-
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.
Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
- Thread starter AlaskaDenise
- Start date
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
Second P.E.I. farm quarantined in bird-flu probe
Last Updated: Sunday, June 18, 2006 | 9:24 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/06/18/birdflu-sun.html
A second farm on Prince Edward Island has been placed under quarantine as health officials continue to investigate the discovery of avian flu virus in a domestic goose in that province.
Jim Clark, national manager of the avian influenza working group of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, said they have not discovered any signs of bird flu on the second farm.
However, the CFIA decided to quarantine the farm as a precautionary measure when they discovered there had been movement of people and perhaps poultry between that farm and another where the virus was found last Friday.
Both farms have a small, mixed flock of free-range birds.
The alarm was raised last week when a goose tested positive for an H5 virus on a farm in western P.E.I. Four of 11 geese died on that farm, leading to a post-mortem that proved inconclusive, Clark said.
The goose came from a small flock of 40 birds, mainly geese, ducks and chickens.
<NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>
Samples from the dead birds have been sent to the CFIA laboratory in Winnipeg to determine whether the virus found in the dead goose was the deadly H5N1 strain that has raised fears of a global pandemic since it was discovered in China in 2003. It has spread to 48 countries since then, but has not been discovered in the Americas.
"There's nothing that's obvious for us that would suggest … it is anything except a low pathogenicity virus," Clark told the Canadian Press, adding that he won’t know for sure until he sees the results of the tests on Tuesday or Wednesday.
Here is a media report on the quarantine of a second farm and the "inconclusive" necropsy (translation: looked like Qinghai H5N1):
Second P.E.I. farm quarantined in bird-flu probe
Last Updated: Sunday, June 18, 2006 | 9:24 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/06/18/birdflu-sun.html
A second farm on Prince Edward Island has been placed under quarantine as health officials continue to investigate the discovery of avian flu virus in a domestic goose in that province.
Jim Clark, national manager of the avian influenza working group of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, said they have not discovered any signs of bird flu on the second farm.
However, the CFIA decided to quarantine the farm as a precautionary measure when they discovered there had been movement of people and perhaps poultry between that farm and another where the virus was found last Friday.
Both farms have a small, mixed flock of free-range birds.
The alarm was raised last week when a goose tested positive for an H5 virus on a farm in western P.E.I. Four of 11 geese died on that farm, leading to a post-mortem that proved inconclusive, Clark said.
The goose came from a small flock of 40 birds, mainly geese, ducks and chickens.
<NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT>
Samples from the dead birds have been sent to the CFIA laboratory in Winnipeg to determine whether the virus found in the dead goose was the deadly H5N1 strain that has raised fears of a global pandemic since it was discovered in China in 2003. It has spread to 48 countries since then, but has not been discovered in the Americas.
"There's nothing that's obvious for us that would suggest … it is anything except a low pathogenicity virus," Clark told the Canadian Press, adding that he won’t know for sure until he sees the results of the tests on Tuesday or Wednesday.
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
The "for us" qualifier speaks volumes.
The geese were OBVIOUSLY DEAD.
The "for us" qualifier speaks volumes.
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
On the public side:
The four geese had neurological symptoms. Qinghai H5N1 causes neurological symptoms in waterfowl, low path does not.
The four geese were found dead the next day. Qinghai H5N1 causes sudden death in waterfowl. Low path H5 does not.
The necropsy was "inconclusive". Qinghai H5n1 causes organ damage, low path H5 does not.
Only one of the four dead birds was tested. Protocol calls for testing of 3-4 birds.
A press conference was called to abnnounce H5 positive PCR. A press conference would be called after MULTIPLE positives and it was called something like 10 days after the birds died.
The press conference was so long after the deaths that media reports got teh date of death wrong because they thought "Monday" was in reference to the week of the press conference, instead of the Monday in the prior week.
All other birds on the farm were culled and birds on the adjacent farms were quarantined.
Farm owners were offered Tamiflu.
Each of the above strongly suggests Qinghai H5N1. In combination, the above leaves little doubt.
However, the private information was even more disturbing.
Local officials were NOT happy with distribuition of a press release.
The PCR positive was weak and just above the cut-off, again signaling Qinghai H5N1 and indoicating that the low level in DEAD birds would mean that virtually all live birds with H5N1 would test negative.
Information on the testing was forthcoming until I asked about the size of the insert. H5N1 HA would have 4 additional amino acids at the HA cleavage site, producing an insert that was 12 BP larger, which could be seen on the sizing gel. That information was considered "private" and could not be disclosed, even though the sample was from a baby GOOSE.
The sequences from low path H5 from 2005 and 2006 in Canada and 2006 in the US STILL has not been made public.
The story on H5N1 in Canada is quite clear.
The reading between the lines of the public and private info left little doubt that the four goslings on Prince Edward Island died of Qinghai H5N1.
On the public side:
The four geese had neurological symptoms. Qinghai H5N1 causes neurological symptoms in waterfowl, low path does not.
The four geese were found dead the next day. Qinghai H5N1 causes sudden death in waterfowl. Low path H5 does not.
The necropsy was "inconclusive". Qinghai H5n1 causes organ damage, low path H5 does not.
Only one of the four dead birds was tested. Protocol calls for testing of 3-4 birds.
A press conference was called to abnnounce H5 positive PCR. A press conference would be called after MULTIPLE positives and it was called something like 10 days after the birds died.
The press conference was so long after the deaths that media reports got teh date of death wrong because they thought "Monday" was in reference to the week of the press conference, instead of the Monday in the prior week.
All other birds on the farm were culled and birds on the adjacent farms were quarantined.
Farm owners were offered Tamiflu.
Each of the above strongly suggests Qinghai H5N1. In combination, the above leaves little doubt.
However, the private information was even more disturbing.
Local officials were NOT happy with distribuition of a press release.
The PCR positive was weak and just above the cut-off, again signaling Qinghai H5N1 and indoicating that the low level in DEAD birds would mean that virtually all live birds with H5N1 would test negative.
Information on the testing was forthcoming until I asked about the size of the insert. H5N1 HA would have 4 additional amino acids at the HA cleavage site, producing an insert that was 12 BP larger, which could be seen on the sizing gel. That information was considered "private" and could not be disclosed, even though the sample was from a baby GOOSE.
The sequences from low path H5 from 2005 and 2006 in Canada and 2006 in the US STILL has not been made public.
The story on H5N1 in Canada is quite clear.
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
On PEI, the H5 PCR in a dead goose was a weak positive, so most H5 in live birds would be undetectable or reported as negative..
The amount of testing of dead waterfowl in North America is VERY limited. Most of the testing in the US and Canada was on live healthy birds. Testing of clusters of dead birds was minimal, and many dead birds tested were road kill or birds that flew into windows.
On PEI, the H5 PCR in a dead goose was a weak positive, so most H5 in live birds would be undetectable or reported as negative..
canagica
Resident
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
To give an idea of how many dead birds were tested last year as part of the avian influenza surveillance effort, 7355 dead birds (morbidity/mortality, not hunter-killed) were tested, out of ~145000 total (live+m/m+hunter-killed) tested, or roughly 5% of samples.
What's really interesting is to look at the proportion of wild birds tested that year: USGS summarizes those data in quarterly reports. I did the math for 2006, and there were 66486 dead birds reported in 06; if we take the data from the HEDDS dead bird tested number (7355), then we learn that about 11% of the dead birds reported at various federal, state, and local levels were tested. These reports summarize the diagnoses for each die-off, and the diagnoses for about 3.8% (2533) of the dead birds were undetermined or the investigation is still open.
So-
Im not sure if it is accurate to say that testing of dead birds/clusters of dead birds was minimal, and from looking at the diagnoses, very few are characterized as window kills or road kill.
It would be interesting to know, in a cluster of say 5000 ducks that are diagnosed with Botulism Type C, how many birds are needed to be tested in order to come up with a conclusion for the outbreak...that would give us some idea of whether this level of testing is "very limited".
To give an idea of how many dead birds were tested last year as part of the avian influenza surveillance effort, 7355 dead birds (morbidity/mortality, not hunter-killed) were tested, out of ~145000 total (live+m/m+hunter-killed) tested, or roughly 5% of samples.
What's really interesting is to look at the proportion of wild birds tested that year: USGS summarizes those data in quarterly reports. I did the math for 2006, and there were 66486 dead birds reported in 06; if we take the data from the HEDDS dead bird tested number (7355), then we learn that about 11% of the dead birds reported at various federal, state, and local levels were tested. These reports summarize the diagnoses for each die-off, and the diagnoses for about 3.8% (2533) of the dead birds were undetermined or the investigation is still open.
So-
Im not sure if it is accurate to say that testing of dead birds/clusters of dead birds was minimal, and from looking at the diagnoses, very few are characterized as window kills or road kill.
It would be interesting to know, in a cluster of say 5000 ducks that are diagnosed with Botulism Type C, how many birds are needed to be tested in order to come up with a conclusion for the outbreak...that would give us some idea of whether this level of testing is "very limited".
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
Since 19/20 birds tested were alive, testing of dead birds was minimal. As I recall, many of the dead birds were from trauma (as in road kill or windows). Most of the effort was clearly directed at live healthy birds, with the expected negative results (which would be negative because the assays used were not sensitive enough to detect Qinghai H5N1 in live wild birds).
canagica
Resident
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
Sorry to split hairs, but 5% of the 2006 samples were from mortality events, 30% were hunter-killed, 30% were live birds, and 35% were environmental samples (USGS HEDDS)
If you compare the total number of birds reported in the 2006 USGS NWHC quarterly reports of morbidity/mortality events (~66500 birds), ~7400 of them were tested (hence about 11% of the birds involved in mortality events were tested). The diagnoses are listed for each record, and if you look you will see that <5% (6/133 events) are trauma related. I didn't total the number of birds in the trauma events, but they are a very small proportion (probably <2%) of the total number of birds reported.
Sorry to split hairs, but 5% of the 2006 samples were from mortality events, 30% were hunter-killed, 30% were live birds, and 35% were environmental samples (USGS HEDDS)
If you compare the total number of birds reported in the 2006 USGS NWHC quarterly reports of morbidity/mortality events (~66500 birds), ~7400 of them were tested (hence about 11% of the birds involved in mortality events were tested). The diagnoses are listed for each record, and if you look you will see that <5% (6/133 events) are trauma related. I didn't total the number of birds in the trauma events, but they are a very small proportion (probably <2%) of the total number of birds reported.
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
As noted multiple times now, the testing of dead or dying birds was MINIMAL. 19/20 tests were of samples from healthy birds (which have levels of H5N1 that are below the detection limits of the tests).
Reality check. There were 7,355 sick, dead or dying birds tested. There were a total of 144,461 bird samples tested. More than 19/20 were tests of live healthy birds, either as those trapped, those killed by hunters, those used as sentinals, or those providing environmental samples collected with pooper scoopers.
As noted multiple times now, the testing of dead or dying birds was MINIMAL. 19/20 tests were of samples from healthy birds (which have levels of H5N1 that are below the detection limits of the tests).
canagica
Resident
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
I think you are missing the point of my earlier question: the 7355 tested were out of a total of 66K reported in wildlife mortality events. Is that minimal? I don't know, hence the question of how many birds do you have to test in order to say (e.g.) that a mortality event that killed 5K ducks was due to botulism? Do we need to test all 66K, or does the current sampling scheme have some rationale behind it that is valid? The number of birds per mortality event ranges from a handful to thousands, so what would be a logical sampling regime?
Again, if anyone has seen anything published about the sensitivity of the tests (false negative rates, false positive rates, etc), it would enlighten this discussion immensely.
I think you are missing the point of my earlier question: the 7355 tested were out of a total of 66K reported in wildlife mortality events. Is that minimal? I don't know, hence the question of how many birds do you have to test in order to say (e.g.) that a mortality event that killed 5K ducks was due to botulism? Do we need to test all 66K, or does the current sampling scheme have some rationale behind it that is valid? The number of birds per mortality event ranges from a handful to thousands, so what would be a logical sampling regime?
Again, if anyone has seen anything published about the sensitivity of the tests (false negative rates, false positive rates, etc), it would enlighten this discussion immensely.
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
The minimal is in reference to the effort directed at detecting H5N1 in dead birds in North America. The effort was directed at testing live birds. There are many more dead birds than those reported. Canada even began asking residents to report dead birds. The fact that 19/20 tests were in live birds, indicates efforts to find and test dead birds were not very great (as in minimal).
Here is the published data on Qinghai in live birds in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Africa. ZERO positives (other than the teal in Egypt which was positive after initially testing as negative).
The minimal is in reference to the effort directed at detecting H5N1 in dead birds in North America. The effort was directed at testing live birds. There are many more dead birds than those reported. Canada even began asking residents to report dead birds. The fact that 19/20 tests were in live birds, indicates efforts to find and test dead birds were not very great (as in minimal).
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
http://wildlifedisease.nbii.gov/ai/LPAITable.pdf
Detection of H5N1 was limited to 17 collections (see above link). The samples were said to be low path H5N1. However, the number of positives from dead or dying birds was ZERO, because testing of those birds was minimal.
However, even with samples that were H5N1 positive, H5N1 was only isolated six times. Nothing was isolated in 7 of the collections, and 4 collections yeilded serotypes other than H5N1 (H5N2, H6N2, H1N1, H4N1).
These data are well into the abysmal category, where low path H5N1 could not be isolates from samples that were H5N1 positive, and presumably gave sequences which were used to declare the samples low path.
The abysmal record on detecting or isolating H5N1 low path shows why no high path was found.
Here is data to show how abysmal the testing was in the United States
http://wildlifedisease.nbii.gov/ai/LPAITable.pdf
Detection of H5N1 was limited to 17 collections (see above link). The samples were said to be low path H5N1. However, the number of positives from dead or dying birds was ZERO, because testing of those birds was minimal.
However, even with samples that were H5N1 positive, H5N1 was only isolated six times. Nothing was isolated in 7 of the collections, and 4 collections yeilded serotypes other than H5N1 (H5N2, H6N2, H1N1, H4N1).
These data are well into the abysmal category, where low path H5N1 could not be isolates from samples that were H5N1 positive, and presumably gave sequences which were used to declare the samples low path.
The abysmal record on detecting or isolating H5N1 low path shows why no high path was found.
canagica
Resident
tests not sufficient?
tests not sufficient?
I'm fairly certain that birds dying in wildlife mortality events are tested for multiple pathogens, AI being one of them. So-back to my original question: is testing 11% of the birds killed in reported wildlife mortality events enough? I'm not sure that testing one in ten dead/morbid birds is "minimal"; what percentage should qualify as sufficient?
As for the LPAI results, The quality of the initial test that garnered these results is described thusly:
"A series of AI rapid screening tests are performed that cannot differentiate between highly pathogenic AI (HPAI) and low pathogenic AI (LPAI) viruses. The initial rapid screening tests are highly sensitive and can detect active and inactive viruses in samples. Because these rapid screening tests are highly sensitive, it is not uncommon to have positive results for a specific subtype on the initial screen test and yet not be able to isolate a virus of that subtype."
Taken at face value, this statement indicates that the test has a high rate of false positives. So-we shouldn't be surprised that H5 wasn't even isolated from some of the samples that initially tested positive.
It would be useful to know how often LPAI H5N1 has been isolated in studies conducted over the last 50 years, with their sample sizes, to assess how frequently waterfowl have carried this subtype. Then we might objectively determine how frequently they ought to be found...Has anyone spent the time collating those data?
tests not sufficient?
I'm fairly certain that birds dying in wildlife mortality events are tested for multiple pathogens, AI being one of them. So-back to my original question: is testing 11% of the birds killed in reported wildlife mortality events enough? I'm not sure that testing one in ten dead/morbid birds is "minimal"; what percentage should qualify as sufficient?
As for the LPAI results, The quality of the initial test that garnered these results is described thusly:
"A series of AI rapid screening tests are performed that cannot differentiate between highly pathogenic AI (HPAI) and low pathogenic AI (LPAI) viruses. The initial rapid screening tests are highly sensitive and can detect active and inactive viruses in samples. Because these rapid screening tests are highly sensitive, it is not uncommon to have positive results for a specific subtype on the initial screen test and yet not be able to isolate a virus of that subtype."
Taken at face value, this statement indicates that the test has a high rate of false positives. So-we shouldn't be surprised that H5 wasn't even isolated from some of the samples that initially tested positive.
It would be useful to know how often LPAI H5N1 has been isolated in studies conducted over the last 50 years, with their sample sizes, to assess how frequently waterfowl have carried this subtype. Then we might objectively determine how frequently they ought to be found...Has anyone spent the time collating those data?
Johnny Yuma
Well-known member
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
No, the testing so far is not sufficient.
Lo Path avian influenza usually leaves a bird LIVING.
Hi Path causes DEATH.
It is ridiculous that 6 confirmed incidents of H5N1 in dead wild birds were reported to be Lo Path.
These birds were DEAD.
Monty Python's Parrot Sketch can make it more clear:
"Mr Praline: It's not pinin', it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot. It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace!"
PLEASE STOP and let this GO, CANAGICA.
I love birds as much as anyone----but the truth is the TRUTH.
Migratory birds carry H5N1 around.
I promise----- I won't shoot any birds.
No, the testing so far is not sufficient.
Lo Path avian influenza usually leaves a bird LIVING.
Hi Path causes DEATH.
It is ridiculous that 6 confirmed incidents of H5N1 in dead wild birds were reported to be Lo Path.
These birds were DEAD.
Monty Python's Parrot Sketch can make it more clear:
"Mr Praline: It's not pinin', it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot. It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace!"
PLEASE STOP and let this GO, CANAGICA.
I love birds as much as anyone----but the truth is the TRUTH.
Migratory birds carry H5N1 around.
I promise----- I won't shoot any birds.
canagica
Resident
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
Hey Johnny Yuma-
Thanks for the vote of confidence-I promise to stop holding the gun to your head and making you read my posts, if you promise to stop yelling at me. Deal?
If you have read any of the above posts, they have little to do with arguing that migratory birds don't carry H5N1. I have, from the beginning, stayed focused on what the data we do have says, and then continued to ask for some help in understanding and interpreting it in light of other data and the enlightened opinions of other people replying to this thread.
You don't seem that interested in the discussion--that's fine. I'm actually interested in TRUTH. Not handwaving. And I am interested in paying attention to the numbers that have been gathered in the past in order to put the numbers we are finding today into context.
These are important parts to actually understanding the epidemiology of the transmission and dispersal of avian influenzas. I think that part of the goal of Flutrackers is to discuss what is known (and unknown) with an eye towards accuracy. For instance, your comment above stating
"It is ridiculous that 6 confirmed incidents of H5N1 in dead wild birds were reported to be Lo Path.
These birds were DEAD."
displays what I am talking about. It is inaccurate.
Of the seven samples that tested positive for LPAI H5N1, five were hunter-killed, one was a live bird, and one was an environmental sample. All it takes is actually looking at the data before writing. None of the ~7400 morbid/mortality samples came up positive for LPAI H5N1, nor were any of the ~64000 morbid/mortality samples from the NWHC diagnosed with AI as the cause of death. Isn't there something to be learned from the data that we do have? Isn't this forum the place to call for more synthesis in understanding how all of the pieces fit together? Why is it considered "not letting it go" when accuracy and evidence are the threshold I am asking for?
Hey Johnny Yuma-
Thanks for the vote of confidence-I promise to stop holding the gun to your head and making you read my posts, if you promise to stop yelling at me. Deal?
If you have read any of the above posts, they have little to do with arguing that migratory birds don't carry H5N1. I have, from the beginning, stayed focused on what the data we do have says, and then continued to ask for some help in understanding and interpreting it in light of other data and the enlightened opinions of other people replying to this thread.
You don't seem that interested in the discussion--that's fine. I'm actually interested in TRUTH. Not handwaving. And I am interested in paying attention to the numbers that have been gathered in the past in order to put the numbers we are finding today into context.
These are important parts to actually understanding the epidemiology of the transmission and dispersal of avian influenzas. I think that part of the goal of Flutrackers is to discuss what is known (and unknown) with an eye towards accuracy. For instance, your comment above stating
"It is ridiculous that 6 confirmed incidents of H5N1 in dead wild birds were reported to be Lo Path.
These birds were DEAD."
displays what I am talking about. It is inaccurate.
Of the seven samples that tested positive for LPAI H5N1, five were hunter-killed, one was a live bird, and one was an environmental sample. All it takes is actually looking at the data before writing. None of the ~7400 morbid/mortality samples came up positive for LPAI H5N1, nor were any of the ~64000 morbid/mortality samples from the NWHC diagnosed with AI as the cause of death. Isn't there something to be learned from the data that we do have? Isn't this forum the place to call for more synthesis in understanding how all of the pieces fit together? Why is it considered "not letting it go" when accuracy and evidence are the threshold I am asking for?
Last edited:
Johnny Yuma
Well-known member
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
YES---Canagica----you are right. I am wrong.
I read the table again:
4 H5N1 positive bird tests were hunter killed
1 H5N1 positive test was the environment (water???) of mallard ducks
1 H5N1 positive test was an alive bird
C, How can you tell how many birds they tested?
All test results were of low pathogenicity ( lo path)
I apologize, C.
I am SO SICK of the migratory bird debate that I cannot even look at
official reports properly.
Migratory birds carry H5N1---and lots of other avian influenza viruses.
YEARS OF H5N1 TESTING----wild bird, cat, chicken, human---have been unreliable, slow, minimal, secretive, contradictory, and subject to error.
There has not been much of an effort to improve this H5N1 testing situation over the years------and we will never know the truth about past H5N1 activity.
We don't have a testing lab, and no one will care and demand more testing until birds fall dead out of the sky all over the country----- like they did in Austin, TX.
YES---Canagica----you are right. I am wrong.
I read the table again:
4 H5N1 positive bird tests were hunter killed
1 H5N1 positive test was the environment (water???) of mallard ducks
1 H5N1 positive test was an alive bird
C, How can you tell how many birds they tested?
All test results were of low pathogenicity ( lo path)
I apologize, C.
I am SO SICK of the migratory bird debate that I cannot even look at
official reports properly.
Migratory birds carry H5N1---and lots of other avian influenza viruses.
YEARS OF H5N1 TESTING----wild bird, cat, chicken, human---have been unreliable, slow, minimal, secretive, contradictory, and subject to error.
There has not been much of an effort to improve this H5N1 testing situation over the years------and we will never know the truth about past H5N1 activity.
We don't have a testing lab, and no one will care and demand more testing until birds fall dead out of the sky all over the country----- like they did in Austin, TX.
gsgs
Registered User
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
don't stop. Figure it out ! That's why we are here.
Wished I could contribute more...well, needs more time...
rearrange the priorities...
let's attach a poll where everyone estimates the
percentage of wild birds with H5N1 in Africa and Europe !
And then ask the experts for their estimates
don't stop. Figure it out ! That's why we are here.
Wished I could contribute more...well, needs more time...
rearrange the priorities...
let's attach a poll where everyone estimates the
percentage of wild birds with H5N1 in Africa and Europe !
And then ask the experts for their estimates
Re: Study: Migratory birds not to blame for spread of avian flu
You have already given a baseless number (50% of who knows what). Why ask for more?
The numbers have already been reported. ZERO positives in live birds in Europe, the Middle East, and north America (with one positive on a re-test in Egypt).
You have already given a baseless number (50% of who knows what). Why ask for more?