«I am impressed by the similarity of patterns between UFOs and Mutilations. Both have a social effect on the population, and pass over social channels, the press, the local government and the Federal government» (Dr.Jacques Vallée)
In 2022, two decades have passed since the famous UFO wave of 2002, and the shocking collateral fact of cattle mutilations – preferably – throughout the Argentine territory and some neighboring country.
We will not refer to them in detail in this article. Just point out some historical aspects and what we could get as answers in this 2022.
The 2002 flap in Argentina, your background exactly the same as when it happened in the US a few years before. There, the more than 15,000 cases could not be explained with sects, human action, predators, etc.
But unlike Argentina, the investigations by the FBI and other agencies were on file and no immediate official response was sought. For those who wish to delve into what happened in North America and some of its characteristics, there is nothing better than to delve into Dr. Jacques Vallée’s book «Messengers of Deception».
Returning to this 2022, it was striking that almost no UFO researcher or disseminator in Argentina who for years talked about the case did not refer to it after two decades.
But we were able to succeed in 2022 to confirm something that we already assumed and recently achieving communication with those who directly intervened in the matter (from the official point of view).
Beyond the UFO issue, the issue of the «nosed mouse» was a totally biased official report and not a general one. And we achieved this confirmation in 2022.
Here is the detail of the facts.
THOSE PRESS CONFERENCES IN 2002
On June 26 and July 5, 2002, I convened press conferences in the city of Mar del Plata (Pueyrredón Cultural Center), for the purpose of reporting on the events that were taking place regarding the Flap of Mutilations in Argentina and the probable relationship with the UFO phenomenon.
By the way, they detailed only some correlations between the two topics, but making it clear that there were no direct links to make unsubstantiated claims.
The difference between one conference and the other was manifest.
In the first one, almost all the radio, print and television media came up.
In the second (after the «OFFICIAL» explanation of the head of SENASA – National Service for Agro-food Health and Quality, and its head, Bernardo Cané), only 1 medium seemed to be interested in the issue.
The «official explanations» usually have these edges in impacts in the Press, which inevitably fell into the contraption.
The «official» had spoken, surrounded by scientists, for which it was the most reasonable «explanation» (although only partially consistent).
But let’s go in parts, analyzing the entire context of that fabulous year 2002.
Basically we can summarize what was expressed on June 26, 2002 (and endorsed in a large number of photocopies delivered to the Mar del Plata press), as follows:
a – On the HYPOTHESES launched by different press and official media (without a single case of direct association of UFO with mutilation).
b – Particularities of the data on mutilations.
c – Certain concordances of UFO activity and mutilations based on: geographic radius – time constant – simultaneity of observations (before or a posteriori, never directly) – Percentages of relationship between US and Argentine mutilations (cattle) – Degree of relationship social mutilation and UFO phenomenon
d – Geographic displacement.
e – Need for an urgent study, making a call to competent bodies. (Scientists, Universities, etc.)
I must remember that – in at least 37 cases – we had before or after the death of animals, the presence of strange luminous flying objects in almost the same places (in addition to rapidly empty Australian wells and circular burn marks).
Also, although cattle were the most affected, we had cases of mutilation in horses, sheep, lambs, guanacos, dogs, pigs, zebu, rabbits, wild boars, chickens, donkeys, etc.
But one of the marked items that I prepared at that time, I added:
“The poisoning of certain information will try to totally silence the facts. It is CRITICAL that people who learn of new cases disclose them openly to investigators, the media, law enforcement, etc. There is no need to fear dissemination. It is probable that a «factory of various explanations» will try to discourage and saturate the subject in such a way that in a few hours it would be limited to something anecdotal, rare, magical and mythical”.- (END OF QUOTE)
As if it had been a carbon copy, what was expressed – unfortunately – was fulfilled to the letter.
I called it at that time: «CHRONICLE OF AN ANNOUNCED DEATH» and it is part of the most scandalous information manipulation that occurred on this issue in Argentina.
After the meeting called by the head of SENASA to the press, in order to disseminate the so-called FINAL REPORT (read mouse snout), a blanket of silence was spread over the matter.
The mass media (in their overwhelming majority) accepted the official version without questioning some ostensibly debatable points.
By then I had sent a notification to the then governor of the province of Buenos Aires, Felipe Solá, about the whole situation, who received a typical formal response, in these terms.
There they notify me that the Governor would send my request to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (below).
WHAT IS MEANT BY OFFICIAL REPORT?
Said reports are covered by an assumption = «THE AUTHORITIES HAVE ALREADY TAKEN DARE OF THE MATTER». Read: they have invested all material and intellectual efforts to unravel a question.
Suddenly, the press participated in an OFFICIAL meeting, where EVERYTHING WAS EXPLAINED NATURALLY.
The press men seemed not to remember that hours before, all the «explanations» that were around the official, to stop the flood of cases.
So we were able to hear about possible:
«Rustlers» / «Sectarian and esoteric groups» / «Sneaky surgeons» / «Distraction maneuvers» / «Natural death due to weather» / «Birds of prey» / «Gato Chaqueño» / «Germanic Wasp»…among others .
In cases of the opposite extreme, we had those who spoke of UFOs with total security, and although there are degrees of relationship (as has already been pointed out), there was no event with direct observation between one thing and another.
Some media began to speculate with versions about «chupacabras» (a term that was used in Central America for similar cases years ago). And the sensationalist aggregates arose.
But something amazing happened in a few hours. What the head of SENASA gave as a safe explanation for «human action» ended in something natural.
Those same media outlets did not ask themselves how from HUMAN action (assured by SENASA), we had gone on to CHANGE THE DIET of the snout in such a general way.
Some newspapers transcribed:
«The president of the National Agrifood Health and Quality Service (SENASA), Bernardo Cané, put an end to the most absurd hypotheses by disclosing the report of the conclusions of the scientists from the National University of the Center. According to the report, the The cause of the mutilations is a species of mouse that lives in rural areas, whose scientific name is «oxymycterus», and which, given the scarcity of worms and insects on which it usually ate, became a scavenger. «It was possible to establish that the cows died of natural causes, as usually happens at this time of year,» Cané explained, adding that «later their corpses were mutilated by different predators.»
By the way, it seems that no one in the media was wondering several things, namely: How to explain the cases where there were no snout mice?
We must remember the magnitude of what happened at that time: more than 230 localities that reported complaints about mutilations throughout the COUNTRY. From the extreme north to Patagonia, and from the mountains to the east, cases were reported in 20 of 24 provinces (83% of the national territory).
If we accept the official version for a moment, and analyze it carefully, we must conclude what we said in our letter to the head of SENASA:
A – Either the mice were invading the country en masse (there is no other way to explain the geographical magnitude reached)…or
B – They decided to «change the diet» EVERYWHERE AT THE SAME TIME, which would be impossible, taking into account the different geographical-environmental variables.
There is no middle ground or shortcuts to explain this. But both are IMPOSSIBLE.
As we have seen, Cané said that “all the animals died of natural causes”, although the absence of “agonal kicking” was never explained (among other things).
We have to admit that animals have died in a «natural» but strange way: they literally fell unconscious.
On the other hand, the referred «time of the year» was a reference to winter, but the mutilations continued beyond it. The study from the University of Tandil could only explain some cases, but never generalize the issue.
Country men and even rural veterinarians – in great majority – ruled out natural death, in view of their knowledge and daily work.
THE UFO QUESTION AT THAT TIME
Along with this situation, the counts of UFO complaints were important throughout the country.
It is always important to clarify that there is a percentage of 30% of cases in that year 2002, where previously or a posteriori, mutilations occurred in areas adjacent to the presence of the phenomenon, although strictly speaking, there are no direct verification data.
What does exist are some curious facts that occurred in UFO activity and mutilation complaints in 2002, namely:
Disappearance of water in 12 Australian wells, of approximately 40,000 liters of water each, all overnight, and without problems in the tanks.
Introduction of 19 cattle into an Australian tank (with no signs of broken wires in the field where they were initially kept (Córdoba)
Several dogs inside an Australian well. (Province of Buenos Aires).-
Circular burn marks in places adjacent to some cases of mutilation.
Australian well plate burns.
Observation of discoid-shaped objects at a low height above cattle, shortly before or even after mutilation.
Colleague Ángel Díaz (in excellent work at the time), perfectly defined the gradual geographical displacement, as well as the marginal zones, the possible degrees of relationship with the UFO phenomenon, among others.
His work “Some structural variables of the Animal Mutilation Flap 2002” is conclusive on these issues.
The most important foci of UFO activity were: JANUARY = BS.AS – SALTA / FEBRUARY = SALTA / MARCH = BS.AS / APRIL = CÓRDOBA / MAY = BS.AS / JUNE = LA PAMPA / JULY = BS.AS – CÓRDOBA / AUGUST = BS.AS – LA PAMPA
It is evident that the UFO activity increased from the month of April (when the Flap of mutilations began abruptly), decreasing notably in May, to re-emerge with its maximum expression in the month of June, with 39 cases for the month (with several cases of small and strange entities).
As of July, the complaints begin to decrease, although still maintaining a certain «strength», returning to the greater decrease in the month of August (data to date).
As A.Díaz points out, there is an interesting correlation between the number of mutilated animals with the constant number of witnesses.
We have in APRIL the abrupt start of both phenomena.
In MAY a gradual decline. In JUNE a slight increase (in Mutilation) and a very large increase in UFO reports. And in JULY progressive decrease of both.
Returning strictly to the UFO phenomenon, it was a year out of the ordinary and the averages we had been holding, both for UFO and UFO cases.
This situation was endorsed by two specific facts:
A – Unusual number of UFO cases with EFFECTS (in witnesses, animals and electromagnetic). About 75 cases.
B – Unusual number of complaints from entities (Third Type Encounters). The highest in the entire Argentine history of cases, since there were 33 events.
THE QUESTIONS IN TIME
Beyond the UFOs, and returning to the official explanation for the cause of the mutilations, we have some questions to ask ourselves.
At that time, everything was attributed to the presence of the reddish snout, a small mouse that «CHANGED THE DIET» and became a carnivore in a short time, due to environmental circumstances.
This would have caused all the mutilations thousands of kilometers away, as we have already seen.
But having already spent 2 decades, it is totally logical to delve into the issue, with three basic questions:
1 – Do we know anything more about the «change in diet» of the snout after 20 years?
2 – The species “Oxymycterus” continues to develop with such a change in diet?
3 – How have the studies progressed in this regard?
Let’s review the issue.
According to (corroborable) scientific data, the Hocicudo IS STILL:
A – Granivore
B – Folivore
C – Insectivore
NO CURRENT STUDY places or mentions it with a “DIET CHANGE” as noted in 2002.
This is key information, because it confirms that such a 2002 hypothesis cannot be sustained today.
The only thing that has been observed in the Hocicudo (and scientifically ratified) is the following (web «Categorization of Argentine Mammals»):
“In agroecosystems in the northwest of the Province of Buenos Aires, a notable increase has been observed in the last 10 years in longitudinal environments far from permanent bodies of water, such as edges of crop fields and roads, and in abandoned road embankments. The causes are still not clear, although it is speculated that it may be related to climatic factors (Fraschina et al. 2012).
The distribution of the Hocicudo is from the south of Misiones and Corrientes, through Mesopotamia and the center and south of Santa Fe, up to the province of Buenos Aires. In the latter, it is present in the Paraná Delta and in coastal areas of the La Plata and Atlantic coasts, from where it penetrates inland towards the Tandilia and Ventania mountain systems. Isolatedly, it is also found in the Córdoba mountains and in the low-lying areas adjacent to them. This species has been recorded in fossil and archaeological sites from the Holocene of Córdoba and Buenos Aires.
In longitudinal environments of the NE of the province of Buenos Aires it is currently a frequent species. In protected areas of Entre Ríos and Buenos Aires (Predelta National Park and Otamendi Nature Reserve) it is the most abundant species in the assemblage (Vadell & Gómez Villafañe 2016; Maroli et al. 2018).
It moves (verifiable) up to 135 square meters and in a straight line it has reached 97.8 meters (Gorosito et al. 2015).
They have a weight of 55 – 140 g (Weight of the female = 55 – 94 g / Weight of the male = 55 – 115 g) (QUOTE 1)
The bibliography on the animal is extensive (QUOTE 2)
In recent years, changes in its abundance and expansion in its distribution limits have been observed, but NOT a «DIET CHANGE».
These studies were carried out in Exaltación de la Cruz, and it was possible to verify that the abundance changes respond to climatic variations.
In short: we are facing a NEVER GENERALIZED situation of a change in the diet of the Hocicudo, and accused by SENASA and the University of Tandil as the «responsible» for the mutilations in 2002.
2022 – COMMUNICATION WITH BERNARDO CANÉ, THE VETERINARIANS INVOLVED AND SENASA
Even with the years that have passed, I devoted myself to finding the protagonists. The first person I contacted was the former head of SENASA, Bernardo Cané.
But first a brief comment. During the events in 2002, Cané made a series of statements in the media, trying to «weather the storm» of the press. Reports came in daily from different parts of the country, and Cané had to go out to the crossing, unfortunately on some occasions.
Thus we saw that the official opined that the death of cows «is common for this time of year» and maintained that the removal of their organs could be due to «isolated cases of esoteric practices.»
He further stated that «You have to go and see what it is about, because most of the information on the subject was wrong, imprecise and exaggerated.»
And he added:
«People in the countryside often echo these waves of versions, such as when they talk about the ‘short-eared’ or the ‘green dwarfs’, but there is a lack of rational evidence to support these speculations»
After denying the hypothesis that the deaths are due to secret investigations by the body he chairs, Cané reported that yesterday he received a report on the cases issued by the Tandil Veterinary School and signed by Dean Alejandro Sorassi.
And he sentenced:
«There it is proven that the animals were subjected to mutilations in the jaw, mouth, eyes and genital organs. It is clear that the animals did not suffer a spontaneous death, as well as that the causes of these cuts are not scavengers or predators.»
Such a blunt statement assumed that those responsible for the mutilations were people dedicated to «esoteric practices» (despite the fact that this hypothesis was ruled out by specialists in sects).
And Cané continued with more statements, stating:
«They are looking for traces of a sleeping pill in the fluids of the brain or eyeballs, since it is very clear – from the photos we have seen – that in the places where the animals were found there are no signs of violence. or that the cattle have been scared».
But very ironic was a phrase used in the program «Chiche Edition» (by Chiche Gelblung) on Radio 10 (June 2002).
There Cané commented that when he heard about the first cases:
«He said, half jokingly, that in La Pampa they were hitting gin very hard.» (Emulating the psychiatrist Heuyer in France in the 50s)
Such statements were heard throughout the country, and by the way, they generated the rejection not only of rural men, but also of many, who consider it an opprobrium.
After 2002, Cané’s fortunes as head of SENASA fell out of favor.
He was accused of bribery and irregularities in his management (QUOTE 3)
However, it was partially dismissed by the then Judge Oyarbide. During his tenure as head of SENASA, he had denounced pressure and some «paid» journalists who campaigned to defame his activity in the organization.
In April 2022 (just 20 years after the flap), that contact was achieved in a concrete way.
I was and am very critical of what happened in 2002 and of Cané, but it was important to be able to clarify any doubts by communicating with him (QUOTE 4)
Cané confirmed to me that the 2002 study was carried out with professionals from Tandil, and that the sample obtained at that time IS NOT UNIVERSABLE.
Although we knew about this since 2002, it was important to have direct confirmation from the participants themselves, since it had not been exposed in this way for years.
Cané provided me with the contact of the professional who led the snout study in 2002 (already retired), who also treated me deferentially (this was on April 8).
And he – in turn – provided me with the third contact, from the person who did the field work (Dr.Soraci), who is also already retired.
Soraci confirmed the following to me:
“It’s been a long time and I don’t have any more of that material. Our intervention was from the biological point of view. We did the studies on recently dead animals, which had a certain diagnosis. This in a very specific area. And we deliver everything to SENASA. We feed on a lot of information” (end of quote)
Based on this statement, I contacted SENASA, notifying the concern and requesting a copy of the report from the Tandil veterinarians in 2002.
The answer was the following:
“In relation to your request, unfortunately, the SENASA library does not have a copy of the report to which you refer, made in 2002 by the National University of the Center. We hope to be able to help you another time.» (end of quote)
This was a striking fact, especially noting an unusual fact with the supposed voracity of rodents exposed at the time and the great impact that the news had.
But even more striking is that the study carried out on the rodent should be enlightening about its own zoological history.
In the studies carried out on snouted mice (both in Argentina and neighboring countries), no mention is made of the 2002 episode.
In every scientific establishment, all kinds of historical situations are recorded about a particular event, but here it seems not to have happened.
Today, 20 years later, we can determine with certainty, something that we intuited but where direct confirmation was lacking = The study and investigation that was carried out in 2002 was PARTIAL, with a very specific and selective sample in a certain area.
In no way can this sample explain the GENERAL, beyond the merit of such research (of which we cannot count on any academic archive).
This historical example leaves us a lesson with several conclusions:
A – An “OFFICIAL VERSION” does not always conform to the totality of the facts, but to a specific partiality (the same happens today with the official entity of Argentina CIAE that dismisses UFO cases just for not investigating them)
B – The press media totally accepted the official version at the time and did not question it or ask elementary questions.
C – Unfortunately we cannot have the records of the research carried out by the staff of the University of Tandil.
And this opens the parenthesis to more questions, which is not the reason for this article to mention, but which we all intuit….
“TSUNAMI” TO RESEARCHERS
As for ufologists, it could be noted:
1 – Caught almost unawares (in the absence of an overall strategy), there were only few attempts at investigations. Although there was a serious crisis in the country, there were many events in areas where there were investigators in the same area as the event, which were never addressed.
2 – The need for a global treatment of the subject (field and theoretical research) is reflected. That is what we advocated from the RAO at the time.
3 – An important opportunity has been wasted, with a large amount of evidence. The fact of being more connected by Internet does not guarantee that there will be more efficiency in investigations. For this, there had to be a block, effective, concrete and determined approach.
The year 2002 has shown us a number of elements for analysis. It is a puzzle that should be put together with judgment and patience, since the number of pieces is so great that only when we have been able to integrate some of them, will we be able to have a more complete picture of it.
One thing is clear: if such activity were to be repeated today, the situation facing it by UFO communicators and investigators would be worse than it was in 2002.
We don’t have a “RAPID INTERVENTION” system (like the one I suggested in the RAO years ago).
We would only find news everywhere on YouTube channels, and we would repeat news from the press, without being an ACTIVE part (except for a few rare exceptions).
We are facing a new case of «official explanation» that only left the media alone. The latter – always in need of quick answers – were satisfied without questioning the points that were incomplete.
Field men and many veterinarians were perplexed by the events (which continue to occur sporadically). It was noted that the majority did not agree with the «official explanation».
Since we cannot count on the records of the investigation carried out, we cannot speculate too much either.
Once again, Argentina shows disdain towards archives and keeping them. That is why there are no UFO files from other times, no matter how much someone maintains otherwise. And this is not a cover-up, it is simply laziness.
What we did obtain at the end of these two decades is to confirm important definitions with those who intervened:
A – The study was not universal
B – The sample was carried out in a limited sector and cannot be generalized
Even though it may not seem like much, it was important to ratify some things that we presumed.
The historical study of this case is something key, not only for researchers, but for a part of the Press in general. That Press that wants quick explanations and that accepts the official ones immediately, without delving into data and information.
If this situation were repeated today, perhaps the same results would occur.
But you don’t have to go back 20 years.
Today we also have something official since 2017 (the CIAE, defined as an aerospace «identification» center), where part of the Press accepts its «conclusions» and where the vast majority of UFO participants (disclosers), attend as indifferent spectators. and passive, before a notorious fiasco dressed in «official clothing», without saying a word.
Let us remember that in the case of 2002, the head of SENASA seemed to find the answer that the FBI had not found with 15,000 cases in the US.
Here, in the current personalist office, it is spread that «100% of the cases are explained» when the Pentagon itself and front-line military organizations confirm the existence of UFOs.
The years go by, times change, but not the forms.
Partial and selective reports lead to these nonsense. And even worse, when this occurs in the so-called «Official Reports».
«Categorization of the Mammals of Argentina» = https://cma.sarem.org.ar/es/especie-nativa/oxymycterus-rufus
BIBLIOGRAPHIES OF THE SNOUT
CONICET PAGE = https://www.conicet.gov.ar/new_scp/detalle.php?keywords=&id=24053&inst=yes&congresos=yes&detalles=yes&congr_id=5504798
THE SNOUT IN URUGUAY = https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/83/2/408/2373178?login=false
OTHER BIBLIOGRAPHIES ON THE SNOUT
FRASCHINA J., V. A. LEON, & M. BUSCH. 2012. Long-term variations in rodent abundance in a rural landscape of the Pampas, Argentina. Ecological Research.
GOROSITO, I. L., M. TAKARA, A.M. BENITEZ, & M. BUSCH. 2015. Range of action of the small ruddy-nosed mouse Oxymycterus rufus in agroecosystems of the rolling pampas. XXVIII Argentine Conference on Mammalogy, Book of Abstracts.
MAROLI, M., M. V. VADELL, A. IGLESIAS, P. J. PADULA, & I. E. GÓMEZ VILLAFAÑE. 2015. Daily movements and microhabitat selection of hantavirus reservoirs and other Sigmodontinae rodent species that inhabit a protected natural area of Argentina.
MAROLI, M., M. V. VADELL, P. PADULA, & I. E. GÓMEZ VILLAFAÑE. 2018. Rodent Abundance and Hantavirus Infection in Protected Area, East–Central Argentina. Emerging Infectious Diseases 24:131–134.
PACIFICI, M. ET AL. 2013. Database on generation length of mammals. Nature Conservation 5:89–94.
DE OLIVEIRA, J. A., & P. R. GONÇALVES. 2015. Genus Oxymycterus Waterhouse, 1837. Mammals of South America. Volume 2 – Rodents (J. L. Patton, U. F. J. Pardiñas & G. D’Elía, eds.). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
VADELL, M.V., & I.E. GÓMEZ VILLAFAÑE. 2016. Environmental Variables Associated with Hantavirus Reservoirs and Other Small Rodent Species in Two National Parks in the Paraná Delta, Argentina: Implications for Disease Prevention.
CUETO, V. R., M. J. PIANTANIDA, & M. CAGNONI. 1995. Population demography of Oxymycterus rufus (Rodentia: Cricetidae) inhabiting a patchy environment of the delta. Acta Theriologica 40:123–130.
CUETO, V. R., M. S. LÓPEZ, & M. J. PIANTANIDA. 1995. Seasonal variation of the range area of Oxymycterus rufus (Rodentia: Cricetidae) in the Paraná River Delta, Argentina. Donana Acta Vertebrata 22:87–95.
GOMEZ, D. ET AL. 2015. Agricultural land–use intensity and its effects on small mammals in the central region of Argentina. Mammal Research 60:415–423.
KRAVETZ, F. O. 1972. Study of the diet, periods of activity and other ecological traits in a population of «nosed mouse» Oxymycterus rufus platensis Thomas from Punta Lara. Lilloana Zoological Act 29:201–212.
PARDIÑAS, U., G. D’ELIA, & P. TETA. 2016. Oxymycterus rufus (errata version published in 2017). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T15792A115130211
POLOP, J., & M. BUSCH (EDS.). 2010. Biology and ecology of small rodents in the Pampean region of Argentina. National University of Cordoba, Cordoba.
WILSON, D.E., T.E. LACHER, J. RUSSELL, & A. MITTERMEIER. 2017. Handbook of the Mammals of the World – Volume 7 – Rodents II. Linx Editions, Barcelona.
ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF BERNARDO CANÉ AND COMPLAINTS = Gabriela Seghezzo (2004). Criminal behaviors as a disciplinarian and social binder. Agricultural and livestock sector: a paradigmatic case. VI Conference on Sociology. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires. The complete work in this link:
There we can read:
«Cané first came to SENASA (National Agro-Food Health and Quality Service) at the beginning of the 90s (when Felipe Solá was Secretary of Agriculture). Later, due to some irregularities, Solá asked him to resign and he went on to occupy the position of Undersecretary of Natural Resources, in March 1999. Some time later, in 2001, with the assumption of Domingo Cavallo in the Ministry of Economy, he was once again summoned to occupy the presidency of SENASA.During the two periods in which Cané held During the presidency of SENASA, there have been irregularities regarding the distribution of the quota that the European Union grants Argentina annually (Hilton Quota).In other words, irregularities are suspected in the distribution of the 28,000 tons of high-quality cuts of meat free of tariffs that Europe assigns annually to Argentina. Bernardo Cané, is suspected of entering into negotiations with his «friendly refrigerators», so that they are the ones who are granted the largest amount of the quota. Secondly, Cané is accused of being a participant in the «foot-and-mouth operation», through which the only supplier of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in the country benefited… he is not only accused of ordering extra vaccinations, but, most seriously, , it is suspected that he has collaborated with the implantation of infected cattle in the province of Formosa, so that the only supplier of the vaccines would benefit. All this information has been published by national media, and emails and accounts in Switzerland (for the amount of more than 2 million dollars) of the former head of SENASA have been attached that clearly demonstrate this type of operation. It should be noted that Bernardo Cané has moved away from the position of President of SENASA, on 08-21-03, arguing that a project promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture that cuts the functions of the Head of SENASA, is inadequate.
For those who wish to see the letter that I sent to the head of SENASA at that time, they can do so through this link: