Menace to the Immune System

Two studies were done by the University of WI, Madison that measured specific blood markers that pertain to the immune system. The first study: Part 3, Immune Function Response to Low-Level Electrical Current Exposure, was funded by the State of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The initial statistical analysis method used minimized the results to make them appear there was no effect on the immune system. The study authors, Sheffield and Reinemann, using the wrong analysis, concluded that there was no negative effect on the cow's immune system when subjected to low levels of current. Despite this conclusion, they suggested a larger study needed to be further done to study the effect of current on the immune system. When the first study was reviewed by a Ph. D. statistician, Frank Martin, from the University of Minnesota, (see below Reanalysis of UW WI 1MA cow exposure data), he determined that if the proper statistical analysis had been done, that there was a statistically significant increase not only in Staph Aureus infection, but also blood markers Interleukin 1 (IL-1) (p-value .0056) and Interleukin 2 (IL-2) (p-value .06) came very close to having a statistical significance of a p-value of .05 or less. In Dr. Sheffield's deposition, he acknowledged the statistical equations used were not adequate for the type of data generated by the study. (See page 138-140 of his deposition Volume 2 for his discussion of which statistical method would have been more appropriate than what was used in the final report to the MN Public Utilities Committee.) 

Barn notes were taken by staff working with the cows in this trial every day. There are numerous notes about specific cows in the study (3 separate sets of 8 cows done in different months - see below). The "conclusion" of this first study was there was no adverse health effects on these cows, but the barn notes tell a much different story. In the notes labeled Trial 3 parts 2&3 you will find on page 14, the notes indicate that cow 3861 was physically weak. That was enough of a concern to get the barn manager to contact Reinemann and Sheffield about the cow's condition. Page 17 has notes of cow 4084 chewing her feed bin and cow 4243 tossing feed (not noted on earlier days). On page 20, cow 3861 was slow getting up to the point it was "worthy of noting". Two days later, that same cow was not allowed to go outside with the rest of the cows because of the concern that she would "go down" and not be strong enough to get up. An additional note was she was walking stiff. Many more health notes are made in the remainder of the barn notes pages 27-45. Both the statistical analysis of the data and the human observations of the cows show there certainly were negative effects on the cows' health. Muscle weakness and cows that walk like they are stiff are very commonly observed problems on farms with stray voltage.

The second study, conducted by Dr Sheffield at the UW did mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) assays of approximately 100 blood markers to determine if 1mA of current had a negative effect on the immune system as expressed in those markers. Although the study was analyzed by at least one bovine immunologist and was determined to show statistical significance in several important immune function markers, it was never published, nor were the findings reported back to the Minnesota PUC, who requested and funded the research. On page 141 of his deposition volume 3, Dr Sheffield was asked if there was anything in this study that would suggest the p-values in the mRNA study were wrong. His response was, "I can't think of any". In a follow-up question he was asked if he thought the farmers affected by stray voltage would have any interest in the results of this research. His reply, "I don't have an opinion on that". It would be safe to surmise that this information is not only "of interest" but also critical to farmers looking to get answers to the stray voltage issues that plague them. 

There were several markers that showed a p-value <.05 which is considered statistically significant. The actual tables containing the data is found in the downloaded files below. They are referred to frequently in the Sheffield depositions volumes 1-3. Expert testimony given by PhD immunologist, Dr. Chris Chase DVM PhD Immunologist from South Dakota State University, (attached) to explained more fully the roles of each of these markers critical to proper immune function in dairy cows. Sheffield acknowledges in his deposition, starting on page 85, that he believes Chase's analysis of the markers' roles in the immune system were accurate. Further, there is another expert opinion by Dr. Aaron Rendahl, University of Minnesota statistician determined that the statistical significance of these studies on pages 4-5 on Rendahl Expert Disclosure found on the Resistance page.

Dr. Rendahl's review of the p-values which were calculated from a study where cows were subjected to 1mA of current for 3 weeks (a far cry from the months and years most farms are subjected to it).

• IgAHC - decreased p=.0032; An antibody of mucosal surfaces
• IgJ - decrease p=.0000821; Required to move IgA to surface to mucosal surfaces
• IL-1a - increased p=.00000874; Inflammatory cytokines
• IL-1b - increased p=.00000255; predominant pro-inflammatory cytokine
• IL-2 - decreased p=.0000498; cytokine that makes T-cells needed for long term memory (important for proper response to vaccines)
• IL-10 - decreased p=.0000293; anti-inflammatory cytokine and helps increase IgA in the mucosa

Singularly, each of these markers are critical in a properly balanced and responsive immune system. Collectively, they can be the difference between life and death. Clearly these are very good indications that low levels of current DOES HAVE a significant negative impact on the cow's immune system.

In simple terms, when the body detects an attack on the immune system, it will react by sending antibodies to fight that infection. This is called a "pro-inflammatory" response. As the reader can see, both IL-1a and IL-1b registered an increase by 1mA of current. When all goes well, the body will respond with just the right strength and "homeostasis" will be achieved. It will send enough immune mediators to fight off the disease. In the case when the body over-reacts to an infection, it will cause what is known as immune dysfunction. 

On the other hand, certain markers in the second study showed a decrease in the anti-inflammatory response. The anti-inflammatory response is what keeps "pro-inflammatory" reactions from getting out of control, insuring that "just the right amount" of pro-inflammatory reaction is present. This is a balancing act of the immune system. The Sheffield research showed a dangerous situation - pro-inflammatory responses increased that were left unchecked by decreased anti-inflammatory responses - an immune status that is out of control.