A controversial theory suggests that the cows that first contracted the disease were fed food that contained parts of the bodies of sick people that had been dumped in Indian rivers.
Some of the people who contracted the fatal brain disease Creutzfeldt-Jakob contracted it after eating beef infected with mad cow disease. But is it possible that mad cow disease originated in humans with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? This is exactly what the English researchers Alan and Nancy Colchester claim. Their provocative theory, published this week in the prestigious medical journal "Lancet", is already drawing sharp criticism.
The accepted hypothesis among scientists is that mad cow disease spread in cattle in Britain due to exposure to food prepared from the remains of infected cows. But no one knows for sure how the first cow became infected. One theory is that the disease broke out spontaneously due to a genetic mutation. Another theory is that the first sick cow was infected by food prepared from sheep infected with scrapie, a disease similar to "mad cow".
The English researchers have a much bolder theory. They claim that body parts of Indians who died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and were thrown into rivers, including the Ganges in Varanasi, may have found their way to factories where cattle food is made from ground bones. Relying on investigations conducted by authorities in Belgium, France and India, the two state that tons of cattle feed arrived in Britain from India in the sixties and seventies.
According to the English researchers, there are 150 new cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob in India every year. It was reported in the Economist that in an article criticizing their theory, also published in "Lancet", Susrala Shankar and P. Stishchandra, from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuroscience in India, claim that in the last 37 years a total of 87 Creutzfeldt-Jakob cases have been recorded in India . In addition, the critics of the theory claim that most of the patients died in hospitals and their bodies were buried or burned.
Alan and Nancy Colchester say they don't claim their theory is proven, but they say it's a plausible possibility that should be taken seriously and investigated. The critics also agree to this. "The hypothesis put forward by the Colchesters must be seriously investigated and scientific evidence must be collected carefully and urgently to confirm or refute it," Shankar and Stischandra wrote.
