Californian cat owner gives his cats bird flu when feeding them raw cows' milk

Bird Flu illustrated by DALLE (AI bot).

A California man inadvertently killed his two cats by indirectly giving them bird flu as the virus was in their raw milk which he believed would boost their immune systems. He wanted to improve their health but achieved the exact opposite; it is very sadly reported. It's been traumatic for Joseph Journell, 56, of San Bernardino.

He lost his 14-year-old tabby cat Alexander and a four year old black-and-white cat in late November. A third cat was hospitalised for a week and tests showed that he was infected with the H5N1 bird flu virus.

The unpasteurised milk came from lots recalled from Raw Farm of Fresno. This business's dairy products were pulled from California's store shelves in December after health officials found the virus in their milk. I did some research on the possibility of contracting bird flu from raw milk and my results are set out below. Apparently is rarely happens and therefore this man and his cats were unlucky.

He said that he has been drinking Raw Farm milk himself for several months because he was told that it was good for his immune system and that it had healing properties. He thought he may be able to improve the health of his cat Alexander who had been losing weight. He said that he was "trying to make him healthier and make him live longer".

He's seeking compensation in the sum of $12,000 from Raw Farm. It may be difficult to prove that because he'll have to prove what is called "causation". He'll have to prove that drinking the milk caused the infection. There will need to be a direct connection between the two and it is possible that the cats got bird flu from some other source. That I suspect will be the defence. The amount of the damages is high as moggie cats have sadly low value when the emotional loss is excluded.

The FDA say that cats should not be fed any products from affected farms if those products have not been thoroughly cooked or pasteurised to kill the virus.

I think that it unusual for a cat owner to give their cats unpasteurised, raw milk on the basis that most people give their cats tap water or commercially prepared cat milk. There is one last point to make: a sizeable percentage of domestic cats, perhaps a majority, are lactose intolerant and therefore drinking cow's milk either raw or pasteurised may well cause bloating and digestive track upset.

-----------------

Question: Is there an argument that drinking raw milk helps boost one's immunity to disease?

Yes, there are arguments made by proponents of raw milk that it can boost immunity to disease. These arguments are largely based on the idea that raw milk contains active enzymes, beneficial bacteria, and natural immunoglobulins that are thought to support gut health and strengthen the immune system. Here's a breakdown of their claims:

1. Probiotic Content

• Raw milk is unpasteurized, meaning it retains live bacteria, including probiotics like Lactobacillus. These are believed to improve gut health, which is closely linked to immune function.

2. Enzymes and Nutrients

• Advocates argue that pasteurization destroys enzymes such as lactase and phosphatase, which aid in digestion and nutrient absorption, possibly impacting the body's ability to fight disease.

3. Immunoglobulins

• Raw milk contains immunoglobulins (antibodies), which may help combat infections and diseases by supporting the immune system.

4. Reduction in Allergies and Asthma

• Some studies, like those involving the "farm effect," suggest that children who consume raw milk or live on farms have lower rates of allergies and asthma. This is attributed to early exposure to microbes that may help "train" the immune system.

5. Bioavailability of Nutrients

• Advocates argue that pasteurization reduces the bioavailability of certain vitamins and minerals, which could affect overall health and immunity.

The Counterarguments

Critics, including public health authorities like the CDC and FDA, counter these claims with concerns about the safety of raw milk. Pathogens like Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria can be present in unpasteurized milk and pose significant health risks, particularly to vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised individuals.

Scientific Evidence

The scientific evidence supporting raw milk's immunity-boosting effects is limited and mixed:

• While some observational studies suggest potential benefits, many do not establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship.
• Rigorous controlled studies are scarce, and most health organizations emphasize the risks of foodborne illness over any potential benefits.

Bottom Line

While raw milk may contain certain bioactive components potentially beneficial for immunity, the associated risks of consuming unpasteurized products often outweigh these benefits for most individuals. It's essential to weigh these factors carefully and consult with a healthcare provider before incorporating raw milk into a diet.

Question: There is also the possibility of contracting bird flu from raw milk in the current climate with bird flu fairly prevalent in some districts. Correct?

The possibility of contracting bird flu (avian influenza) from raw milk is extremely low but not entirely impossible under specific circumstances, particularly if the milk is contaminated during production or handling. However, it is important to distinguish the specific risks and routes of transmission. Here's an analysis:

---

Bird Flu and Raw Milk: The Risk

1. Transmission Mechanism of Bird Flu:

   • Bird flu viruses, such as H5N1 or H5N8, primarily spread through direct contact with infected birds, their secretions, or contaminated surfaces.
   • Consumption of raw milk or milk products is not a common route for bird flu transmission.

2. Contamination Risk:

   • If raw milk is sourced from a farm where poultry and dairy animals are in close proximity, contamination could theoretically occur through shared water supplies, feed, or equipment exposed to bird droppings carrying the virus.
   • Secondary contamination could occur during handling or processing if hygiene standards are poor.

3. Vulnerability of the Virus:

   • Influenza viruses are sensitive to heat, so cooking or pasteurizing milk would eliminate any virus particles.
   • In raw milk, the virus could survive for a limited period under specific conditions but is unlikely to thrive or multiply.

---

Broader Concerns with Raw Milk:

While bird flu might be a less likely risk from raw milk consumption, other pathogens (e.g., Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria) remain significant concerns. These pathogens are much more commonly associated with raw milk consumption and can lead to severe illness.

---

Precautions for Raw Milk Consumers:

1. Source Reliability:

   • Ensure that the raw milk comes from a farm with strict biosecurity measures to prevent cross-contamination from poultry or other potential sources of pathogens.
   • Verify that the animals are healthy and tested regularly for infectious diseases.

2. Local Bird Flu Outbreaks:

   • If bird flu is prevalent in your district, extra caution should be taken, even if the risk through milk is low.
   • Avoid consuming raw milk from areas with known outbreaks.

3. Consider Pasteurization:

   • Pasteurization effectively eliminates potential pathogens in milk, including viruses and bacteria, making it a safer option.

---

Conclusion:

The likelihood of contracting bird flu from raw milk is low but could exist if there is environmental contamination in areas with active outbreaks. This risk underscores the broader public health concern of consuming raw milk, which carries inherent dangers of other, more common foodborne illnesses. As always, consulting local health guidelines and choosing pasteurized dairy products can mitigate these risks significantly.

--------------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.

Putin has made Russia more vulnerable not stronger by invading Ukraine

Image: DALLE (AI image creator). This is a fictional depiction of the Kremlin

I asked AI the following question in a statement to see if it agreed: "Putin complained about NATO on Russia's borders and the threat it posed. That was largely an imagined threat borne out of his time with the KGB. But ironically invading Ukraine has created a much stronger NATO alliance and unified force on Russia's borders for defensive purposes but this has worked against Putin in creating a real potential threat to Russia. The invasion of Ukraine has dramatically backfired on Putin in this respect. Correct?"

This is AI's response (ChatGPT):

Your analysis is largely correct. Here’s why:

1. Putin's Perception of NATO: Putin has long viewed NATO as a strategic threat to Russia, a view deeply influenced by his KGB background and a worldview rooted in suspicion of Western intentions. He framed NATO's post-Cold War expansion as encroachment on Russia's sphere of influence, despite the defensive nature of the alliance.

2. NATO’s Strengthening Post-Ukraine Invasion: Ironically, Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which he justified in part as a response to NATO's supposed threat, has had the opposite effect of what he likely intended. It has galvanized NATO, increased its unity, and prompted historic shifts in European security policy. For example:

   • Finland and Sweden: Finland has joined NATO, significantly expanding the alliance's direct border with Russia, while Sweden's application is progressing.
   • Defense Spending: NATO countries, particularly in Europe, have increased defense budgets and reinforced their military capabilities in response to the perceived threat posed by Russia.
   • Troop Deployments: NATO has enhanced its military presence along its eastern flank, from the Baltics to the Black Sea, further solidifying its deterrence posture.

3. Strategic Backfire: Instead of diminishing NATO's presence or influence, Putin's actions have revitalized the alliance, strengthened transatlantic cooperation, and underscored the need for collective defense. This has created a more unified and robust NATO, with a greater focus on Russia as a central challenge to European security.

4. Long-Term Implications for Russia: The invasion has not only led to significant military and economic costs for Russia but has also isolated it diplomatically. Its actions have justified the very measures Putin sought to avoid, leading to a tangible, rather than perceived, NATO presence near its borders.

In summary, the invasion of Ukraine has indeed backfired for Putin, resulting in a stronger and more united NATO that poses a more substantial and real defensive challenge to Russia. This development underscores the unintended consequences of aggressive actions based on flawed strategic calculations.

How does this affect cats!? In every way. It has placed increased financial pressure on many Russian citizen which will have a negative impact at least potentially on cat welfare.

In Ukraine, many domestic cats have been killed and injured or become feral as their owners were killed by Putin's merciless and cruel bombardment of Ukrainian homes in the east.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also, sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. And, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable. Finally, (!) I often express an OPINION on the news. Please share yours in a comment.