The Old Folks Home

[Cynthia12]

Hunting? We are talking hunting! I've done a lot of hunting..deer, elk, pheasant, grouse. I have shot deer, nothing else. I'm good with a rifle, but now a shotgun!! You would think a shotgun would be easier with the spread it makes, but nooo..

I like Elk better than deer meat. Pheasant is better than grouse meat. My taste buds.

When I married this wonderful man I am married to now, he was shocked that I could shoot. Thought he was going to teach me a thing or two about shooting, but I had learned how back in the 70's. I enjoyed it back then, but don't do it at all now. Could if I had to though. The best deer meat I ate was a rump roast. Done in a crock pot. Made it pretty tender, plus, it had been found and cleaned out before the wilder taste could get to it..plus, it was a young one. I remember dressing an elk on our kitchen table!! Had my aunt and uncle over helping us. Had no idea what a job it was going to be. Never again. Got a lot of good meat though.

I remember my step dad bringing rabbit home, and it was hard to eat it, because of all the pellets in it...back in the 60's.

Ok, I know west nile...what is the triple E? Thinking I would rather not know, but probably should.

 

[Arielle]

Eastern Equine Encephalitis. EEE

I've wondered about how you would eat a bird full of shot!! Maybe stew it until the shot dropped to the bottom of the pot?? LOL

 

[Bunnylady]

Triple E is Eastern Equine Encephalitis. There is a Western and Venezuelan version, too. These are diseases that we have to get horses vaccinated for every year (twice yearly around here). They are mosquito-borne diseases, and like West Nile, have birds as an alternate host. The local Health Department used to use sentinel flocks of chickens to test for the presence of the diseases, but they now just accept that the diseases are present and go from there.

 

[Stumpy]

Venison isn't for everyone and it can vary in taste a great deal. I don't hunt myself. I had some elk sausage years ago and it was good.

I hope that all of you in the path of Sandy will get through the storm without damage.

Wisher, I am spending the weekend at MSU.....it's kind of quiet here now.

 

[debilorrah]

No words are needed.

 

[Cynthia12]

I could give that baby a !!

 

[superchemicalgirl]

Gah that's a cute outfit.

I'll do my best to answer the vaccine question:
1. It has to be profitable. Some of the vaccines we're talking about wouldn't be widely used in the population and wouldn't be worth it to the company to spend millions developing it and then setting up a manufacturing line. No return on investment.
2. It has to be testable to be proven safe and effective. The vaccines we're talking about don't have a large enough population that gets the disease for them to be able to test it and show that it works to prevent the disease. There are only an average of 6 cases of EEE a year in the US. There's no way with an N that small to be able to test the vaccine and show it reduces the risk of transmission. For a vaccine, and especially one that has such a low rate of transmission as this, it's impossible to set up a trial to prove causality. Another example: there's a vaccine available for tuberculosis, but I bet most of you haven't received it. That's because it's not available in the US because it doesn't show enough efficacy - it can be anywhere from 0 to 80% effective in people. That's not good enough for the FDA. It's available in Europe, though. Now imagine trying to set up a clinical trial for EEE, with a random 6 cases a year, to prove it reduces transmission enough to please the FDA. And no, ethically you can't expose people to EEE just to prove the vaccine works.
3. I came back to add this one: the rules for animal testing are much more lenient than for humans. Where humans you can't expose to infectuous agents on purpose, animals you can. So a trial for them is set up easier. We don't have the same rules for animals as humans - vaccines can be less effective and more side effects... who's going to complain?

Hopefully that answers the question.

 

[Arielle]

Gah that's a cute outfit.

I'll do my best to answer the vaccine question:
1. It has to be profitable. Some of the vaccines we're talking about wouldn't be widely used in the population and wouldn't be worth it to the company to spend millions developing it and then setting up a manufacturing line. No return on investment.
2. It has to be testable to be proven safe and effective. The vaccines we're talking about don't have a large enough population that gets the disease for them to be able to test it and show that it works to prevent the disease. There are only an average of 6 cases of EEE a year in the US. There's no way with an N that small to be able to test the vaccine and show it reduces the risk of transmission. For a vaccine, and especially one that has such a low rate of transmission as this, it's impossible to set up a trial to prove causality. Another example: there's a vaccine available for tuberculosis, but I bet most of you haven't received it. That's because it's not available in the US because it doesn't show enough efficacy - it can be anywhere from 0 to 80% effective in people. That's not good enough for the FDA. It's available in Europe, though. Now imagine trying to set up a clinical trial for EEE, with a random 6 cases a year, to prove it reduces transmission enough to please the FDA. And no, ethically you can't expose people to EEE just to prove the vaccine works.
3. I came back to add this one: the rules for animal testing are much more lenient than for humans. Where humans you can't expose to infectuous agents on purpose, animals you can. So a trial for them is set up easier. We don't have the same rules for animals as humans - vaccines can be less effective and more side effects... who's going to complain?

Hopefully that answers the question.

Guess I was thinking of the H1N1 senerio. THere was a great panic over an epidemic. DId we ever get many cases? THe government developed the vaccine to be given to all of the population in that situation. I still wonder if it was necessary. Would love to hear a discussion from those in the know.

Maybe we just need to support the bat population to eat all those mosquitoes to reduce West Nile and EEE. Maybe we should be getting the chickens tested for these diseases. The state tests every bird for Pullorum and 10% for AI. But not EE and west nile.

 

[Achickenwrangler#1]

There were plenty of cases of h1n1 and fatalities as well as hype from the press...what they did not sensationalize was the fact that more people die from the good old 'flu' than any specific strain....mostly the very young, old and weak. Every so often mother nature produces yet another attempt at population control.....I hope she doesn't get super serious about it.....Remember the smallpox scare several years ago? Terrorism and all that....regular people were freaking out, and suddenly every white powder found was suspect...I even had a person worried because she'd found white powder on the floor in her laundry room....sigh. there was alot of pressure to redevelope the small pox vaccine....but it flopped because NO one in the healthcare first responder position would take it, the vaccine, it killed alot of children, a very high mortality rate that was kept quiet because if parents knew how dangerous it was they'd refuse it for their children. I think they stopped it after the early 60's, so, if you have that little scar on your (usually left) shoulder, you've had the vaccine. Just a huge pet peeve of mine that people are so ****** careless about spreading their germs to others. Cough and sneeze into your elbow, wash your hands and for crying out loud, don't go to work if you can't do those things. Ok, rant is over, thanks for listening.

 

[ronott1]

There were plenty of cases of h1n1 and fatalities as well as hype from the press...what they did not sensationalize was the fact that more people die from the good old 'flu' than any specific strain....mostly the very young, old and weak. Every so often mother nature produces yet another attempt at population control.....I hope she doesn't get super serious about it.....Remember the smallpox scare several years ago? Terrorism and all that....regular people were freaking out, and suddenly every white powder found was suspect...I even had a person worried because she'd found white powder on the floor in her laundry room....sigh. there was alot of pressure to redevelope the small pox vaccine....but it flopped because NO one in the healthcare first responder position would take it, the vaccine, it killed alot of children, a very high mortality rate that was kept quiet because if parents knew how dangerous it was they'd refuse it for their children. I think they stopped it after the early 60's, so, if you have that little scar on your (usually left) shoulder, you've had the vaccine. Just a huge pet peeve of mine that people are so ****** careless about spreading their germs to others. Cough and sneeze into your elbow, wash your hands and for crying out loud, don't go to work if you can't do those things. Ok, rant is over, thanks for listening.

The Smallpox vaccine was a very good risk. It was 52% fatal. "Potentially life-threatening reactions occurred in 14 to 500 people out of every 1 million people vaccinated for the first time died from the vaccine."

Much higher risk to benefit with most other vaccines. Mareks for chickens saves 2% mortality?

Ron

Ron