Pat's Note: These mechanical translators are getting better.  I will
have to get one that translates my English into something readable

You can understand this.

The fascinating fact is that the Swedes had it as a notifiable
disease. Britain despite getting it much earlier than Sweden never
made it notifiable, thus attracting public criticism from the past
President of the OIE.

http://www.atl.nu/Article.jsp?article=48617&a=Det%20gick%20inte%20att%20vinna%20kampen%20mot%20PMWS

Thursday 28 August 2008 

Unable to win the battle against PMWS 

Sweden gives up the fight against grissjukdomen PMWS. 

The disease has spread all over Sweden since the first case was found
in Scania in december 2003. 

 Facts 

 PMWS 
 Post weaning multisystematic wasting syndrome, PMWS, caused by a
virus. 
 PMWS affects usually weaned pigs, eight to twelve weeks old. O. Often
described it as the dying.  Common symptoms are that the lean and may
be strained breathing.  Sometimes, they do suffer from jaundice and
diarrhoea. 
The mortality among the sick animals are relatively high. r. PMWS can
not infect humans. 

 Source: Swedish Animal Health and the National Veterinary Institute 

LRead more 
 Land stall between rounds prevent disease 

Dödligt grisvirus sprider sig i Sverige Dödligt grisvirus is spreading
in Sweden 
 The disease PMWS affects growing pigs.. It leads to lower growth and
thus create the costly for farmers. 

 After that, in just over four years have tried to overcome the
disease does Sweden now up the fight against PMWS.  According to
Swedish Animal Health's CEO Jan-Åke Robertsson bear 90 percent of pigs
in the country in the virus that causes the disease. 

I consider that half of all growing pigs in besättningsnivå from and
to exhibit symptomsThe disease is most common in large flocks, "he
says. 

 The attempts to stop the spread of disease is interrupted means that
pigs from infected and healthy livestock may be transported together. 
A vaccine that emerged in the last year means that healthy pigs are
not infected. 

 Robertsson feel that the symptoms of PMWS today is milder and more
vague than when the disease was first found in Sweden.  Sometimes it
may even be difficult to tell the difference between a healthy and an
affected herd. 

PMWS has been described as a disease that strikes hard against the
farmers' profitability. 
 Some pigs in a group is growing worse and when they have not killed,
they are underweight when they are sent to slaughter. 

The new vaccine has led to it is easier to correct the problems.
Farmer may choose to vaccinate either sows and gilts or piglets. r.
The economic damage is not as great. 

-- For example, if you get an outbreak in a game of piglets, you can
vaccinate the next round and thus have a rapid return to normal
production, "explains Jan-Åke Robertsson. 

 He continues: 
. -- If you have the slightest problem, so you should definitely not
withdraw to vaccinate. 

. He does not see the decision as a dismantling of Swedish disease
control. r. People who visited an infected herd must continue to avoid
other herds during the twelve hours. Skräcken är att fjolårets utbrott
av PRRS ska upprepas.Public alarm is that last year's outbreak of PRRS
should be repeated. 

 The decision to no longer control the spread of PMWS means that the
Swedish Board of Agriculture has removed the disease from the list of
notifiable animal diseases. 

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

In article , Pat Gardiner 
 writes
>Pat's Note: These mechanical translators are getting better.  I will
>have to get one that translates my English into something readable
>
Hmm, you clearly haven't learnt your lesson from the inaccurate 
translation from Danish to English which led you to claim, completely 
falsely because you didn't do the most obvious and basic check, that 
there would be "More intensive control *of* veterinarians"when in fact 
what was said was that there would be "The intensifying of control *by* 
vets.".

Still, no-one has ever expected you to learn from your many mistakes 
:-((

-- 
Malcolm

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:40:29 +0100, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , Pat Gardiner 
> writes
>>Pat's Note: These mechanical translators are getting better.  I will
>>have to get one that translates my English into something readable
>>
>Hmm, you clearly haven't learnt your lesson from the inaccurate 
>translation from Danish to English which led you to claim, completely 
>falsely because you didn't do the most obvious and basic check, that 
>there would be "More intensive control *of* veterinarians"when in fact 
>what was said was that there would be "The intensifying of control *by* 
>vets.".
>
>Still, no-one has ever expected you to learn from your many mistakes 
>:-((

Nonsence on

http://fd.fvm.dk/Nyheder.aspx?ID=16445&M=News&NewsID=5220


The translation by Danes into English clearly says

" More intensive control of veterinarians. "

I'll bet their English is better than your Danish

The British site:

http://www.thepigsite.com/swinenews/18891/denmark-seeks-better-animal-welfare

also clearly says

"More intensive control of veterinarians. "

OOOO

You are not telling the truth aagin Malcolm. 

Not only are you stalking, but in trying to creep round Scotland's
discredited veterinary industry, you will be earning the contempt of
all right thinking people everywhere.

All modern countries are now learning from Scotland's disasters by
getting their vets under proper control..

"More intensive control of veterinarians"

It could not be clearer. The Scandinavian veterinary industry are
being placed under tighter supervision.

I would have thought a resident of Islay would have shown more respect
to your former masters than to deliberately misquote them on such an
important matter.



-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:22:37 +0100, Pat Gardiner
 wrote:

>Pat's Note: These mechanical translators are getting better.  I will
>have to get one that translates my English into something readable
>
>You can understand this.
>
Yes. I have snipped some of the article, leaving some key
points.

>The fascinating fact is that the Swedes had it as a notifiable
>disease. Britain despite getting it much earlier than Sweden never
>made it notifiable, thus attracting public criticism from the past
>President of the OIE.
>
>http://www.atl.nu/Article.jsp?article=48617&a=Det%20gick%20inte%20att%20vinna%20kampen%20mot%20PMWS
>

> The attempts to stop the spread of disease is interrupted means that
>pigs from infected and healthy livestock may be transported together. 
>A vaccine that emerged in the last year means that healthy pigs are
>not infected. 
>
Note that: they are using a vaccine that prevents healthly pigs
from catching the disease when in contact with infected pigs.

> Robertsson feel that the symptoms of PMWS today is milder and more
>vague than when the disease was first found in Sweden.  Sometimes it
>may even be difficult to tell the difference between a healthy and an
>affected herd. 
>
The disease is less severe than it used to be.

>The new vaccine has led to it is easier to correct the problems.
>Farmer may choose to vaccinate either sows and gilts or piglets. r.
>The economic damage is not as great. 
>
>. He does not see the decision as a dismantling of Swedish disease
>control.


The headlines appear to be sensational and inaccurate.

    Unable to win the battle against PMWS
    
    Sweden gives up the fight against grissjukdomen PMWS.

The technical term for those headlines is Bollocks.

There has been a change of strategy. The attempt to prevent the
spread of the disease by isolation and other biosecurity
measures has failed. They now prevent the spread of the disease
by using vaccination.
>
> The decision to no longer control the spread of PMWS means that the
>Swedish Board of Agriculture has removed the disease from the list of
>notifiable animal diseases. 

According to the article it appears now to be non-notifiable for
two reasons:

1. the effects of the disease are less severe than 
   they used to be,

2. the spread of the disease can be prevented by vaccination.

It would be interesting to know why the regulatory approach was
unsuccessful. Were too many pigkeepers and others handling pigs
just ignoring the rules, perhaps?

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:09:09 +0100, Peter Duncanson
 wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:22:37 +0100, Pat Gardiner
> wrote:
>
>>Pat's Note: These mechanical translators are getting better.  I will
>>have to get one that translates my English into something readable
>>
>>You can understand this.
>>
>Yes. I have snipped some of the article, leaving some key
>points.
>
>>The fascinating fact is that the Swedes had it as a notifiable
>>disease. Britain despite getting it much earlier than Sweden never
>>made it notifiable, thus attracting public criticism from the past
>>President of the OIE.
>>
>>http://www.atl.nu/Article.jsp?article=48617&a=Det%20gick%20inte%20att%20vinna%20kampen%20mot%20PMWS
>>
>
>> The attempts to stop the spread of disease is interrupted means that
>>pigs from infected and healthy livestock may be transported together. 
>>A vaccine that emerged in the last year means that healthy pigs are
>>not infected. 
>>
>Note that: they are using a vaccine that prevents healthly pigs
>from catching the disease when in contact with infected pigs.

There are a number of vaccines. I think a fair summary would be that
none seem really to the satisfaction of the pig farmers despite the
claims of the promoters and producers.

The one supplied against vouchers by BPEX is still on trial, but
initial reactions are certainly not universal praise.

I get the feeling that this vaccine is more political (to enable
continuing supply of pigs into the food chain) rather than effective.

History may prove that to be churlish, but if I'm wrong I will be
happy to be proved wrong. There have been many false dawns with this
disease.

Put yourself in the position of having a bank manager breathing down
you neck and a herd of sick pigs. Most farmers are looking for a
placebo effect - on themselves. I find myself sympathetic.
>
>> Robertsson feel that the symptoms of PMWS today is milder and more
>>vague than when the disease was first found in Sweden.  Sometimes it
>>may even be difficult to tell the difference between a healthy and an
>>affected herd. 
>>
>The disease is less severe than it used to be.

PMWS is known to come in waves. It ebbs and flows, which is one of the
reasons it creates its own false dawns.
>
>>The new vaccine has led to it is easier to correct the problems.
>>Farmer may choose to vaccinate either sows and gilts or piglets. r.
>>The economic damage is not as great. 
>>
>>. He does not see the decision as a dismantling of Swedish disease
>>control.
>
>
>The headlines appear to be sensational and inaccurate.

>
>    Unable to win the battle against PMWS
>    
>    Sweden gives up the fight against grissjukdomen PMWS.
>
>The technical term for those headlines is Bollocks.

Maybe. The content is also a touch complacent. They have decided to
give up the fight and live with the disease. That is a defeat.
>
>There has been a change of strategy. The attempt to prevent the
>spread of the disease by isolation and other biosecurity
>measures has failed. They now prevent the spread of the disease
>by using vaccination.

It does not prevent the disease reliably. This is not yet vaccination
in the usual sense of the word. If you read up the technical
literature, and concentrate on the conclusions,  you will see that
nobody claims that degree of success....yet.

>>
>> The decision to no longer control the spread of PMWS means that the
>>Swedish Board of Agriculture has removed the disease from the list of
>>notifiable animal diseases. 
>
>According to the article it appears now to be non-notifiable for
>two reasons:
>
>1. the effects of the disease are less severe than 
>   they used to be,
>
>2. the spread of the disease can be prevented by vaccination.

I think I have answered both those points.
>
>It would be interesting to know why the regulatory approach was
>unsuccessful. Were too many pigkeepers and others handling pigs
>just ignoring the rules, perhaps?

The structure of the industry seems almost to have been designed to
spread disease. There is a constant movement and mixing of pigs and
pig people.

You saw the photos publicised by ***Pete*** a few months ago. That was
the result of absentee owners and often East European workers running
between multiple sites in the same ownership. It might work in an
ideal world, but not with a long standing and persistent epidemic. You
saw the piles of empty antibiotic packaging.

This is generally acknowledged within the industry although the
recognition came very late.  But a physical restructuring would cost
money and the running costs would be higher.

We live in a crazy world where doctors are rightly limiting antibiotic
use on people and it is actually increasing to keep sick pigs alive.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

For me, the answer would be simple.   I'd get out of the hog
business.   All the hassle and expense isn't worth the effort.
You folks in Europe seem to want to fight to make diseases notifiable
and compensatable.  The EU has done that in the past, but that system
has been abused by the UK.   So now, you're on your own, and still
under EU rules, which don't exactly serve 'cross the board all member
countries' producers equitably.

Whole system is a joke.

Burkie

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 01:09:09 +0100, Peter Duncanson
 wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:22:37 +0100, Pat Gardiner
> wrote:
>
>>Pat's Note: These mechanical translators are getting better.  I will
>>have to get one that translates my English into something readable
>>
>>You can understand this.
>>
>Yes. I have snipped some of the article, leaving some key
>points.
>
>>The fascinating fact is that the Swedes had it as a notifiable
>>disease. Britain despite getting it much earlier than Sweden never
>>made it notifiable, thus attracting public criticism from the past
>>President of the OIE.
>>
>>http://www.atl.nu/Article.jsp?article=48617&a=Det%20gick%20inte%20att%20vinna%20kampen%20mot%20PMWS
>>
>
>> The attempts to stop the spread of disease is interrupted means that
>>pigs from infected and healthy livestock may be transported together. 
>>A vaccine that emerged in the last year means that healthy pigs are
>>not infected. 
>>
>Note that: they are using a vaccine that prevents healthly pigs
>from catching the disease when in contact with infected pigs.
>
>> Robertsson feel that the symptoms of PMWS today is milder and more
>>vague than when the disease was first found in Sweden.  Sometimes it
>>may even be difficult to tell the difference between a healthy and an
>>affected herd. 
>>
>The disease is less severe than it used to be.
>
>>The new vaccine has led to it is easier to correct the problems.
>>Farmer may choose to vaccinate either sows and gilts or piglets. r.
>>The economic damage is not as great. 
>>
>>. He does not see the decision as a dismantling of Swedish disease
>>control.
>
>
>The headlines appear to be sensational and inaccurate.
>
>    Unable to win the battle against PMWS
>    
>    Sweden gives up the fight against grissjukdomen PMWS.
>
>The technical term for those headlines is Bollocks.
>
>There has been a change of strategy. The attempt to prevent the
>spread of the disease by isolation and other biosecurity
>measures has failed. They now prevent the spread of the disease
>by using vaccination.
>>
>> The decision to no longer control the spread of PMWS means that the
>>Swedish Board of Agriculture has removed the disease from the list of
>>notifiable animal diseases. 
>
>According to the article it appears now to be non-notifiable for
>two reasons:
>
>1. the effects of the disease are less severe than 
>   they used to be,
>
>2. the spread of the disease can be prevented by vaccination.
>
>It would be interesting to know why the regulatory approach was
>unsuccessful. Were too many pigkeepers and others handling pigs
>just ignoring the rules, perhaps?

Peter,

I should just add something to my earlier reply, perhaps the most
important response, but I was rushing this morning.

You missed quoting;

"According to
Swedish Animal Health's CEO Jan-Åke Robertsson bear 90 percent of pigs
in the country in the virus that causes the disease."

That really answers all the other questions. The headline is fair.

 If the vaccine was that effective, 90 percent of the pigs would not
still be infected. The proportion comes from a country with reliable
statistics from a notifiable disease. They have probebly decided ther
is no point in being the only country collecting statistics.

The current vaccines can best be described as having a palliative
effect. The situation is still confused with conflicting reports on a
little understood disease complex.

That still leaves us with possible direct human health risks that are
not necessarily abated by any such effect even when and where this
occurs.

The public health people  did at one stage put PMWS  into the lowest
category of direct risk, but this was heavily influenced by vets and
their were the usual comments referring to documents not in the public
domain, that did indicate rather less confidence.

That aside, we know that PMWS hit herds have to be kept on their feet
with antibiotics, hence the continuing increases in use in the UK.

We now have huge numbers of sick pigs, not just in the UK, providing a
reservoir for even more mutations to emerge.

You can't tackle animal or human health with PR people.

You need disciplined truthful scientists working with good data.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:58:32 -0700 (PDT), Burkie 
wrote:

>For me, the answer would be simple.   I'd get out of the hog
>business.   All the hassle and expense isn't worth the effort.
>You folks in Europe seem to want to fight to make diseases notifiable
>and compensatable.  The EU has done that in the past, but that system
>has been abused by the UK.   So now, you're on your own, and still
>under EU rules, which don't exactly serve 'cross the board all member
>countries' producers equitably.
>
>Whole system is a joke.

They have no way out. The big boys insist that they upgrade their
premises using bank loans.

Many are knee deep in debt. The banks and buisiness advisors have done
them no favours.

-- 
Regards
Pat Gardiner
Release the results of testing British pigs for MRSA and C.Diff now!
www.go-self-sufficient.com  and http://animal-epidemics.blogspot.com/
>
>Burkie