Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BrockW" data-source="post: 441299" data-attributes="member: 5910">That’s not really true. But there is some context that’s important to talk about. I have to say, this argument is somewhat paradoxical and kind of funny.On one hand some of you guys say the “approved” tests are all faulty and we can’t trust the results. And on the other hand, we can’t trust live tests because they aren’t “approved”. The logic that drives these arguments….its entertaining to watch.And while I know the argument will just keep shifting like an amoeba, I’ll give it a shot anyway.IHC, which is approved, can be used for live testing of RAMALT and tonsil biopsies. But these are invasive procedures, with a limited amount of times an animal can be sampled before scar tissue sort of impedes the tissue. This is widely approved within the farmed cervid industry. Texas and others have wrote it into their regs.RT quic is the test still waiting to be approved and the goal here is to have a less invasive “live” test that doesn’t require Anesthesia to take a biopsy. I believe they’ve looked at nasal swabs (like they use for human prion tests) and ear punches. They’re also comparing RTquic in standard tonsil and RAMALT biopsy samples. But even rt quic applied in this manner has reached a level of acceptance and accuracy that most are comfortable with. Even many of the deer farmers. They’re still trying to validate and quantify protocols, tissues, and some benchmarks within test results compared to ELISA and IHC.But Remember rt quic is unique because it can be used it different ways. It’s not quite as limited as IHC and Elisa, or western blot. Rt quic can test fluids like saliva, swab surfaces, MRPLN and still test biopsy samples. Remember, Rt quic is the only approved antemortem test for human prion diseases.But this idea that this Wisconsin study is shooting holes in the sky because there isn’t an official “live” test is nonsense. Google “antemortem CWD testing” and look at all the research that’s been done around the topic. IHC testing of antemortem biopsy samples is highly accurate with the only limitations being the number of times an animal can be sampled due to scar tissue, and the fact that in the RAMALT samples it lacked a little sensitivity and didn’t detect until later stages of disease. RT quic has shown the increased sensitivity though.If we were talking about these studies using live tests on a single animals, I would agree that’s weak evidence. But considering we’re talking thousands of animals on multiple studies, performed by multiple different research groups, in multiple regions of the country, using testing procedures with a high degree of confidence (that we can prove), this idea none of it scientifically sound is willfully denying the facts that are staring us right in the face.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA