Pakistan’s War Of Words On Bird Flu

 

 

Photo Credit – FAO

 

# 6003

 

 

Yesterday Pakistan’s Daily Times carried a report highly critical of the government’s lack of measures to combat the bird flu virus written by Asad Farooq called:

 

Bird flu threat looms large over Pakistan

KARACHI: Inappropriate policies, lapses in the 18th Amendment and prolonged delay in departmental procedures have pushed the country towards the deadliest viral disease of ‘bird flu’ at a time when the country is already facing severe problems due to dengue virus.

A large number of birds migrate from Europe to the South Asian countries, including Pakistan during the winter season, which according to the experts, are the core source of viral diseases, particularly the bird flu. So far tens of thousands of migratory birds along with the significant alarms of bird flu have arrived in the country.

(Continue . . .)

 

This story goes on to criticize the recent dismantling of Pakistan’s National Programme for the Control and Prevention of Avian & Pandemic Influenza, which critics worry leaves Pakistan susceptible to a return of the H5N1 virus.

 

Today, the Business Recorder has a stern rebuttal to these claims, where health officials reportedly reject the concerns printed in the Daily Times.

 

No threats of bird flu in Pakistan

Monday, 12 December 2011 18:10

ISLAMABAD: Health experts on Monday rejected the news item which mentioned that threat of bird flu looms large over Pakistan and said it is all misinformation.

Experts also brushed aside the concept that migratory birds were carrier of any viral disease, and mentioned that these birds are not source or carrier of bird flu.

(Continue . . . )

 

 

These denials are similar to those we’ve seen in the past, including back in 2007 when a cluster of human cases (see EID Journal: Unraveling Pakistan’s H5N1 Outbreak) made headlines.

 

Again, in 2008 we saw some remarkable statements regarding the H5N1 virus come out of Pakistan (see Bird Flu, Propaganda, and Conspiracy Theories  and PPA Slams Bird Flu `Propaganda'), the gist being that fears over bird flu were `overblown’ and that it was all a conspiracy mounted against Pakistan’s poultry industry.

 

 

Today’s  assertions that wild birds `are not carriers of any viral disease’ and are not the `source or carrier of bird flu’ certainly fly against the available evidence.

 

The FAO, in their warning on the new 2.3.2.1 clade of the H5N1 virus issued last August (see FAO Warns On Bird Flu) states:

 

Virus spread in both poultry and wild birds

At the same time, 2008 marked the beginning of renewed geographic expansion of the H5N1 virus both in poultry and wild birds.

 

The advance appears to be associated with migratory bird movements, according to FAO Chief Veterinary Officer Juan Lubroth. He said migrations help the virus travel over long distances, so that H5N1 has in the past 24 months shown up in poultry or wild birds in countries that had been virus-free for several years.

 

"Wild birds may introduce the virus, but peoples' actions in poultry production and marketing spread it," Lubroth noted.

(Continue . . )

 

And of course we’ve seen numerous occasions where migratory birds have tested positive for a variety of avian flu strains, including H5N1. 

 

Last March, in  Study: The Role Of Migratory Birds In Spreading Bird Flu, we saw a plausible mechanism for the H5N1 virus to be spread from domesticated poultry to wild birds during the winter, and from there relayed primarily by asymptomatic birds along the migratory pathways. 

 

And for more evidence linking migratory birds, and the spread of avian influenza, you may wish to revisit.

 

Korea: Migratory Birds Behind Spread Of H5N1

EID Journal: H5N1 Branching Out

Japan: Hooded Crane Positive For H5N1

FAO: On The Trail Of Avian Influenza

 

 

While there are still unanswered questions regarding how much of contribution migratory birds make towards the global spread of avian flu, the evidence is overwhelming that they play at least some role.

 

All of which makes today’s renewed protestations that `bird flu poses no threat to Pakistan’, and that it is all an attempt to `shamble the business of poultry’ ring just a bit hollow.

A Classic Photo Op

 

# 4379

 

 

 

Guangdong Province, which lies adjacent to Hong Kong, has long been the site of suspected bird flu activity – although rarely do we get official acknowledgment of the fact.  

 

Last year, you may recall, hundreds of dead (and H5N1 infected) chickens were found washed up on the beaches around Hong Kong, after having floated down the Pearl river from mainland China.

 

For an overview, see More On The Chinese Bird Flu Mystery and for warnings from a leading Chinese scientist that vaccines may mask H5N1 symptoms, see  Zhong Nanshan On Asymptomatic Poultry. 

 

 

And every year migratory birds arrive in Hong Kong from the mainland, and they too sometimes carry the H5N1 virus.

 

Since Hong Kong imports considerable poultry, and other food items, from Guangdong Province there are naturally concerns about the safety of those goods.   Recent food safety scandals coming out of China over the past year or two haven’t helped matters much, either.

 

So this reassuring Xinhua news article, and accompanying photo – showing a single terrified chicken undergoing scrutiny by no less than 3 hazmat suited inspectors – caught my eye this morning. 

 

No doubt this level of inspection goes on for each and every chicken headed to the live markets of Hong Kong.  And, doubtless, inspectors can detect asymptomatic H5N1 in poultry, just by looking at them.   

 

(Actually, they appear to be reading a toe tag.  Probably reads `Inspected by Number 14’  in Cantonese).

Pardon my snark. 

 

My thanks to Sharon Sanders on FluTrackers for posting this picture which is simply too good not to share.

 

 

 

China - Officials Inspect Poultry Before Shipment from Guangdong Province to Hong Kong

---

Guangdong to ensure the safety of fresh agricultural products to Hong Kong

2010-2-24

Figure: inspection and quarantine officers fresh agricultural products to Hong Kong to strengthen inspection to ensure safety

(Newspaper photo)

show on the 23rd Guangzhou, Xinhua Reporters from the Guangdong Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau was informed that, during the Spring Festival in Guangdong for Hong Kong fresh agricultural products, both to ensure the quality and safety of food, but also ensure rapid clearance, customs clearance and smooth.

 

During the Spring Festival, Guangdong Board for Hong Kong and Macao from the 1555 batch, 62476; 216 batches of chicken, 29109; food aquatic animals 2156 batch, 173.4 tons; 1000 batch of vegetables, 7300 tons; milk 20 batches of 224 tons.

 

Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao fresh agricultural products, a major source of food every day, 450 trucks and ships more than 10 types of fresh agricultural products will be continuously transported to Hong Kong.

A Worthless Argument

 

 

# 4171

 

 

One of the reasons I don’t try to take on every conspiracy nut or anti-vaccine crank on the internet is that there are simply too many of them.  I’d have no time for anything else in my life. 

 

After all, once you start . . . where do you stop?

Besides, the small but erudite readership of this blog hardly needs a daily reality check from me.   And those netizens who might benefit are unlikely to wander this way.   

 

So . . .  I try to concentrate on providing good information, and not so much shooting down the bad.

 
But sometimes I come across something so egregious, so outlandish, that I simply can’t stand it.  I have to say something.

 

Today is one of those days.

 

My RSS reader – which is keyed to phrases like `pneumonia’, and `influenza’ and `vaccine’ pulled up a blog post that supposedly proves that influenza vaccines are worthless . . . and that scientists have known that for 90 years.

 

I’m not going to give this website a link.   They get far too much traffic as it is.   If you want to read it, Google `Influenza Vaccine to be Worthless as Early as 1918’.   

 

The basis for this assertion comes from a January 24th, 1920 NYTs article that plainly states that the `influenza vaccines’ used during the 1918 pandemic were worthless in preventing influenza . . . but did help prevent pneumonia.

 

The website simply puts this 90-year-old article up, without comment (other than the provocative headline).   The lack of context or commentary are, at best, a sin of omission.

 

First, an excerpt from the NYTs article, then a little dissection.

 

 

 

Proof positive that the influenza vaccine is a failure.  Right?

 

Not even close (but of course, you know that).

 

The `influenza vaccine’ used in 1918 wasn’t an influenza vaccine at all.   At the time of that pandemic, and the writing of this NYTs article, scientists didn’t even understand that influenza was caused by a virus. 

 

Up until the early 1930s, scientists thought influenza was caused by a bacteria; Hemophilus influenzae. A gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium first described in 1892 by Richard Pfeiffer during an influenza pandemic.

 

Given the level of scientific advancement, the mistake was understandable.   Bacteria, being much larger than viruses, were possible to detect with early light-microscopes. And many flu victims developed secondary bacterial pneumonias, presenting with their lungs filled with bacteria laced pus.  

 

And so the `composite vaccine’ made from the germs believed to be responsible for colds, influenza, and pneumonia was nothing more than a very crude, scattergun approach bacterial pneumonia vaccine.  

Just because they called it an `influenza vaccine’ 90 years ago doesn’t make it so.   And so there should be no expectation of that sort of vaccine inhibiting the influenza virus.

 

Damning today’s influenza vaccine based on this 90 year old news story is about as cynical and disingenuous as it comes.

 

It wasn’t until 1931 that viral growth of the influenza virus was demonstrated in chicken eggs, and not until the early 1940s that the first inactivated influenza vaccine was developed and used by the US Military.

 

In other words, the first true influenza vaccine wasn’t even developed until 20 years after this NYTs article appeared. And in the 70 years since then, many advances in the science and technology have occurred.

 

 

But of course, to some people, the truth is secondary . . . assuming it matters at all.   To offer this 90 year-old article as `proof’ of anything shows how far some people will go to push an agenda.

 

Sadly, arguments such as this one – as worthless as they may be – will probably convince some people to avoid taking the influenza vaccine.