Addressing Bird Flu State of Emergency

California Gov. Gavin Newsom declares state of emergency over bird flu, calling it a "proactive action" - CBS Sacramento

California’s state of emergency enacted by Newsom over bird flu reflects a familiar pattern of overreaction fueled by fear, not science. While headlines about the avian influenza crisis paint the usual dire picture of the ‘unseen enemy’, they always fail to address a more nuanced reality: viruses, including those labeled "highly pathogenic," serve beneficial roles in ecosystems and rarely, if ever, cross species boundaries under natural conditions.

Let’s start with the idea that viruses are inherently harmful. This is a reductive and outdated view in the year of our Lord 2024. Viruses play critical roles in regulating ecosystems, controlling bacterial populations, and facilitating genetic diversity through horizontal gene transfer, among others—topics my readers should know quite well at this point. In birds, for example, some viruses are part of their natural microbiome and contribute to their immune system development. Branding viruses as enemies oversimplifies their complex ecological functions. Issuing a state of emergency is fearmongering that leads to distrust in nature and those around us. I contend that such measures are always unnecessary and serve little more than a publicity stunt to garner attention, money, and power.

The claim that HPAI poses a significant threat to human health hinges on the assumption that viruses can easily leap across species barriers. This notion lacks robust evidence in the real world. Studies on zoonotic transmissions often rely on laboratory conditions that artificially force interactions between viruses and human cells—a far cry from real-world scenarios wherein an entire living human body is introduced into the equation, which is replete with an immune system/cellular defenses. Natural species barriers, such as differences in cell receptors and immune system responses, make cross-species infection exceedingly rare. In fact, I would contend it never happens under natural circumstances. The times it does appear to do so can most always be explained by other causes. When such events are reported, they are often tied to confounding factors like poor hygiene, industrial farming practices, wherein livestock are exposed to industrial chemicals, vaccines, pesticides, and pollution, or deliberate manipulation in research settings by agencies like the USDA or FDA.

Moreover, the response to bird flu—including culling millions of animals and imposing movement restrictions—raises ethical and practical questions. These measures are reactive and fail to address underlying issues like the overcrowded and unhealthy conditions of industrial poultry farming, which create a breeding ground for illness. Rather than blaming a virus, we should scrutinize human practices that disrupt natural systems and amplify disease risks. This pipedream of mine, however, is still far off in the future.

Governments and media frequently stoke public fear by implying that viruses like HPAI are on the verge of causing a human pandemic. This fearmongering distracts from meaningful discussions about sustainable agricultural practices, animal welfare, and ecological balance. Declaring a state of emergency, as California has done, may sound proactive, but it perpetuates a flawed narrative that viruses are our adversaries rather than integral components of life on Earth—this narrative always misses the fundamental connection between animal and nature.

The article states:

“When the virus does infect them—particularly lactating cows—the virus can be excreted in high concentrations in their milk," Payne stated. "This is a primary concern from a public health perspective.”

The idea that a virus in milk poses a significant threat to human health is based more on fear than scientific evidence. First, the human digestive system is highly capable of breaking down and neutralizing viruses before they can cause any harm. The acidic environment of the stomach and the enzymes in our digestive tract are designed to destroy normal amounts of foreign particles, including viruses.

Moreover, the milk itself contains natural immune properties, such as lactoferrin, which can inhibit viral replication and help protect the consumer. It's also important to recognize that the presence of a virus in milk doesn't automatically mean it is viable or infectious. In fact, many viruses, once exposed to the conditions in milk or the human body, lose their ability to infect cells. Furthermore, as I have written numerous times, viruses will only infect unstable, receptive cells.

The article also states:

“While not linked to any known human case, one California raw milk dairy issued a voluntary recall earlier in December after bird flu was detected in a lot. Still, health officials have long warned against consuming unpasteurized milk due to bacteria concerns.”

Raw milk is a rich source of bioavailable nutrients, including enzymes, vitamins, and beneficial bacteria, that are destroyed during pasteurization. These nutrients, such as vitamin K2, calcium, and omega-3 fatty acids, play crucial roles in supporting immune function, bone health, and overall well-being. Moreover, the naturally occurring probiotics in raw milk contribute greatly to gut health, supporting a balanced microbiome and enhancing digestion.

It's important to recognize that the risk of contamination in raw milk is low when produced under strict, clean conditions. Many raw milk producers adhere to rigorous safety practices. But even so, mankind, including other animals, have been drinking raw milk directly from the udders of cows or off the ground for millennia and have thrived wonderfully. And, while the bird flu detection in one lot is noteworthy, it does not justify a blanket dismissal of the health benefits of raw milk or the radical enactment of a ‘state of emergency’. The broader picture shows that raw milk remains a highly unique and valuable, nutrient-dense food, far outweighing the occasional, isolated risk.

Transmission of viruses from animals to humans, especially in the case of milk consumption, is virtually nonexistent. Most viruses that affect animals are not capable of infecting humans because they are adapted to the unique biology of the host species. In the case of milk, even if an animal were carrying a virus, the chances of it successfully transmitting to a human are virtually zero.

First, the human immune system is equipped to recognize and defend against foreign proteins, like viruses, including those that might be present in milk. Second, as noted earlier, the process of digestion itself, with its acidic stomach environment and various immune defenses, effectively neutralizes most infectious particles before they can cause harm. Furthermore, even when viruses are detected in animal populations, they are often of the sort that cannot thrive in humans due to differences in biology and physiology.

The idea that a virus in milk would pose a serious risk to human health neglects the fundamental biological barriers that protect us. The focus should instead be on safe and responsible sourcing of raw milk, rather than on unfounded fears of cross-species transmission.

In the end, viral outbreaks in animals (and humans) are almost always caused by an overabundance of accumulated toxicity within the organism. The organism is thus expressing itself through the manifestation of viral infection, and as a result, detoxification of cellular toxicity occurs, for better or worse.

---

In closing: question the mainstream narrative using hard, observable and logical science.

Viruses are not the villains they are made out to be. Instead of declaring war on nature, we should focus on harmonizing with it by addressing systemic issues like industrial farming and environmental degradation. Only then can we move toward a more balanced and informed approach to health and sustainability.


Wishing you good health in 2025…
—Jeff Green