Migrating Birds Didn't Carry Flu

ROME, May 10 — Defying the dire predictions of health officials, the flocks of migratory birds that flew south to Africa last fall, then back over Europe in recent weeks did not carry the deadly bird flu virus or spread it during their annual journey, scientists have concluded.

International health officials had feared that the disease was likely to spread to Africa during the southward migration and return to Europe with a vengeance during the reverse migration this spring. That has not happened — a significant finding for Europe, because it is far easier to monitor a virus that exists domestically on farms but not in the wild. "It is quiet now in terms of cases, which is contrary to what many people had expected," said Ward Hagemeijer, a bird flu specialist with Wetlands International, an environmental group based in the Netherlands that studies migratory birds.

In thousands of samples collected in Africa this winter, the bird flu virus, A(H5N1), was not detected in a single wild bird, health officials and scientists said. In Europe, only a few cases have been detected in wild birds since April 1, at the height of the migration north.

The number of cases in Europe has fallen off so steeply compared with February, when dozens of new cases were found daily, that specialists contend that the northward spring migration played no role. The flu was found in one grebe in Denmark on April 28 — the last case discovered — and a falcon in Germany and a few swans in France, said the World Organization for Animal Health, based in Paris.

In response to the good news, agriculture officials in many European countries are lifting restrictions intended to protect valuable poultry from infected wild birds.

APZ posted this on 3/12:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hospitals Short on Ventilators if Bird Flu Hits

Posted by APZ to BearWash
On News/Activism 03/12/2006 11:34:58 AM PST · 21 of 30

#18 misses the point -- and exactly misses it. The virus NO LONGER kills migratory birds (if it did, they wouldn't migrate). It still DOES kill chickens as they are (a) a different species of bird; (b) live in crowded conditions so that the virus can always find another host and doesn't end its lineage as a result of killing any particular bird; and (c) domestic fowl don't migrate (in fact, they don't even move much). The POINT is that when there are uncrowded conditions (e.g. among migratory birds) the virus becomes less lethal to the host. THAT is why it is a problem for chickens (who live in extremely crowded conditions) and NOT for migratory birds or humans. The poster would do well to read a little bit of evoluationary biology before making ad hominum characterizations. My predicitions (seconded by Prof. Ed Kilbourne, probably the world's leading flu expert) have been exactly right. The "experts" who claim the sky is (or will be) falling have been wrong.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Once again those in the know get their info from Free Republic

Thanks to woofie for posting this NYTimes piece. I am sure it will be followed by a scientific paper where the data can be scrutinized, but it is apparent that the predictions from the basic science (rather than hysteria) are now being validated.

Although I have learned how dangerous (or at least disappointing) it is to post science on a mosgtly political website, for those who are interested in rational public policy formation we now have clear evidence there have been several new papers that confirm the earlier prediction that hundreds of millions (literally -- I am not making this up) of people in East Asia (mostly rural China) have antibodies to H5N1 and none (well, maybe one or two) have had so much as a sniffle. From the immunological standpoint, antibodies against influenza viruses (of any subtype) always (or almost always) reflect immunity to the organism (unlike, say HIV or Hepatitis C where having an antibody is unfortunately diagnostic of disease because for whatever reason the antibody response is NOT protective).

For those with an interest in the data, the most recent paper of importance is:

Thorson A. etl a. Is Exposure to Sick or Dead Poultry associated with Flulike Illness? Archives of Internal Medicine 2006; Vol 166, pages 119-125.

Abstract:
Background: The verified human cases of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Vietnam may represent only a selection of the most severely ill patients. The study objective was to analyze the association between flulike illness, defined as cough and fever, and exposure to sick or dead poultry.

Methods: A population-based study was performed from April 1 to June 30, 2004, in FilaBavi, a rural Vietnamese demographic surveillance site with confirmed outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza among poultry. We included 45 478 randomly selected (cluster sampling) inhabitants. Household representatives were asked screening questions about exposure to poultry and flulike illness during the preceding months; individuals with a history of disease and/or exposure were interviewed in person.

Results: A total of 8149 individuals (17.9%) reported flulike illness, 38 373 persons (84.4%) lived in households keeping poultry, and 11 755 (25.9%) resided in households reporting sick or dead poultry. A dose-response relationship between poultry exposure and flulike illness was noted: poultry in the household (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.12), sick or dead poultry in the household but with no direct contact (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.23), and direct contact with sick poultry (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.58- 1.89). The flulike illness attributed to direct contact with sick or dead poultry was estimated to be 650 to 750 cases.

Conclusions: Our epidemiological data are consistent with transmission of mild, highly pathogenic avian influenza to humans and suggest that transmission could be more common than anticipated, though close contact seems required. Further microbiological studies are needed to validate these findings. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:119-123

I am sure that there will be those who will take deep offense when they realize that the ever growing database fails to comport with their personal theories about influenza, but that is the nature of debate in America: free, but often uninformed. I would be happy to discuss the science -- but not ad hominum attacks -- with anyone who wishes.

Respectfully,
apz

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.