OCTOBER 28, 2005. Recently, I
have been writing about testing for bird flu. As in, ARE THE
TESTS ANY GOOD? ARE THEY DONE CORRECTLY? ARE THEY USEFUL?
ARE THEY REALLY IDENTIFYING AN ILLNESS CALLED BIRD FLU? IS
THIS JUST ANOTHER HOAX?
I've pointed out that testing
for antibodies to a germ is not good enough, and that such
testing is, in fact, deceiving, BECAUSE ANTIBODIES ARE
NORMALLY A SIGN THAT THE BODY HAS SUCCESSFULLY WARDED OFF A
GERM. IN OTHER WORDS, HAVING ANTIBODIES TO A GERM IS NOT A
SIGN OF PAST OR PRESENT OR FUTURE ILLNESS.
I'll be a little more
specific. Antibodies are like scouts for the immune system.
They are part of the body's overall effort to bring a germ
under control. A vaccine, for example, PRODUCES ANTIBODIES
TO A GERM. (Of course, there are many dangers associated
with vaccines, but the IDEA of a vaccine is that it produces
antibodies. So conventional medical authorities would say
that the arising of antibodies in the body is a GOOD thing.)
However, about 20 years ago,
for no good reason, all this science was turned on its head.
Suddenly, everybody began testing for antibodies, and if
antibodies were found, the conclusion was reached: the
person is sick or he will get sick.
There is another way to test
people. You actually ISOLATE AND IDENTIFY THE GERM IN
QUESTION. You do it directly. (Even then, there are other
questions to ask, but I won't take that up here.)
So naturally, when all the
hysteria started coming down the pipeline about bird flu and
the H5N1 strain of that virus, I wondered how doctors and
researchers WERE DOING THE TESTS. By and large, were they
isolating the H5N1 virus directly, or were they off on
another ridiculous goofball hunt for antibodies?
I'm talking about tests run
on both animals and humans.
And I had another question.
If they were actually isolating the H5N1 virus, were they
figuring out HOW MUCH OF THAT VIRUS WAS IN THE BODY OF A
PARTICULAR ANIMAL OR HUMAN?
Why did I ask that? Because
you need millions and millions and millions of an active
germ in a body before you can even begin to wonder whether
that germ is contributing to illness.
I knew, for example, that the
famous PCR test was often used to take tiny possible gene
fragments of a germ and amplify them, blow them up into
something that could be seen. From this test---wrongly
applied---many scientists have inferred that a specific germ
was present in great numbers and was causing disease---but
what they ignored was this: the PCR test was not giving them
ACTUAL numbers of a germ present in the body. The PCR test
was giving them an amplification AFTER the tiny fragments
were taken out of the body.
I decided to search for
articles that would give us an idea about how tests for bird
flu (H5N1) were being done. I'm presenting you a sprinkle
here. You'll get the idea. You'll see how blithely medical
professionals assume that the presence of antibodies to H5N1
is A VERY OMINOUS INDICATOR OF DISEASE---when in fact
antibodies mean no such thing. Antibodies all by themselves
mean nothing about actual illness. They do not point to
illness. Okay.
Here we go: H5N1 Antibodies
in Poultry Workers in India Recombinomics Commentary May 11,
2005 >> But virus isolation and sequencing has not been
attempted in India, as there is a lack of such a secure
bio-safety facility, said Dr A C Mishra, director of the
National Institute of Virology, Pune…… Indian researcher Dr
Nalini Ramamurthy, director of The King Institute of
Preventive Medicine, Chennai said their group chanced upon
these three cases of "sero-positivity" in a poultry farm in
Kattangalathur, about 45 km south of Chennai, while
routinely monitoring the human population for influenza
antibodies. All the three who show positivity have never
travelled overseas nor is any poultry imported into India
from regions where epidemics have occurred-East Asia-so a
native exposure to the virus is the only alternative, she
says.
<< The finding of H5N1
antibodies in poultry workers in India is cause for concern.
Since the positive serum was collected in 2002, the current
situation in India is unknown. Prior to 2002, the only
reported human cases of H5N1 infection were in Hong Kong in
1997. The evolution of H5N1 has been significant since 1997,
and the only reported recent cases of infection have been in
Vietnam and Thailand, other than low titer antibody detected
in Japan in workers who were sanitizing a heavily infected
farm in 2004. More screening for antibody in more recent
serum collections from poultry workers would help define the
current situation.… end of excerpt Wow.
This all ABOUT ANTIBODY
TESTING. That's what they're talking about. They're not
trying to find the virus directly at all. Boom. Useless
non-science. USELESS. Okay.
Here is next article excerpt:
Commentary H5N1 Bird Flu False Negatives In Indonesia
Recombinomics Commentary September 29, 2005 ...The initial
familial cluster involved three fatalities. All three
fatalities were clearly due to H5N1 infection, but only one
tested positive for H5N1 by PCR. The failure to detect H5N1
in the other two fatalities was simply due to the improper
collection of samples... end of excerpt
What do we have here? Three
human deaths in Indonesia attributed to bird flu (H5N1).
Only one tested positive, and the test was the PCR, which,
as I pointed out above, is completely unreliable for this
purpose, because it doesn't give any sort of picture of how
many H5N1 germs are really in a body. USELESS.
Here is the next one: 1: J
Clin Microbiol. 1999 Apr;37(4):937-43. Detection of antibody
to avian influenza A (H5N1) virus in human serum by using a
combination of serologic assays. Rowe T, Abernathy RA, Hu-Primmer
J, Thompson WW, Lu X, Lim W, Fukuda K, Cox NJ, Katz JM.
Influenza Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial
Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333,
USA. From May to December 1997, 18 cases of mild to severe
respiratory illness caused by avian influenza A (H5N1)
viruses were identified in Hong Kong. The emergence of an
avian virus in the human population prompted an
epidemiological investigation to determine the extent of
human-to-human transmission of the virus and risk factors
associated with infection. The hemagglutination inhibition
(HI) assay, the standard method for serologic detection of
influenza virus infection in humans, has been shown to be
less sensitive for the detection of antibodies induced by
avian influenza viruses. Therefore, we developed a more
sensitive microneutralization assay to detect antibodies to
avian influenza in humans. Direct comparison of an HI assay
and the microneutralization assay demonstrated that the
latter was substantially more sensitive in detecting human
antibodies to H5N1 virus in infected individuals. An
H5-specific indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
(ELISA) was also established to test children's sera. The
sensitivity and specificity of the microneutralization assay
were compared with those of an H5-specific indirect ELISA.
When combined with a confirmatory H5-specific Western blot
test, the specificities of both assays were improved.
Maximum sensitivity (80%) and specificity (96%) for the
detection of anti-H5 antibody in adults aged 18 to 59 years
were achieved by using the microneutralization assay
combined with Western blotting. Maximum sensitivity (100%)
and specificity (100%) in detecting anti-H5 antibody in sera
obtained from children less than 15 years of age were
achieved by using ELISA combined with Western blotting. This
new test algorithm is being used for the seroepidemiologic
investigations of the avian H5N1 influenza outbreak. end of
excerpt This one was ALL ABOUT various methods for finding
antibodies. That's all it was about. Totally off-track and
useless. USELESS.
Here is the next one: First
avian flu case Centers for Disease Control
serology test preliminary results Saturday, December 27,
1997 [CDC report] Antibody to influenza A H5N1 virus was
found in nine blood samples out of 502 tested in relation to
the first avian flu case detected in Hong Kong. The antibody
to the virus was detected mainly among poultry workers and
people directly exposed to the virus. The results, based on
studies related to the first avian flu case in a human,
suggested that the main mode of H5N1 transmission was from
bird-to-human. Analysis of the viral genes shows that they
are avian in nature without evidence of re-assortment with
human influenza virus genes. end of excerpt In this
instance, again, the antibody test was used. Useless.
Also, there was some sort of
analysis done of the "viral genes" present in the bodies of
the people tested. These genes were found to be "avian in
nature." Two points here. There is no mention that the genes
found in the humans were specifically from H5N1. That
probably means they weren't. Or that the researchers just
don't know. And second, there is no mention of how many H5N1
viruses, if any, were found in the bodies of the humans
tested. Useless. Completely useless.
Here is the next one: Friday,
June 24, 2005 [from a thoughtful site called Effect Measure]
How much H5N1 infection in Vietnam? A nagging question about
H5N1 infection in Vietnam is whether there is considerably
more mild, clinically undetected or inapparent infection
than accounted for by only considering the most seriously
ill cases admitted to the hospital. Since the most seriously
ill are the tip of the iceberg in most human viral diseases
this is a plausible concern. Its significance would be that
there is more transmission of the virus either from poultry
to humans or from human to human than has been conceded at
present. Equivocal evidence to suggest this has apparently
been obtained by a joint Vietnamese-Canadian research team
working in Hanoi. Using a method called a Western blot, the
researchers tested hundreds of stored blood samples to see
if they showed evidence of antibodies to H5N1. Rumors are
that "scores of samples came back positive." As a
consequence Vietnam asked for international assistance: A
team of international influenza experts is in Hanoi, at the
invitation of the Vietnamese government, to investigate
worrisome signs the avian flu virus known as H5N1 may be
adapting in ways that may make it more likely to spark an
influenza pandemic, the World Health Organization has
confirmed.... end of excerpt Again, we're talking about
nothing more than antibody testing. Astounding. USELESS.
Here's the next one: Cohort
studies on avian flu [a release from the government of Hong
Kong] November 13, 1998 Results of three cohort studies
conducted among healthcare workers on the risk of influenza
A H5N1 (avian flu) infection tied in with preliminary
investigation and observations of the Department of Health
(DH) during the occurrence of the avian flu cases in Hong
Kong last year that man-to-man transmission may have
occurred but is inefficient. DH's Consultant (Community
Medicine), Dr Mak Kwok-hang, said today (Friday) that the
primary mode of transmission of H5N1 infection is believed
to be from poultry to man; most likely through contact with
the faeces of poultry. There is no evidence that H5N1
infection is transmitted to man from raw, chilled or frozen
poultry foods. "Infection control measures, like washing
hands and the use of masks is effective in reducing the
chance of man-to-man transmission." He noted that the
preventive measures implemented in the past 10 months had
proved to be effective in preventing H5N1 in Hong Kong. "No
new avian flu cases had occurred in Hong Kong since December
29, 1997 after a number of measures, including chicken
slaughter, were taken to stamp out the virus." On the cohort
studies, Dr Mak said they were conducted in hospital
settings and aimed at comparing the prevalence of influenza
A (H5N1) antibody among healthcare workers exposed to H5N1
case-patients with the prevalence among non-exposed
healthcare workers. They covered 547 healthcare workers in
three hospitals in Hong Kong with influenza A (H5N1)
infected case-patients and one Hong Kong hospital with no
known cases… end of except Once again, it's all about
useless antibody testing. USELESS.
Here is the last one. This is
about pigs, and it's just a quote from a Google entry about
a published study. The study citation is Choi et al; J Virol
2005; 79: 10821-10825. Here is the Google entry: Of the 3175
pig sera tested, 8 (0.25%) were positive for avian H5N1 ...
sera that gave positive reactions in the H5N1
virus-neutralizing antibody test... end Google entry More
antibody testing. Worthless. Are you starting to get a clue?
Major antibody testing---everywhere---and from THAT, all
sorts of meaningless inferences about avian flu
spreading...and FROM THAT, all sorts of dire predictions
about a coming pandemic. It's a house of cards. It's based
on nothing. Science? Are you kidding? JON RAPPOPORT
www.nomorefakenews.com
|