Christoph Reuss wrote:
[snip]
>
> The gov't decision to not use vaccinations was NOT based on veterinarian
> or health considerations, but on the wish to continue animal exports.
> (Vaccinations can suppress the disease but don't establish "disease-free"
> status of the country.)
> So the situation was not one of conflicting expert advice in the same field
> (as you say is the case in the climate debate), but simply a case of
> economic considerations overruling scientific advice and precautions.
[snip]
I believe I read that some African country offered to
help Britain with the hoof-and-mouth disease epidemic,
by sending veterinary medicine --
because they have outbreaks of the disease every year and *cure* the
animals.
Unfortunately I did not write down the reference. If true,
it makes this phenomenon even more puzzling....
Unless, of course, being "certified 'disease free'" is more important
than being *really* healthy --> which would fit in with
the fundamental economic truth that what is important is not to make
quality products, but to make products which the consumer will
*perceive* as quality and therefore pay a high price for.
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
