the greatest respect (genuine!) much of what most people believe of libel and slander is simply wrong. As one small example, I could not be guilty of slander, my comments are with one exception, when I called the SVS a bunch of crooks, I think, on BBC radio and got invited back as a result, are always in writing - hence potentially libellous - not slanderous. I say potentially because in almost every case they are not libellous in the legal sense, and even where they may be a bit sharp, all of the usual defences to libel apply. Do you know what the defences are? Check. Also, one thing you learn in business is that irrespective of the letter of the law, practicality rules. The practical day to day rules of commonsense will always come into play and mitigate against casual defamation actions. Charles, there was nothing I could do to make myself popular on uk.business.agriculture. The politburo decided on an all out gang attack. You know perfectly well, I was constantly abused and accused of not having given evidence to a Select Committee. I had - and Malcolm, in fairness, was the man to confirm it. How he got hold of a copy of the document is of no consequence. I took gratuitous abuse for a long time, before defending myself by retaliating. As you can see, the retaliation was effective. Now, let's turn to a more interesting point. I have always told all of you quite bluntly that the Americans were watching. If was no bluff, I knew that the American security services were fully appraised of what was going on here in Norfolk from September 2000. People who knew me well from my previous career, and that I knew were from the US security services, were reading and reported. You will appreciate that it is a federal offence to identify them. Surely by now, the more intelligent readers must know that I have enough commonsense to be unusually truthful in a sometimes frightening situation. Why would I lie? The attack on my former business career was ridiculous, and easily disprovable by reference to Companies House. I ran 17 companies, many in sensitive fields, had no busters, no bad debts and an impeccable record. I sold out twice, partly due to ill health, and in both cases solvent groups. I actually don't give a bugger whether anyone here believes me or not. The fact that they organise attacks using deliberate lies rather than simply ignoring me raises questions about their motives What I mostly care about is the human health risks caused by covering up animal epidemics in the UK. It has to stop and I regard it as an absolute moral imperative to do my best to improve matters. Fate put me at the centre of events and with the relevant experience to handle the situation. You don't walk away from something like that. As you probably realise I was given four months to live back in September 2004 and even after a successful rare operation, the five year survival rate was only 20 percent. I'm doing rather well, but do you seriously think that I would bother with all this, if I was not convinced of the truth, justice and importance of the case. I partially housebound for much of the time - and that together with the long term prognosis made litigation ridiculous in both directions. So I have to take the libels on the chin, but that won't stop me kicking the perpetrators all over the Usenet. Jolly good show. If the very small, insignificant little bullies had a 1/10th of your courage and stamina, they wouldn't be bullies. Petty minded trolls like the contemptible and vile, Ogilvie, Oz, Webster and Stubbs etc will ensure there are always people like us to stand up to them. I have no doubt these bullies live that life 24/7, unable to fit into society, it's destroying them from within, and they're too dumb to see it. The rest of us just get on and enjoy life, when we're not poking them Who can blame one for giving better than they get in these circumstances? lol You just got to have principles, and the urge to stand by them. So take that bully boys, right where it hurts. In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world what's going on, you'll never change that |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
toxoplasma gondii
"©¿©" wrote in message ... On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:45:56 +0100, "Pat Gardiner" wrote: snip Jolly good show. If the very small, insignificant little bullies had a 1/10th of your courage and stamina, they wouldn't be bullies. Petty minded trolls like the contemptible and vile, Ogilvie, Oz, Webster and Stubbs etc will ensure there are always people like us to stand up to them. I have no doubt these bullies live that life 24/7, unable to fit into society, it's destroying them from within, and they're too dumb to see it. The rest of us just get on and enjoy life, when we're not poking them Who can blame one for giving better than they get in these circumstances? lol You just got to have principles, and the urge to stand by them. So take that bully boys, right where it hurts. In the meantime the rest of us will just get on with telling the world what's going on, you'll never change that Thank you, whoever you are ;o)) I must to rather liking cats and don't like them getting all the blame. -- Regards Pat Gardiner www.go-self-sufficient.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
toxoplasma gondii
Pat Gardiner wrote:
"Oh No" wrote in message oups.com... Pat Gardiner wrote: The whole thing needs a thorough investigation, not covering up, merely because Britain has cocked up yet another animal health problem through civil sevice corruption. I do think you should say incompetence rather than corruption. You might even find people round here start agreeing with you. If you make charges of corruption you should actually be able to produce documented evidence of people receiving bribes, or equivalent, that would stand up in court. Otherwise you are yourself open to charges of slander. Unless you have a solicitor's opinion that your evidence is solid, you should reduce your accusations to a level that people can take seriously, otherwise you are merely inviting the sort of treatment you often get round here. No, I said corruption and I meant it. The latest one uncovered is the small slaughterhouse scam, where the SVS "adapted" the EU regulations to ensure the employment of their fellow vets when cheaper non-vets were all that was needed. Evidence for that accusation? Without credible evidence you could be found guilty of libel. I do not think any of the government organisations I have criticised would dare take any action. They have too much to hide. You can't go suing people when hiding your own crimes behind crown immunity. I suspect they realise you are just another crackpot who is best ignored. With the greatest respect (genuine!) much of what most people believe of libel and slander is simply wrong. As one small example, I could not be guilty of slander, my comments are with one exception, when I called the SVS a bunch of crooks, I think, on BBC radio and got invited back as a result, are always in writing - hence potentially libellous - not slanderous. You got that right, even if "potentially" is rather understating it. In practice, of course, it doesn't matter if the wrong term is used, *until* legal action is contemplated. Both terms refer to defamation. However, when it comes to legal action it is important to get the term right. Not only does it prevent the action being summarily thrown out there are also differences in the assumptions made by the court and, to a limited extent, the defences that can be used. I say potentially because in almost every case they are not libellous in the legal sense, and even where they may be a bit sharp, all of the usual defences to libel apply. Do you know what the defences are? Check. Off the top of my head I can think of five and I doubt you could use any of them successfully should you try to sue any of the regulars here for statements they have made about you. Of the statements that I can readily recall, they are either obviously true or they are fair comment resulting from your posts to this group. Conversely, a number of the regulars could sue you, almost certainly successfully, for statements made by you about them. They are obviously defamatory, there is unlikely to be the slightest truth in them and they are obviously not "fair comment". However, the fact that you have zero credibility here is likely to severely limit the actual damage caused by your posts so it is not really very sensible for anyone to sue you, so far. Also, one thing you learn in business is that irrespective of the letter of the law, practicality rules. The practical day to day rules of commonsense will always come into play and mitigate against casual defamation actions. Indeed, example above. Charles, there was nothing I could do to make myself popular on uk.business.agriculture. The politburo decided on an all out gang attack. There is no "politburo" and there was no "gang attack", "all out" or otherwise. You do not have to be popular, just credible. You lost all credibility when you produced a pack of lies to claim that you could not provide any evidence for your quite remarkable claims. UBA was initially supportive and tried to get more detail from you so that you could be helped and advised. You refused to provide any additional information, lying as described above, and became abusive as the more sceptical posters began to post doubts about your claims. Eventually all the regulars came to the conclusion that your claims were at best very exaggerated or at worst pure fiction. You know perfectly well, I was constantly abused and accused of not having given evidence to a Select Committee. Not true! You were asked to provide evidence to support your claim. Your response was that the evidence was held by the House and could only be accessed in person at the House and that it would be contempt to publish that evidence here. I had - and Malcolm, in fairness, was the man to confirm it. How he got hold of a copy of the document is of no consequence. And demonstrated that your justification for not giving us the evidence was a pack of lies. I took gratuitous abuse for a long time, before defending myself by retaliating. Really? It appeared to me that it was us who suffered gratuitous abuse from you. The general response is to try to point out your errors. As you can see, the retaliation was effective. In ensuring that you lost the last vestiges of credibility. Now, let's turn to a more interesting point. I have always told all of you quite bluntly that the Americans were watching. If was no bluff, I knew that the American security services were fully appraised of what was going on here in Norfolk from September 2000. People who knew me well from my previous career, and that I knew were from the US security services, were reading and reported. You will appreciate that it is a federal offence to identify them. Oh dear, once again you cannot provide any evidence, and it is a quite remarkable claim. Surely by now, the more intelligent readers must know that I have enough commonsense to be unusually truthful in a sometimes frightening situation. I doubt anyone with any intelligence believes that. Why would I lie? My only thought, in response to that question, is that you are probably a troll. The attack on my former business career was ridiculous, and easily disprovable by reference to Companies House. I ran 17 companies, many in sensitive fields, had no busters, no bad debts and an impeccable record. I sold out twice, partly due to ill health, and in both cases solvent groups. As has been pointed out to you before, your posts here belie that claim. Since your posts here suggest you probably have difficulty running a bath no one is going to exert themselves to try to prove that you ran a single company, let alone a number and successfully. It is just not credible. I actually don't give a bugger whether anyone here believes me or not. The fact that they organise attacks using deliberate lies rather than simply ignoring me raises questions about their motives A review of the posts soon reveals that it is you who posts deliberate lies about other regulars. What I mostly care about is the human health risks caused by covering up animal epidemics in the UK. It has to stop and I regard it as an absolute moral imperative to do my best to improve matters. Fate put me at the centre of events and with the relevant experience to handle the situation. You don't walk away from something like that. *If* you truly believe that then you should be providing information supporting your case so that others here could support you. However, continuously repeating your initial ridiculous claims. pasting large chunks from newspapers and other sites and then making claims that are either not supported or barely evident from the paste does tend to destroy credibility. As you probably realise I was given four months to live back in September 2004 and even after a successful rare operation, the five year survival rate was only 20 percent. I'm doing rather well, but do you seriously think that I would bother with all this, if I was not convinced of the truth, justice and importance of the case. If that is true you have my sympathy. However, even if it is true it does not necessarily mean that your statements are true, or that you are convinced of their truth. It may be that you get a lot of pleasure out of being a troll. I partially housebound for much of the time - and that together with the long term prognosis made litigation ridiculous in both directions. So I have to take the libels on the chin, but that won't stop me kicking the perpetrators all over the Usenet. You wish. -- Old Codger e-mail use reply to field What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cats and mental illness - brief analysis of the research | Juls | Cat health & behaviour | 10 | November 16th 05 08:45 PM |
BEWARE !...Cat Owners !.. | Bigbazza | Cat anecdotes | 10 | June 24th 05 03:05 PM |
Cat predation studies | Alison | Cat health & behaviour | 48 | February 5th 04 04:17 AM |
Steatitis | S. Gass | Cat health & behaviour | 66 | August 3rd 03 12:54 AM |