New Scientist: The Downsides To Using HPAI Poultry Vaccines

Poultry Vaccination - Photo Credit OIE

 

# 9983

 

Last week, in The HPAI Poultry Vaccine Dilemma,  I wrote at some length on the problems inherent in turning to a poultry vaccine to control the HPAI H5 viruses spreading across North America.

 

This is a topic we’ve looked at repeatedly over the years, including in 2012’s Egypt: A Paltry Poultry Vaccine and 2009’s  Indonesia: Debate Over Poultry Vaccination.

 

Last November we looked at an EID Journal dispatch - Subclinical Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus Infection among Vaccinated Chickens, China – which addressed many of these concerns, and what they called  the `multiple disadvantages of HPAI mass vaccination’, including the creation of vaccine-escape flu variants

 

Although HPAI vaccines can often prevent serious illness in poultry flocks, they often fail to prevent viruses from spreading, and eventually evolving into new strains.  As these new variants appear, the vaccines become even less effective – turning their use into a gigantic slippery slope. 

 

One that China, Egypt, Vietnam, and Indonesia have been unable to get off, despite warnings from the OIE that poultry vaccines must be considered a `short-term solution’ and counties must have an `exit strategy’ (see Avian influenza and vaccination: what is the scientific recommendation?).

 

Although the USDA has steadfastly supported quarantine and culling as the preferred method of dealing with bird flu in the United States, nervous poultry producers are calling for a vaccine option.  

 

So I’m happy to report that the New Scientist has weighed in on this issue today as well, with an article by Debora MacKenzie.  Follow the link to read:

 

 

US farms hit by bird flu – but a vaccine might make things worse

17:08 27 April 2015 by Debora MacKenzie

For similar stories, visit the US national issues and Bird Flu Topic Guides

Bird flu is rampaging across the Midwestern US this week. So far 8 million chickens and turkeys have been destroyed to stop the spread of H5N2, an offspring of Asia's H5N1 bird flu. Minnesota, the top US turkey producer, declared an agricultural emergency after announcing infected farms almost daily for two weeks. Iowa, the top egg producer, killed 3.8 million hens on one farm alone.

US agriculture officials hope the outbreaks will diminish as summer warmth and sunshine destroys flu viruses in the environment. But their bird flu problems may be only beginning. Wild ducks could infect the rest of the continent next autumn.

And while H5N2, unlike H5N1, seems to pose little threat to humans, the $45 billion US poultry industry is already suffering, as China, South Korea and Mexico ban US produce. Producers are calling for a poultry vaccine, and the US Department of Agriculture says it is developing one. But that might just make the problem worse by encouraging the spread of "silent" infections.

(Continue . . .)

New Scientist: Five Easy Mutations

 

 

# 5864

 

 

A week ago, in SciAm: What Will The Next Influenza Pandemic Look Like?, I referred my readers to an article on pandemic flu that included a snippet about research on the H5N1 virus conducted by Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands.

 

He basically `mutated the hell’ out of the virus in the lab, and then passed it serially through 10 ferrets, during which time it mutated further to become both easily transmissible and highly virulent.

 

You can read about this work in Katherine Harmon’s article.

 

Today, New Scientist has a follow up on this story, with details on this research and reaction from a variety of noted virologists, including Peter Palese, Peter Doherty, Malik Peiris, and Jeffery Taubenberger.

 

Which, anyway you measure it, it one heck of a line up.

 

The article is called:

 

 

Five easy mutations to make bird flu a lethal pandemic

26 September 2011 by Debora MacKenzie

 

 

And is absolutely worth your time to read.

 

While not everyone agrees that the H5N1 virus can adapt to humans (Peter Palese provides a dissenting opinion), this report serves as a reminder that it may take only a few small changes to change the virulence, transmissibility, or even the host range of an avian influenza strain.

New Scientist: Age Of Denial

 

 

# 4573

 

 

 

New Scientist is a weekly science magazine that’s been around since the mid-1950s, and covers recent developments in science and technology.   While it isn’t a peer reviewed journal, it is well respected, and is read by both scientists and the general public.

 

 

This week, New Scientist presents six opinion pieces on denialism, how it differs from skepticism, and how best to combat it. 

 

Given the proliferation of denialism, and the embracing of conspiracy theories by more and more of the public, these articles are well worth your time.

 

 

 

When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

There are clear lines between scepticism and denial, but telling them apart can be tricky in the real world, says Michael Shermer. Read more

Why sensible people reject the truth

Denialism satisfies deep emotional needs. That makes it easy to encourage and hard to counter, says Debora MacKenzie. Read more

 

How corporations manufacture doubt

If the truth is inconvenient, put up a smokescreen instead. It works wonders for big business, argues Richard Littlemore. Read more

Unleashing a lie

It's easy to send a lie flying around the world, and almost impossible to shoot it down, says Jim Giles. Read more

 

Questioning science isn't blasphemy

Michael Fitzpatrick argues that calling an opponent a denier is illiberal, intolerant and ineffective. Read more

 

The truth is our only weapon

We must let denialists be heard, and respond with patience, vigilance and tireless rebuttal, says Michael Shermer. Read more

New Scientist: Swine Flu Not A Hoax

 

# 4269

 

 

New Scientist is a weekly science magazine that’s been around since the mid-1950s, and covers recent developments in science and technology.   While it isn’t a peer reviewed journal, it is well respected, and is read by both scientists and the general public.

 

Today they offer some analysis of the claims that the Swine Flu pandemic of 2009 was a hoax, trumped up to profit big pharma.

 

Of course using logic and facts - mixed with a dash of prudence – in their arguments probably won’t carry much sway among those who prefer to see a conspiracy behind everything.  

 

But for the rest of us . . .

 

 

 

Analysis: Swine flu is not just a hoax by big pharma

 

• 17:41 19 January 2010 by Debora MacKenzie

As the dreaded autumn wave ends and official deaths remain relatively low, the backlash against the H1N1 pandemic response is in full swing. Claims range from a massive overreaction by health authorities to a conspiracy cooked up by big pharma. But while swine flu may have boosted profits for vaccine manufacturers, the reality of the pandemic is more complicated.

 

First off, the pandemic isn't over. While cases in western Europe and North America have tailed off, the virus is still spreading in eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. Meanwhile, Europe and North America could see cases rise again, if the flu pandemic of 1957-8 is anything to go by.

 

By January 1958, following an initially low death rate, officials assumed the pandemic was over, and vaccine went unused. But then there was a wave of deaths in the US in February, which might otherwise have been avoided (see graph). "They had vaccine but they didn't encourage its use," says Anne Schuchat of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. To prevent a similar scenario, the CDC recommends continued vaccination. Yet several countries and US states have vaccine gluts, and many European countries are cutting orders and selling or giving vaccine away.

 

Even if we don't see a 1958-style comeback, classifying the pandemic as a damp squib at this point would be premature. Although the World Health Organization's official death toll stands at 13,000 worldwide, this is likely to be an underestimate. "We anticipate that these figures will be much larger," Keiji Fukuda, head of flu at the WHO, told the press last week (PDF). Many cases are not seen by doctors, or are misdiagnosed: the CDC estimates that flu directly causes 2.7 times as many deaths as are officially counted in the US.

(Continue . . . )

New Scientist: Swine Flu Myth Busters

 

# 3904

 

The New Scientist debunks 8 dangerous swine flu myths in:

Swine flu: Eight myths that could endanger your life.  

Each myth has a link to a more detailed answer, so by all means follow them.  I’ve only reproduced the openings of the first 3, but all are worth reading.

 

Highly recommended.

 

MYTH 1

The symptoms are like regular flu. You've got it if you've got a fever

Up to half the people who get swine flu never develop a fever, and some suffer from gastrointestinal symptoms as well as more standard flu symptoms. Read more

 

MYTH 2

This is just mild flu. The death rates are even lower than for normal flu

Swine flu is killing young people rather than the very elderly, and although winter is just starting, more young people have already died of flu than normally die over the entire winter. Read more

 

MYTH 3

You're safe as long as you're healthy. Only sick, weak people get really ill

Most of the children who have died of swine flu were perfectly healthy beforehand, and many of the adult victims also had no underlying conditions. Read more

 

A hat tip to @Dutchy123 on Twitter for tweeting this article.