Article <vqvp0m$3eon$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vqvp0m$3eon$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Analysis of the 38 California human cases of dairy virus infection
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 18:16:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vqvp0m$3eon$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="51890"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1zO9XUqNDIVL7eYuOvQ87A7rMUk=
Content-Language: en-US

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/74/wr/pdfs/mm7408a1-H.pdf

All were infected by the B3.13 dairy genotype of the H5N1 influenza. 
They seem to be purposefully messing with their reported results for 
what tests were positive in order to make it look like there were more 
oral and nasal positive tests than there actually were.  37 of the 38 
were tested with eye swabs and 35 of them were positive (only 2 negative 
for eye swabs).  Only 5 of the 37 had positive nasal swabs.  29 were 
tested with nasal and oropharyngeal swabs and 8 were positive (the 
picked up 3 oropharyngeal positives.  The other claims do not make sense 
as they had sub categories of what had already been claimed.  The one 
positive oralpharyngeal positive was probably the sick child with gut 
infection symptoms that had already been claimed to be positive for the 
oralpharyngeal test in news articles.  This just means that all the 
tests that did not involve eye swabs were likely underestimating the 
number of infected.

California only tested 170 dairy workers to find 37 positives.  They 
relied on voluntary reporting in order to determine who got tested. 
Antibody results indicated that around 10% of the over 5,000 dairy 
workers at the infected dairies would have likely been infected.  So 
they missed around 500 infected dairy workers. Both the CDC and 
California claimed in October that they were going to test the dairy 
workers at infected farms, but that never happened.

Their phylogeny figure is pretty worthless because they do not have all 
the dairies on it nor all the multiple infections at 4 of the dairies. 
There were 5 dairies with multiple infections (2 with 2 infected workers 
and 3 with 3 infected workers).  They also do not have an outgroup in 
their phylogeny so all you get is an unrooted tree so you can't tell how 
the infections on all the farms are related to each other and it is 
pretty worthless epidemiology data.

California lost 92 commercial poultry flocks, and it is because they 
would not keep dairy workers off the poultry farms.  Everyone understood 
that dairy workers were taking the virus to poultry farms, but the CDC 
and USDA only recommended that workers at infected farms not go to other 
farms, and California never made it more than a recommendation.  A 
recommendation that had never been enforced in any state.  Most states 
didn't even try to identify all their infected herds so that the workers 
would know not to go to other farms.  The result is that nearly all the 
dairy farms in California (over 675 out of around 900) got infected, and 
they lost 92 commercial flocks that included over 40% of their 
commercial layer flocks.  Just due to stupidity and denial and an 
unwillingness to do the right thing.  Why don't they have that in the 
CDC report?

Ron Okimoto