Preheat and homogenization were not testing in these processes. Both are steps used in most US milk that would likely inactivate the virus. Moral of the story is still you are an idiot if you are drinking raw milk.
Fragments of the virus that are being found in about 20% of all milk sampled. These fragments have not been shown to be enough to make anyone sick. The fact that we’re finding fragments and not intact viruses in store bought milk is a good indication that the various processes used for milk in most locations is doing the job it was intended to do.
And most important of all: This is the current state of evidence gathered on this topic, that state could change with various factors at play and/or the addition of new evidence. Because apparently for some people they have forgotten that “things change as time progresses”.
The raw milk increase is certainly baffling and definitely higher risk for all kinds of diseases.
We are not testing enough at all, however. The disease was already in 1 in 5 dairy samples before any even basic tests of if the disease could survive pasturization were published. The disease could mutate to survive and we would hardly know it. We’re relying way more on assumptions than should be comfortable. And we’re way too slow to test those assumptions
The way governing bodies are quickly dismissing concerns of spread via other animal product consumption is a little troubling. For instance, USDA data on virus survivability published in beef didn’t include that it was survivable in medium-rare cooked beef until journalists started asking why it was conspicuously absent
The initial study was presuming it was already had H5N1, but we recently did actually find a positive test in beef tissue. Considering how little we are testing in general, it’s highly unlikely to be the first actual one. The study was looking at if the virus was alive after cooking. If infectious is still unknown
Beef tissue from a sick dairy cow has tested positive for the bird flu virus, federal officials said on Friday.
[…]
However, there was virus present in rare burgers, cooked to 120 degrees, although at greatly reduced levels
During the briefing, the agency said that no virus was present in burgers cooked to 145 degrees (medium rare) or 160 degrees (well done) – but only mentioned that traces of virus were found in burgers cooked to 120 degrees when questioned by journalists.
The disease was already in 1 in 5 dairy samples before any even basic tests of if the disease could survive pasturization were published. The disease could mutate to survive…
Sure, in the same way volcanologists could mutate to survive being submerged in lava.
Well considering it may survive the high heat used for flash pasteurization at 72C (181F) for brief periods per the originally linked study, it’s not as much of gap as that
This disease spreads fast, and is rather deadly in most (though not all) species. It’s not the kind of thing you want to do little monitoring of. At present, there is comparatively little testing overall of cows and humans both. We’re not picking up much of what this virus is doing
Preheat and homogenization were not testing in these processes. Both are steps used in most US milk that would likely inactivate the virus. Moral of the story is still you are an idiot if you are drinking raw milk.
Fragments of the virus that are being found in about 20% of all milk sampled. These fragments have not been shown to be enough to make anyone sick. The fact that we’re finding fragments and not intact viruses in store bought milk is a good indication that the various processes used for milk in most locations is doing the job it was intended to do.
And most important of all: This is the current state of evidence gathered on this topic, that state could change with various factors at play and/or the addition of new evidence. Because apparently for some people they have forgotten that “things change as time progresses”.
The raw milk increase is certainly baffling and definitely higher risk for all kinds of diseases.
We are not testing enough at all, however. The disease was already in 1 in 5 dairy samples before any even basic tests of if the disease could survive pasturization were published. The disease could mutate to survive and we would hardly know it. We’re relying way more on assumptions than should be comfortable. And we’re way too slow to test those assumptions
The way governing bodies are quickly dismissing concerns of spread via other animal product consumption is a little troubling. For instance, USDA data on virus survivability published in beef didn’t include that it was survivable in medium-rare cooked beef until journalists started asking why it was conspicuously absent
Sorry what, it infects muscle? And remains infectious after cooking? Gonna need a source
The initial study was presuming it was already had H5N1, but we recently did actually find a positive test in beef tissue. Considering how little we are testing in general, it’s highly unlikely to be the first actual one. The study was looking at if the virus was alive after cooking. If infectious is still unknown
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/health/bird-flu-beef.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/h5n1-bird-flu-virus-can-survive-in-rare-cooked-meat-usda/
Mince is a very different beast to steak due to surface area. Mince is not safe unless cooked through, whereas steak is generally safe even rare
Sure, in the same way volcanologists could mutate to survive being submerged in lava.
Well considering it may survive the high heat used for flash pasteurization at 72C (181F) for brief periods per the originally linked study, it’s not as much of gap as that
This disease spreads fast, and is rather deadly in most (though not all) species. It’s not the kind of thing you want to do little monitoring of. At present, there is comparatively little testing overall of cows and humans both. We’re not picking up much of what this virus is doing
I’ve heard the exact same analogy applied to alcohol killing bacteria and it doesn’t convince me