>>For a very compelling article regarding the true cause of Mad Cow Disease,
>>see
>>www.westonaprice.org/myths_truths_mad.html
>>
>>It gives a very strong argument against the idea that it comes from animal
>>part feeding, but rather from certain types of pesticides.

The pesticide theory fails to explain, that animals (even cats) develop BSE
with great probability if they get an *injection* of small amounts
 of nerve tissue from a diseased animal.

On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:06:25 -0800, Ingrid Bauer/J-C Catry
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Cows have been seen by a french writer of the 18 century to eat fish on the
>beach, scandinavian farmers of the past were supplementing cows with
>fishes, cows eat insects and their own placenta so i think it is safe to
>say that eating animal parts are part of their original diet ...

The main difference between cows beeing fed "cow powdered", and
cows eating occasionally fish or placentas is not only the amount,
but particularly the *circle*.
If the remainder of onw animal (possibly diseased) goes to the
*next generation* (beeing fed their anchestors, powdered), then there's no
end of a circle.
However the infection may work, in this way chain reactions can occur.

If you keep a herd of pigs inside the same space for some time
(> 3 months), they tend to develop worm diseases,
Pigs in the wild never come in contact with their own excrements over a long
time. Good chance for the parasites.

Cows were never continuously fed cows.
A disease could emerge.

Keeping agricultural animals in a tight space together caused a *lot* of
diseases to develop. All the diseases which killed so much native americans.
Chicken develop new varieties of flu every year.

Not only keeping mass animals together, but feeding them each other
was to expect the next stage of disease developments.
This is not what cows were designt to eat.

Ehm, what were humans designed to eat?
Shure?

Amadeus S.