With so much gratitude to Sasha Latypova, her efforts, and intelligence.
WHO, CDC, Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI) claim that H5N1 (avian flu virus) is “highly contagious”. Further, Reinhard Kurth, president of RKI, says that H5N1 “threatens potentially all six billion people on earth”.
We identified four fundamental questions underlying these claims and requested supporting studies from FLI (which according to the German Government “possesses virus isolates of H5N1”):
1. Does H5N1 exist?
2. Is it pathogenic to animals?
3. Is it transmissible and pathogenic to humans, and does it have pandemic potential?
Have other causes for observed disease been studied
FLI responded with four papers: PNAS [1], Science [2], J Virol [3] directed toward questions 1 and 2; EID [4] towards question 3; PNAS [1] towards question 4.
Question 1 (existence). FLI responded with, “H5N1/asia virus can be produced completely in vitro by using reverse genetics. The virus generated this way, also called infectious clone, cannot contain contaminants from sick animals” [translated from German]. However, PCR cannot be used to identify viruses which have not been previously sequenced [5].
The PNAS paper (as the others) does not show or reference the composition of the stock virus – nor does Subbarao et al. (referenced by the EID paper), which claims the first characterization of H5N1 disease in a human in 1997 [6]. Though the EID study failed to detect “H5N1” in several of the diseased organs, this anomaly was labeled an “enigma”, rather than a “contradiction”.
Robert Webster, corresponding author of the PNAS paper and Director of WHO’s Collaborating Center for Studies on the Ecology of Influenza in Animals and Birds, informed us that stock viruses “are classified as select agents” and “we are not at liberty to release this information”. Without verification, and without purification described in any of these papers, we cannot accept that stock virus is pure and fully characterized. Inquiries for clarification to Webster, CDC Select Agents Program, and FLI received no response.
Question 2 (animal pathogenicity). Papers describe the use of natural routes, but the disease was only achieved with extraordinary concentrations, up to 10 million EID per animal. None of the experiments used controls or blinding. The Science paper is highly abstract molecular science, employing elevated concentrations of chimeric variants.
Question 3 (human pathogenicity and pandemic potential). The EID paper is an anecdotal report of a 6-year-old boy from Thailand with severe multi-organ disease. No evidence was given for transmissibility to humans. The scientists found evidence of aspergillosis, and the boy was treated with toxic agents (broad-spectrum antimicrobial and antivirals) before he died.
Subbarao et al. (referenced by the EID paper), describe a previously healthy 3-year-old Hong Kong boy who developed flu-like symptoms on May 9, 1997, and was treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics and salicylic acid, though this is commonly contraindicated. He developed Reye’s Syndrome and died eleven days later [7]. A search commenced for causation within a limited range of flu viruses. H5N1 was claimed causative, even though coronaviruses, flaviviruses, enteroviruses, other pathogens and chemicals can also cause flu symptoms. There was no confirmation of prior avian contact. Regardless, warnings of an “explosive pandemic” appeared in this early document, though FLI conceded: “There is no scientific forecasting method that can evaluate the possibility that an influenza virus induces a new pandemic.”
Question 4 (non-“H5N1” causation). Neither the Subbarao et al study nor the FLI references consider reasonable, competing theories for disease causation, e.g., environmental and pharmaceutical factors.
Our analysis shows the papers do not satisfy our four basic questions. Claims of H5N1 pathogenicity and pandemic potential need to be challenged further.
References
1. Hulse-Post D.J., Sturm-Ramirez K.M., Humberd J., Seiler P., Govorkova E.A., Krauss S. Role of domestic ducks in the propagation and biological evolution of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza viruses in Asia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102(30):10682–10687. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Hatta M., Gao P., Halfmann P., Kawaoka Y. Molecular basis for high virulence of Hong Kong H5N1 influenza A viruses. Science. 2001;293(5536):1840–1842. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Hulse D.J., Webster R.G., Russell R.J., Perez D.R. Molecular determinants within the surface proteins involved in the pathogenicity of H5N1 influenza viruses in chickens. J Virol. 2004;78(18):9954–9964. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Uiprasertkul M., Puthavathana P., Sangsiriwut K., Pooruk P., Srisook K., Peiris M. Influenza A H5N1 replication sites in humans. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(7):1036–1041. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Brown T.A. Genomes. 2nd ed. Bios Scientific Publishers; 2002. The polymerase chain reaction. [chapter 4.3] [Google Scholar]
6. Subbarao K., Klimov A., Katz J., Regnery H., Lim W., Hall H. Characterization of an avian influenza A (H5N1) virus isolated from a child with a fatal respiratory illness. Science. 1998;279(5349):393–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Hurwitz E.S., Barrett M.J., Bregman D., Gunn W.J., Pinsky P., Schonberger L.B. Public Health Service study of Reye’s syndrome and medications. Report of the main study. JAMA. 1987;257(14):1905–1911. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
As I previously reported, the “pandemic potential avian flu virus H5N1” fake narrative was re-animated in 2011 by Ron Foucher and Erasmus Medical Center (NL). They were hoping to get the fear porn going again after it was defeated in 2006. They succeeded, despite many sound journalists and scientists identifying the false narrative at the time.
Fouchier and Erasmus were not the only ones stoking fear about “highly pathogenic” bird flu, it is now standard trope of every criminal health authority and academic hanger-on worldwide.
There is no H5N1 virus, not in nature and not in the lab. Nobody can make viruses nor modify viruses in the labs. They can make a chemical soup using PCR and other fraudulent, or at a minimum, unvalidated methods and may show some lab tricks for scaremongering purposes, but none of these abracadabras survive in the open. That’s because they are a dead chemical soup to begin with and are non-compatible with living organisms. The only risk that “bioengineered pathogens” represent is poisoning. Which DOES NOT CAUSE PANDEMICS. Poisoning is always localized. The pandemics are faked by government officials, military and intelligence, academia and mainstream media, as I discussed here:
