What To Do About That Bird Flu- Part 2

by Alison Despathy

The primary method of detection for avian bird flu is the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, which is a laboratory tool used to replicate gene sequences. The USDA currently has a PCR test tracker on its avian bird flu testing website. As of January 3, 2025, total PCR tests run since April, 2024 is > 109,700. 

As explained by its Nobel Prize winning creator, Kary Mullis, PCR is not intended to and cannot detect infections. As a qualitative tool, it can replicate genetic material in order to detect certain sequences. It cannot determine if the genetic sequence identified is responsible for the ‘illness’, is viable or even if the identified genetic material is specifically from the sought after pathogen. 

Fact checkers try to debunk this reality but the nature of a PCR test is based on cycle thresholds also known as an amplification rate and when these thresholds are run at higher levels as they typically are, the number of false positives reaches near 100%. For example, Promega Corporation, a PCR manufacturer states, “The risk of undesirable PCR products appearing in the reaction increases as the cycle number increases…” 

Also without a full purification and isolation of the virus in order to determine unique genetic sequences, it is not possible to know what the detected PCR genetic sequences actually are. This was established when PCR tests were inappropriately used for HIV testing. 

In 2006, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a study involving 3000 people concluded that, “The PCR assay is not sufficiently accurate to be used for the diagnosis of HIV infection without confirmation.” Historically, this has been the common theme with the inappropriate use of PCR testing for infections. 

Dr. Mullis stated that, “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron,” and that the use of the PCR to attempt to count the number of viruses in the blood is impossible given that these tests cannot detect free, invective viruses. 

In a study published in the Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal on September 28, 2020, it was determined that a COVID-19 PCR tests run at a cycle threshold of 30 resulted in only 20% of patients testing positive in culture and with a cycle threshold at 35, only 3% of patients were positive in culture resulting in a 97% false positive rate. 

Even former National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated, “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication competent are minuscule….. you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle….. it’s just dead nucleotide- period.” Yet, the World Health Organization, the CDC and the FDA regularly recommend running PCR cycle thresholds at 40 or even greater. 

During COVID-19, the State of Vermont used a cycle threshold of 35-40. This was often associated with “asymptomatic cases” when in fact these were false positives due to over-amplification and the ‘detection of dead nucleotides’ that do not confirm infection and cannot be assigned to a specific pathogen. 

As explained by the Vermont Department of Health, justification for these excessive cycle thresholds was to ‘cast a broad net’ but this was not the result, it could never be. Instead, case numbers were falsely elevated, panic intensified and as was learned through the time of AIDS, the PCR test does not provide specificity as a diagnostic tool and is compromised in its ability to determine infection, presence of active infection or cause of illness. 

In fact, in July, 2001, 14 top virologists appealed to the new generation of biomedical researchers in an article entitled, ‘Old Guard Urges Virologists to Go Back to Basics,” and published in Science, stating, “[Modern detection methods like PCR] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it [or] how it makes people sick or whether antibodies to other viruses might protect against it. Just studying sequences ‘is like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint’.”

It is also well known that damaged or dying cells release genetic material that can be picked up by these indirect and imprecise testing methods such as PCR. Toxins, infections and disease can all cause damage and death to cells which can skew these non-specific tests leading to a high level of false positives without offering any clarity on cause of illness/disease 

Questioning the validity of the PCR test in its capacity to identify avian bird flu is absolutely necessary, as repeatedly shown in the historical and scientific record. The PCR test is not the tool to identify the cause of sickness or proof of viral pathogens. Vermont’s state veterinarian has been contacted to ascertain the PCR cycle threshold currently used to determine avian bird flu in Vermont dairy herds. It has been reported from other sources to be as high as 45. More information on the confirmatory testing for any positive PCR tests has also been requested. 

Currently the protocol for determining avian bird flu is an initial PCR test. If this is found to be positive, a second confirmatory test is performed. This test is typically an antibody test which is also not specific, diagnostic or reliable. For example, in 1996, Christine Johnson published her research in the academic journal Continuum in which she identified over 65 factors in the scientific literature capable of a false positive result for HIV antibodies tests utilizing ELISA antibody tests. In other words, these additional factors trigger a reaction and lead to high levels offalse positives. Many of these triggering factors are common in populations throughout the world and include active flu infections, flu vaccination, tetanus vaccination, hepatitis, herpes, malaria, pregnancy and antinuclear antibodies

Yet another type of antibody testing, the Western Blot (WB) is touted as more specific but there is no standardized criteria for a positive result. In an article entitled, HIV Tests Are Not HIV Tests and published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, H. Bauer reported that several protein antigens utilized for a positive WB test are found in blood platelets of healthy individuals which means that some of the supposedly ‘unique’ biological markers used to flag HIV are not specific to HIV or AIDS, so healthy individuals may test positive but not carry HIV. This is a common theme with Western Blot testing for viruses. 

The level of concern regarding the use of this inappropriate diagnostic tool is best demonstrated by author Celia Farber, who explained the degree of controversy with the use of these tests for detecting and diagnosing viral pathogens in her book, Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS. Farber shares the shocking reality that, “A person could revert to being HIV negative simply by buying a plane ticket from Uganda to Australia,” because of the differing, non specific, markers chosen to ‘verify infection’ from country to country. 

There is a long history and substantial body of evidence indicating that these compromised tests are clearly not designed for diagnostics and do not offer reliable results. Using inaccurate PCR or antibody testing alone to attempt to detect or diagnose avian bird flu in mammals, milk or humans is unscientific to say the least. Recognizing this reality sooner versus later will help Vermont successfully work through this federal screening program without devastating its agricultural economy and farmers. 

If a positive PCR test and non specific, confirmatory testing for avian bird flu is identified in Vermont, instead of assuming that this is the end of the road and the answer has been found, Vermont must consider the clinical presentation and setting and continue to explore exposures, toxicities, contamination and nutritional imbalances in order to prevent disruptive and unnecessary farm procedures, culling of animals, or use of experimental medications. If cows, humans or other mammals are actually sick, this must include cultures, identifying environmental toxins or exposures, contaminated feed and comprehensive assessments of causes versus sole reliance on flawed tests. 

It is also important to keep in mind that if there is widespread exposure to a toxin or nutritional deficiencies, this can also manifest as an ‘outbreak’ and be misunderstood as contagion, as has been the case numerous times throughout history.

The author is a clinical nutritionist in St. Johnsbury.