[HN Gopher] "It has been determined" that infected dairy herd se...
___________________________________________________________________
"It has been determined" that infected dairy herd serology can be
disclosed
Author : ctoth
Score : 43 points
Date : 2025-03-11 19:53 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hogvet51.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hogvet51.substack.com)
| ggm wrote:
| The fact that indicators of decision-making have to be indirect,
| speaks to the risk environment of public health officials. Post
| Fauci, it's huge.
|
| Is this problem also a function of both devolution of power to
| states and the environment post animal activism? Or just the
| "don't ask don't tell" of US policy these days? A bunch of laws
| got passed about revealing inner truths of animal husbandry in
| the wake of activist filming in chicken houses and piggeries.
|
| We depend on the massive herds of food animals. We depend on
| clear information sharing about their health. They aren't just
| tasty beef and cheese, they are disease vectors and storage
| grounds of infection. This information policy nightmare isn't
| good.
| CrossVR wrote:
| > Post Fauci, it's huge.
|
| How is Anthony Fauci related to this? He headed the NIAID, not
| the USDA.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| Are you really going to try to say that the absurd levels of
| bile, vitriol, and threats that he received for doing his job
| during a pandemic has zero knock-on effect for other public
| health officials?
| CrossVR wrote:
| Woah, I'm not sure how you got that from my comment. It was
| a genuine question since OP made it seem as if Dr. Fauci
| had played some role in the USDA's handling of the H5N1
| epidemic. In fact I was concerned OP was trying to pin yet
| another conspiracy on him.
| guhidalg wrote:
| I remember in 2020 how a career public servant, colleague to
| those in USDA, was contradicted by the president because it
| made the administration's COVID response look bad.
|
| Recently, the US president has decided he doesn't want to
| protect his public servant's lives anymore
| https://apnews.com/article/fauci-trump-security-
| detail-4b2e3...
| ggm wrote:
| As others note, its the public health aspect of being a voice
| for science and reason, against the political backlash and
| death threats. I did not mean to imply USDA and NIAD related,
| except in needing public health policy people making
| decisions and statements in the public eye.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| On a related note, "Trump ends Fauci's security detail and says
| he'd feel no responsibility if harm befell him":
| https://apnews.com/article/fauci-trump-security-detail-4b2e3...
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| > In a Breitbart article, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins blithely
| assures us that increased biosecurity supported by the Trump
| Administration will negate the need for vaccines. I have to
| wonder how that's going to work out for poultry flocks next to
| dairy (or feedlot) H5N1 B3.13 or D1.1 outbreaks, especially when
| she is also taking cattle vaccines off the table in the same
| conversation? I'll give Secretary Rollins credit for one thing -
| she definitely does not hide her intentions in 3rd person
| language anonymity! She will own these comments!
|
| That'll be something to keep in mind.
| mlinhares wrote:
| "negate the need for vaccines" i guess we should start to buy
| only imported powdered milk as US milk won't be safe for human
| consumption anymore. what is wrong with these people, go be
| corrupt and steal government money but leave this shit alone.
| DrillShopper wrote:
| Breitbart is a neo-Nazi site so that tells you where her
| allegiances lie
| superq wrote:
| Is this hyperbole, or are you seriously claiming that the
| Jewish men who run Breitbart, or Jewish founders like Ben
| Shapiro or Andrew Breitbart, are neo-Nazis?
| watwut wrote:
| Andrew Breitbart is dead and not running anything right
| now. Also, antisemitism was not the only thing wrong with
| nazi.
| leptons wrote:
| >what is wrong with these people
|
| A whole lot of things.
|
| None of the actions of this administration are designed to
| improve the country, they are specifically designed to
| destabilize the country. _They want collapse._ They seriously
| are trying to destroy America so they can rule over the
| ashes. I wish I could call this hyperbole, but the affirm
| this every single day with every single crooked action they
| take, even in defiance of the law.
| Hikikomori wrote:
| I hear raw milk is good for you.
| Sabinus wrote:
| I hear that too. But I also hear of the occasional death
| when the unpasteurized milk has a pathogen in it. It's
| rolling the dice.
| p1necone wrote:
| You just have to boil it first ;)
| hypeatei wrote:
| > what is wrong with these people
|
| Brain worms, eating road kill, the usual.
| neuronexmachina wrote:
| Worth noting that Rollins is the same USDA Secretary who
| advocated for Americans to keep chickens in their yards to
| counter rising egg prices. Besides that not making financial
| sense, it also creates even more vectors for H5N1 to spread.
| timewizard wrote:
| This isn't my field but I always feel it's disingenuous to show
| PCR results without telling me how many cycles of PCR you did.
| PCR is effectively a magnifying glass and you're obscuring the
| level of magnification you used to get a detection. It doesn't
| seem, on it's own, to ever be a useful piece of information.
| stonogo wrote:
| For a diagnostic application, the cycle count doesn't really
| matter. Either the DNA your primers are targeting is present or
| it is not. That's why they talk about a "positive" or
| "negative" PCR test -- the presence or absense of the viral DNA
| is a binary.
|
| For diagnostic use like this, the standard is 30+-10 cycles,
| but it doesn't really matter if it's ten or a hundred, since
| all you're really doing is verifying the presence of the target
| genome.
| blackguardx wrote:
| PCR is a basic tool. It amplifies, much like your car stereo.
| If you can hear music when tuning in an AM station, you don't
| question the automatic gain correction the stereo is doing
| internally. PCR is the same way. If the target is present, it
| is detectable. If it isn't then it isn't. There are so many
| variables at play that the number of cycles isn't very
| meaningful.
| tanseydavid wrote:
| Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR does not agree with your
| analogy.
| churchturing wrote:
| He also
|
| * believed in astrology
|
| * denied Avogadro's number (???)
|
| * practiced telepathy
|
| * didn't believe in HIV causing AIDs
|
| * didn't believe in climate change
|
| * didn't believe in the ozone hole
|
| While he certainly had incredible intelligence, clearly him
| believing something isn't a hugely convincing reasoning.
|
| disclaimer: i am a person who believes in Avogadro's number
| and not astrology. truly an intellectual outcast and rebel
| aftbit wrote:
| Is sample contamination more impactful (likely to lead to a
| false positive) at 100 or 200 cycles than at 20? I remember
| some distrust of high PCR cycle counts during COVID but I
| never quite understood the fear.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-11 23:01 UTC)