Commentary
Wild Bird Introduction of H5N1 Into Pakistan Again
Recombinomics Commentary 21:02
June 29, 2008
Source of the outbreak(s) or origin of infection
Contact with wild species
The above comments from the latest OIE report on H5N1 in Pakistan are not a surprise. Since the OIE final report on H5N1 in Pakistan in 2007 and 2008 also indicated the source was wild species. However, the above comments may come as a surprise to readers of ProMED, which has been waging a propaganda campaign trying to support the basic tenets of conservation groups, “dead birds don’t fly” and “wild birds as victims.” After conservation groups posted their rather distorted view of H5N1 transport and transmission on ProMED, ProMED started a series entitled “poultry vs migratory birds” to give the propaganda some credibility.
The role of migratory birds in the transport and transmission of H5N1 was firmly established in the summer of 2005, when H5N1 migrated out of China and into Russia and Mongolia, where it had not been previously reported. OIE reported by Russia and Mongolia confirmed that wild birds in each country were H5N1 infected and the H5N1 was clade 2.2, the Qinghai strain that had been first reported at Qinghai Lake in the spring of 2005. H5N1 subsequently spread to wild birds, poultry, and humans in countries west of China. None of these countries in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa had reported Asian H5N1 previously, and all isolates were the Qinghai strain.
This expansion also included south Asian countries like Pakistan, and Pakistan acknowledged that the outbreaks there were from wild birds. However, the recent ProMED commentary ignored the comments in the OIE final report for 2007 and 2008, and the latest ProMED commentary once again edited the epidemiology section and removed the statement that the H5N1 infection was due to wild birds. The earlier commentary suggested that the outbreak in Pakistan was due to feed or bedding smuggled in from Afghanistan.
This propaganda, without scientific support, has long been an embarrassment to they scientific community, and should cease. Many who read ProMED, do not have the scientific background to understand that these commentaries have no scientific support, and the readers assume that these comments represent scientific positions, which they do not.
Media Links
Recombinomics Presentations
Recombinomics Publications
Recombinomics Paper at Nature Precedings