Check out the FAQ,Terms of Service & Disclaimers by clicking the
link. Please register
to be able to post. By viewing this site you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Acknowledge our Disclaimers.
FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster.
The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website.
By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
Your argument underscores the difficulty with which the "blame" for transmission can be laid, if ther are overlaps in routes. In the case of waterfowl, they are strong fliers that do take advantage of landscape features but are able to fly in a fairly direct manner to where they are going (e.g. Bar-headed Geese, known to fly over the Himalaya, have been seen at altitudes above 22K feet!). So while there may be some overlap in routes, it is probably much less than you might think.
The routes that birds fly does not necessarily correspond to detection. Conservation groups have yet to detect Qinghai H5N1 in live birds ANYWHERE in the world!
The routes that birds fly does not necessarily correspond to detection. Conservation groups have yet to detect Qinghai H5N1 in live birds ANYWHERE in the world!
Is the issue that conservation groups haven't detected Qinghai H5N1 in live birds anywhere in the world, or is it more accurate to say that a variety of groups that have tested wild birds for Qinghai H5N1 have yet to detect it?
Your insistence on pointing a finger at conservation groups misses the point that lots of organizations are testing for it, and it's not showing up. I, for one, don't consider the USDA/APHIS a conservation organization. Nor do I consider most government testing agencies (USGS, Defra, etc) to be "conservation" organizations. Finally, I don't consider universities to be conservation organizations either. The finger-pointing implies a conspiracy to "hide the truth", and having seen the way these organizations work, I guarantee that they are not organized enough to coordinate on breakfast, much less a gigantic conspiracy.
My question is that, if it is primarily an issue of detection, why haven't the protocols changed? Why isn't there more money earmarked for better tests?
This kind of information would help get at the root of your argument: Are the tests as suspect as you make them out to be (some data here would be nice), or do they reflect a reality where Qinghai H5N1 is sufficiently rare and the number of birds being sampled is sufficiently small that they simply missed it or it wasn't in the locales where they were testing?
The thing is, without any data, you can't tell between these two hypotheses. I don't think anyone is arguing that migratory birds can't play a role in H5N1 dispersal (I'm not making that case). I am, however, interested in what the data say, and as I mentioned before, insistently advocating for a singular route without the data to support it is also handwaving.
So, if it exists, show me the data about testing that helps me interpret these results as "nonsense" and "propaganda"; I'm not trying to be facetious or combative with this request--I'm actually interested in seeing it, as I haven't come across it.
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
If H5N1 is difficult to detect in wild birds, then one really has to want to find it in order to overcome all of the various barriers to discovery and testing. I guess I haven't seen any particular group sufficiently motivated to find it. Announcing the discovery of any such nasty viruses in a particular country usually produces all sorts of ugly repercussions.
Is the issue that conservation groups haven't detected Qinghai H5N1 in live birds anywhere in the world, or is it more accurate to say that a variety of groups that have tested wild birds for Qinghai H5N1 have yet to detect it?
Your insistence on pointing a finger at conservation groups misses the point that lots of organizations are testing for it, and it's not showing up. I, for one, don't consider the USDA/APHIS a conservation organization. Nor do I consider most government testing agencies (USGS, Defra, etc) to be "conservation" organizations. Finally, I don't consider universities to be conservation organizations either. The finger-pointing implies a conspiracy to "hide the truth", and having seen the way these organizations work, I guarantee that they are not organized enough to coordinate on breakfast, much less a gigantic conspiracy.
My question is that, if it is primarily an issue of detection, why haven't the protocols changed? Why isn't there more money earmarked for better tests?
This kind of information would help get at the root of your argument: Are the tests as suspect as you make them out to be (some data here would be nice), or do they reflect a reality where Qinghai H5N1 is sufficiently rare and the number of birds being sampled is sufficiently small that they simply missed it or it wasn't in the locales where they were testing?
The thing is, without any data, you can't tell between these two hypotheses. I don't think anyone is arguing that migratory birds can't play a role in H5N1 dispersal (I'm not making that case). I am, however, interested in what the data say, and as I mentioned before, insistently advocating for a singular route without the data to support it is also handwaving.
So, if it exists, show me the data about testing that helps me interpret these results as "nonsense" and "propaganda"; I'm not trying to be facetious or combative with this request--I'm actually interested in seeing it, as I haven't come across it.
The conservation groups have been most vocal about the lack of H5N1 in live wild birds. However, the multitude of government agencies are just as guilty. It really comes down to the level of commitment.
DEFRA has trouble isolating low path vian influenza in wild birds. Their protocol of allowing swabs to dry out has been criticized, but their detection level this season was similar to their abysmal record last year.
Russia was able to isoalte H5N1 from live birds, as has NAMRU-3, but getting the sequence of the teal took considerable effort, and the virus was not isolated (although the sequence was clearly Qinghai H5N1).
This year, western Europe denied the presence of H5N1 (other than the trucked samples to UK), just as they denied H5N1 last year (until detection in DEAD birds in Feb - April).
Some groups have started collecting throat swabs, but they have also been negative. The collection procedures also involve multiple agencies, which can also produce false negatives, as seen on Prince Edward Island.
In general, there is not much incentive to find H5N1, and these groups have lived up (or down) to expectaions.
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
West Europe doesn't "deny the existence of H5N1",
they just coldn't find any. And I assume they searched very hard.
I don't think they found some H5N1 but kept it secret.
Hmm, could that work ?
Mamabird, they might let the labs search for H5N1 in competing
countries ... e.g. the Greek in Turkey , Taiwanese in China,
Bernard Matthews in French turkey farms , and vice versa
West Europe doesn't "deny the existence of H5N1",
they just coldn't find any. And I assume they searched very hard.
I don't think they found some H5N1 but kept it secret.
Hmm, could that work ?
Mamabird, they might let the labs search for H5N1 in competing
countries ... e.g. the Greek in Turkey , Taiwanese in China,
Bernard Matthews in French turkey farms , and vice versa
H5N1 was all over Europe in Feb, 2006. No spontaneous generation. H5N1 was there in the fall. and surveillance was abysmal (including bird flu detected in Germany, which "disppeared" when a toxin was found to explain bird deaths).
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
I'm surprised you would rely on Till Backhaus.
H5N1 in Febr.2006 was at many different places in Europe almost
simultaneously, locations traveling east-west
Following sudden cold weather at about Jan.25 in
Europe and West-Asia.
It is supposed that this triggered bird migration which braught
sick birds into Europe.
I.e. German island of Ruegen is a known rest-place for birds
traveling along the south coast of the Baltic sea.
They found a mute swan with ring from Latvia later and then
Till Backhaus probably had changed his mind.
H5N1 in Febr.2006 was at many different places in Europe almost
simultaneously, locations traveling east-west
Following sudden cold weather at about Jan.25 in
Europe and West-Asia.
It is supposed that this triggered bird migration which braught
sick birds into Europe.
I.e. German island of Ruegen is a known rest-place for birds
traveling along the south coast of the Baltic sea.
They found a mute swan with ring from Latvia later and then
Till Backhaus probably had changed his mind.
Please. The handwaving about cold snaps is nonsense. The cold may have produced more deaths, but the H5N1 was there in the fall of 2005, and returned again in the fall of 2006
which was followed by a lack of reports for the rest of 2006 and 2007.
In 2006/2007 H5N1 retraced its flight in 2005/2006. Some countries had no problem finding H5N1, while western Europe, including Germany, remained in denial.
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
how do you explain the sudden appearance at many different
distant places all through central and south-eastern
Europe within only a few weeks
and almost complete silence -with only few exceptions-
dring other times of the year ?
the travel paths in early Febr. : Romania-Greece-Italy
Romania-Croatia-Austria-Bavaria-(France?) could well be observed.
how do you explain the sudden appearance at many different
distant places all through central and south-eastern
Europe within only a few weeks
and almost complete silence -with only few exceptions-
dring other times of the year ?
the travel paths in early Febr. : Romania-Greece-Italy
Romania-Croatia-Austria-Bavaria-(France?) could well be observed.
The levels and death rate could be dependeent on the condition of the host. In the dead of winter, resistance is down and PB2 E627K levels are up if the host has trouble maintaining body temperature (enzyme is most active at 33 C). H5N1 levels go up, host dies, and insensitive PCR test gets a positive. H5N1 is also more stable in the cold.
how do you explain the sudden appearance at many different
distant places all through central and south-eastern
Europe within only a few weeks
and almost complete silence -with only few exceptions-
dring other times of the year ?
the travel paths in early Febr. : Romania-Greece-Italy
Romania-Croatia-Austria-Bavaria-(France?) could well be observed.
Here is a quick summary. The test for detecting Qinghai H5N1 usually produces false negatives because it is so insensitive. If the right sample is collected at the right time, the sample is positive. However, there are dozens of factors that can create lower levels.
Vitually all Qinghai isolates have PB2 E627K. This reduces the level of H5N1 because it slows down replication at a bird's body temperature. Other influenza and other H5N1's have 627E, so the influenza levels are higher at the bird's body temperature, because activity is highest at 41 C.
As a result, low path is detected in live birds, but H5N1 Qinghai is VERY rare. To detect H5N1, most hosts have to be dead or near death. On farms, where there are many dead and dying birds, getting a positive is fairly easy, especially if the right birds are chosen and multiple birds are tested.
In the field, the story is very different.
Most of the testing is of live healthy birds and H5N1 levels are low. Dead birds decompose, so if collected shortly after death, positives can be obtained. In the cold, the virus is also more stable, so it is easier to transmit in the cold. Some species, like mute swans, may have higher levels, or they may be more noticable when they are dead or dying because they are large.
In any event, the testing is rather poor, and some testing has additional problems, like DEFRA allowing swabs to dry out prior to testing. That is why they get almost no isolates - they can't even get low path.
The bottom line is that getting a Qinghai positive in a live wild bird is not easy. In the US, the vast majority of testing was in healthy live birds. All were negative. When H5 was found in dead ducks on PEI, the level of RNA was low, and the sample was held until it degraded and Winnipeg failed to reproduce the positive.
Getting false negatives is a trivial task. as has been demonstrated in North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa,
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
You seem to be saying that NOT finding H5N1 is quite deliberate. If they wanted to find it, they certainly could, but they are choosing not to find it at this time.
I would think that it will become increasingly difficult to conceal.
Why hide the evidence now? Why not just deal with it?
You seem to be saying that NOT finding H5N1 is quite deliberate. If they wanted to find it, they certainly could, but they are choosing not to find it at this time.
I would think that it will become increasingly difficult to conceal.
Why hide the evidence now? Why not just deal with it?
There is little reason to aggressively test. The best example for North America was the H5 positive dead geese on Prince Edward Island. All real data STRONGLY suggested the H5 positive geese died from Qinghai H5N1, yet Canada managed to "control" damage, so no OIE report was filed and no country banned Canadian exports.
Briefly, 4 geese died on a farm. They had neurological problems and died suddenly. They were positive for the matirix gene (infected with influenza A) and positive for H5 on PCR.
The above data STRONGLY suggested Qinghai H5N1 because it causes neurological symptoms and sudden death in multiple birds. Low path H5 is generally not fatal to waterfowl, and usually produces no symtoms.
Necropsy on the ONE bird showed signs of an infection and the lab that generated the PCR positive refused to disclose the size of the insert,
citing "privacy" issues, even though the detection program was PUBLICLY funded and the dead host was a baby GOOSE!
The owner of the small backyard farm was offered Tamiflu and all other poultry on the farm was culled.
However, the sample stayed on Prince Edward Island for over a week, and by the time it was shipped to Winnipeg it had degraded. Winnipeg could not confirm the H5 PCR positive or grow the virus.
Consequently no mandatory OIE report was filed, and North America remained H5N1 free.
H5 Positive Geese in Canada Had Fatal Qinghai Symptoms
Recombinomics Commentary June 16, 2006
The owner of the birds, who raised them for personal consumption, told authorities he noticed four of his geese were walking oddly on Sunday. The next day he discovered four had died.
He disposed of three but took one for testing to the Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown. The laboratory there confirmed the presence of an H5 virus.
The goose was part of a small, free-range flock of chickens, geese and ducks. Four of 11 geese in the flock were discovered dead on Monday. None of the other birds fell ill at the time but all have since been destroyed as a precautionary measure........
Tweet
Comment