Home page

News Arena

Mark's Theory - The cause of BSE

The Magnetics of Madness

Meetings

Media Arena

Flood Document & Response

News Arena

News - September 2007 -

	News - August 2004 - Mark's Theory - The Cause of BSE - Click here!
	News - March 2004 - Fresh research from Saskatoon Uni is used to discredit Purdey's theory. Read Mark's defence to the document authored by Professor Peter Flood on behalf of the Dept of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, Saskatchewan University for the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture and Food - Click here!
	News - January 2004 - Who can trust the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on issues of confidentiality? - As follows ...Meanwhile, back in the UK, the cases of BSE are actually rising despite the banning of the meat and bone back in 1988. Yet whenever DEFRA officials are publicly challenged over their refusal to fund my environmental TSE origin work, they reply by stating that "I had been offered funding, but I refused". This is completely untrue. I have never been offered funding by any UK body for my research. Ironically, Whenever I have applied for funding , it has cost me dearly in terms of personal time and money and emotional energy, only to find that my application is rejected at the end of the day for a host of irrelevant and irrational unscientific reasons. Furthermore, the DEFRA officials have deliberately breached the terms of confidentiality that surround any submission of research data to them from external entities, (See the memos of two DEFRA officials posted below; where they are clearly stating between themselves that it's OK to go on circulating my research proposal documents as long as I do not get to find out about it ). As a result of this breach of confidentiality, a precise duplication of my original research protocol and accompanying ideas were outright plagerised by an unethical research scientist who had reviewed my grant proposal on behalf of DEFRA . Whilst my own grant proposal was rejected, I later found out that this individual had amassed a research team around some of my former collaborators, and then gone on to win millions of Euros of grant award from the EU commission - on the back of my own self funded work. I remain totally un-funded.  Mark Purdey - 5th January 2004

News - May 2003 -
My Meeting with the Minister

Thursday May 15th 2003, I met with Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, and Lord Tom King, former Defence Minister, at the DEFRA headquarters where I informed them over some of my startling new findings collected during my latest USA research visit. 

They seemed more than keen to ensure that I was funded properly for my research, but then sadly handed me over to the very same senior government officials in the chief science group who were responsible for rejecting my last grant application. So once again, it seems that the officials, as opposed to the Ministers, have the final control of what research directions are followed. 

There seemed to be an overriding misconception at the meeting that the peer reviewers had spiked my last grant application, but I was quick to point out that the DEFRA officials had in fact been responsible for the rejection, rather than the reviewers. Considering four and a half of the five reviewers had actually come out in support of funding my three year research study, it was DEFRA who had chosen to focus upon the one single negative review and run with that at the end of the day - irrespective of the validity of my protest. 

So was I naive enough to have my fingers burnt yet again; and watch all my latest red hot data get whisked away and publicly ridiculed, but then ironically plagiarized and cuckooed out by some suitably 'tame' professor, appointed by DEFRA, into a further application that gets submitted to some alternative funding body like the EU and then funded to the tune of one million pounds? 

That ordeal personally destroyed me and my family. 

Mark Purdey - 23rd May 2003

News - February 2003 -
Presentation by Mark Purdey

News - January 2003 -
Feed Storage Logic?

I was disturbed to read a recent article in Farmers Weekly about farmers under threat of prosecution for storing pet food next to cattle feed - due to the alleged meat and bone (MBM)/BSE risk. 

I guess that we are all going to have to accept that the totalitarian diktat of DEFRA has totally overstepped the mark of rational scientific logic. But, in any fair democratic society,

News - June 2003 -
Why?  

Who is questioning the scientific reasoning of the German authorities for executing their final farcical solution for scrapie control ?  

Their latest annihilation of just another 10,000 healthy sheep has been met with almost complacent acceptance. This kind of perverse and senseless 'carry on' has sadly become the daily 'non-story'  of our modern times; such reports seem to pop up with ever increasing frequency from all over the globe -  annihilation of a herd of waterbuffalo in Vancouver , a flock of sheep from Vermont, flocks of sheep in Sardinia, deer herds across Wisconsin, 400,000 cows in Germany. What next........the entire British BSE-free sheep flock?

But, please could one person from this select clique of "experts" who are promoting this global master plan just explain what scientific grounds you are working on ?

If you study the most basic rudiments of the history of scrapie from around the world, it becomes clearly evident that this disease does NOT spread via animal to animal contact or via ingestion of the one by the other. For instance, when I was researching the most intensive hotspots of sheep scrapie in the world - around the most Northerly Icelandic fjords  - I found that Icelandic sheep farmers had adopted their own custom of slaughtering any sheep the moment they spotted the first symptoms of scrapie emerging. This practise was not followed because of any fear of the disease transmitting - since scrapie had been hovering around for light years in Iceland - but followed due to the farmer's interest in eating the sheep (brains and all!) before the wasting symptoms of scrapie had time to reduce the edible flesh to negligible quantities.

So if scrapie can be passed onto humans via consumption - as the authorities would have us believe - why have no cases of CJD erupted in these Icelandic sheep farmers? In fact, Iceland has only ever witnessed two cases of CJD in its entire medical history, and these victims had both hailed the scrapie-free district in the far south of  the country.

A historical study of official government attempts to control scrapie in Iceland and chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Colorado reveals the repeated FAILURE of these wholesale slaughter programmes in the most notorious spongiform hotspot areas. Disturbingly, none of these authorities seem to have learnt their lesson, and are busy channelling public funds back into fresh slaughter regimes that are no different to the schemes that have
already failed !!

After the deer and sheep had been culled across the vast tracts of land contained in the scrapie/CWD endemic regions, the fresh livestock that were introduced after a four year fallow period simply started to go down with the disease once again. The repeated failure of these trials clearly indicates that the cause of this disease lies in the particular ENVIRONMENT where these animals were pastured. It must lie with certain unusual factors shared by the ecosystems where these spongiform hotspots occurr. An analytical study of these regions provides a golden opportunity to pinpoint the aetiological needle in the causal haystack.

One such ideal research study presented itself to me after I located two Icelandic valleys ten miles apart; where one valley hosted sheep flocks which were literally riddled with scrapie, whereas the other valley supported sheep flocks which were entirely scrapie free. Intriguingly, sheep from both valleys were freely intermixing on the open mountain during summertime - once again discrediting the conventional mindset which suggests scrapie transmits via animal to animal contact.

So it has to be some environmental factor that is present in the scrapie valley, yet absent in the scrapie free valley, that lies at the root of this causal problem.   I  carried out many self funded field analyses in the Icelandic and other cluster regions in Japan, Slovakia, New Quinea, Colorado, Italy, Sardinia, etc and have actually isolated those common toxic denominators - key factors which have subsequently been shown to produce the fully fledged toxic prion in laboratory cell cultures - eg; the malformed prion protein which characterises the brains of all animals affected with spongiform disease. Despite publication in a variety of prestigeous scientific journals, the authorities and their key advisors are blindly ignoring these findings. Not only are they ignoring this extremely important work, but they are doing their utmost to overtly criminalise, marginalise and victimise those of us who are trying to pursue this line of research; and using public money to implement their insidious mode of oppression into the bargain !!  

Whilst it is true that all of these spongiform diseases require a genetic susceptibility component in the causal interplay, those susceptible individuals still require exposure to the toxic environmental factors before the disease can ever manifest itself; Witness, the large number of scrapie susceptible sheep that live in Australia but never develop the outward symptoms of scrapie. Yet whenever these sheep are exported to countries where scrapie is endemic, symptoms of scrapie invariably break out - presumably because the environmental causal factors are present in these countries whilst remaining absent in Australia.

The same scenario is duplicated in the case of a CJD susceptible Greek-Italian population that live in several areas across Southern Italy. But CJD has only broken out at 'sky high' incidence in one tiny hamlet where these people live - a hamlet that is exclusively exposed to the environmental triggers for spongiform disease.  
Since all of the evidence points to the fact that spongiform diseases are caused by a clear cut combination of genetic and toxic environmental factors, why do the authorities worldwide continue to handle these diseases as if they stem from highly infectious origins?
I can only assume that the rigid adherence of Establishment bodies to the reductionist mindset - regardless of whatever new evidence comes to light - merely betrays their global agenda to de-populate livestock numbers for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with health risks to the human race.

The true picture is one of a mere handful of politically-motivated, socio-pathic pseudo scientists in the FSA, DEFRA, USDA, EU who are singing for their supper. They are on the pay role of the global corporations whose sole interest lies in forcing open a market place for their GM arable protein products. They have no interest in making life easy for their competitors; eg; those of us who are trying to make a living out of selling livestock proteins.

Make no mistake about it, the multinationals have invested billions of bucks in researching and developing their GM arable crops and complementary package of pesticides to go with them. They have bought up oceans of acres of dirt cheap arable land across Eastern Europe, the Third World and North/South America and they are clearly not going to pull any punches to smash any competitors who get in their way.

This explains why a further 10,000 German sheep were condemned to death for no real reason yesterday. The handful of perpetuators behind this sinister master plan should be rooted out of the ranks of  DEFRA, the FSA, the EU, etc, forthwith and prosecuted in some court of human rights for their grossly negligent disservice to humanity and the environment at large.  

Mark Purdey - 26th June 2002