➡ On May 21, 2025, a webinar was held discussing the bird flu situation in Canada, particularly concerning an ostrich farm. A few months prior, two ostriches on the farm died from bird flu, leading to a decision to euthanize the remaining ostriches. This decision has sparked controversy and resistance from people trying to save the ostriches. The webinar aimed to provide information about bird flu to help those fighting against the culling of the ostriches.
➡ The text discusses the process of identifying and growing viruses, specifically the influenza virus, in a lab setting. It questions the validity of the current methods, arguing that they don’t truly isolate the virus. The author suggests that the process of injecting unpurified cell material into an egg and observing the breakdown of the embryo is not a definitive proof of the virus’s presence. The text calls for a more accurate method of virus identification and isolation.
➡ The text discusses the process of virus isolation and the challenges in determining the presence of a virus. It explains that the cytopathic effect, a change in cells caused by a virus, is considered the gold standard for virus detection. However, the text argues that this method is flawed as there are many factors that can affect the cytopathic effect, making it unreliable. It also mentions an ostrich farm that is producing antibodies for COVID-19, which the author views critically.
➡ The article discusses the use of ostriches to produce antibodies against Covid-19 and other viruses. The author questions the scientific validity of this method, arguing that the antibodies produced are not specific to any virus and that the process involves unnecessary harm to the ostriches. The author suggests that instead of using ostriches for antibody production, they should be raised in healthy conditions for breeding purposes. The author concludes by criticizing the use of ostriches for creating antibodies for viruses, calling it flawed and phony science.

Okay, welcome everybody. I think my sound is okay. Hopefully I’m close enough to the mic. Welcome, everybody. Another Wednesday webinar. Today is May 21, 2025, and I don’t think there’s going to be any announcements here. And so what’s happening today is I was asked by a number of Canadian people, some of whom I think are involved or at least interested, maybe not directly involved with what’s happening around the bird flu situation in Canada and in particularly around a certain ostrich farm. I think in British Columbia. I could be wrong about that, but I think that’s where the ostrich farm is.

And apparently there’s been a lot of news about this and a lot of activity and a lot of interest in trying to save the ostriches. So there’ll be something interesting. There’s an interesting connection with the ostrich. Is there, which I’ll get into a little bit later. But and I again, I am no expert on this situation, so let me just say that up front. So it’s possible that some of the details I make say may be incorrect. But what I’ve heard is that a few months ago, maybe four to six, could be longer than that, there’s this particular ostrich farm which has many ostriches.

I don’t know how many. And I think it was two of the ostriches got sick and died. And they tested them and said they had bird flu and therefore they needed to kill the rest of the oysters. Not oysters, ostriches. And for some reason this taken a long time to deal with this situation and I don’t know why that is. And I’ve heard that there’s some issue with the disposal of the ostriches, whether the landfill will take them. And then people are fighting back and people are coming to. To the farm to stop the authorities from entering the farm and actually killing the ostriches.

And I’m not sure exactly what’s happening with that, but that’s the kind of things I’m hearing. And so apparently in the last week or so it’s come to a kind of critical situation. And that’s why they. I was asked if I could speak about this avian bird flu or the bird flu situation. So I’m hoping that this video, and hopefully it’ll be shorter than an hour, will be able to be used as a kind of video to explain what is and isn’t bird flu. And that may help at least bolster the confidence and the resolve of the people who are trying to fight this.

And like I said, then there will be something that has to do with the ostriches, which I’ll bring in a little bit later. So the first agenda is what is bird flu? Is it real? And this is definitely old hat for most of you probably. And I even recently talked about bird flu. And so this is sort of a recapitulation, but this is just to get it in one place so that it could be used if needed and even shown maybe to the authorities or however it needs to be used. So let me share my screen.

So the first question I want to address is is there something called bird flu? In other words, is it a specific disease that we can identify clinically? So let me pull up this first paper and again, I apologize for the way that these papers come out. They look like normal papers when I download them and I must be doing something wrong because they come out in this sort of wonky format and I don’t really know how to fix it. But anyways, so here we are. So this was a piece, I don’t know where I got this from, but probably, oh, something like find me a vet.

So this is just a veterinary advice on the Internet. So what is avian flu? Otherwise known as bird flu. So avian flu, bird flu. So they say a avian flu is a highly contagious viral infection of wild and domestic birds worldwide. The avian influenza viruses are classified as low pathogenic or highly pathogenic based on their pathogenicity. In domestic chickens, lpai, that’s low pathogenic bird flu causes milder disease whereas high pathogenic causes more severe multisystemic infections. Once infected, the avian influenza virus replicates in the respiratory, intestinal, renal and or reproductive reproductive organs of the host. So this is a very specific claim.

In other words, there is a illness called avian influenza. That’s claim one. Claim two, it’s highly contagious. Claim three, it’s caused by a virus and the virus affects wild and domestic birds. And then they go on to make another claim that there’s two types, the not so bad type and the very bad type. And this is based on the pathogenicity of the virus. So those are the claims that we’re investigating. Now let’s go down to diagnosis and I want to make a very specific point here which again I’ve made many times. And this is I’m going to use it specific to the bird flu, but then it’s going to be a more generalized phenomena.

So diagnosis. The bird flu is diagnosed in chickens through the Use of several types of common laboratory diagnostic tests. They take swabs. Viral isolation is considered to be the gold standard in confirming that birds have been infected with the avian influenza virus. So the first thing I want people to notice here is. Well, let me go on for a minute. So the clinic, here’s the clinical signs, ruffled feathers, facial swelling and all, all of these various things. Now here’s what I want people to notice here. Number one, all of these symptoms are not specific or unique to the bird flu.

They happen with many other situations with chickens and other wild birds. So there’s nothing in the clinical signs that could possibly tell you that this is bird flu as opposed to some other illness of chickens. And in case you don’t believe me, this is confirmed by the, by the words here in the diagnosis which say that this diagnosis is through laboratory diagnostic tests. In other words, they do not say that you can diagnose avian influenza virus or bird flu through the clinical situation of the bird. In other words, there’s nothing that you can see by looking at a chicken or any other bird that they have bird flu as opposed to anything else.

This is such an important point which I keep making, but I’m going to actually say it again. There is no symptom that anybody can look at a bird and positively identify that they have bird flu as opposed to some other illness. That’s why they say you have to diagnose it with laboratory tests and that the viral isolation, so called, is the gold standard. Now let’s generalize this. This is exactly the same thing as I’ve pointed out, that they say with measles and they say with chickenpox and they say with smallpox and they say with polio and they said with COVID and they say with human influenza and every other so called viral or infectious, so called infectious disease, none of them.

Can you make the diagnosis specifically based on only looking at this, taking the symptoms and looking at the signs, in other words, what you can see with the patient, none of them. And that is very clear. These are all laboratory diagnoses. Now the first thing that that should bring up for anybody is that therefore, since these laboratory diagnostic tests were not available before the late 1900s and specifically in the 90s, so any information about the incidence of polio, smallpox, Chickenpox, mumps, measles, etc. From 1900 or 1820 or 1700 or 1930 is speculation at best. Because if they, if on the one hand you’re told that you cannot distinguish this disease based on the signs and symptoms from other similar diseases, then it should be completely obvious that therefore in 1930 nobody knew whether they were looking at a case of chickenpox, measles, German measles or any other so called viral disease.

There is simply no way to tell. That’s what these articles are saying. So let’s look at another article that says basically the same thing. And this is from a Avian Influenza in Birds Insights from a comprehensive review. Here’s the reference. It’s in Vet World, November 2024, so you can see the reference and then it’s telling me to go down to the diagnosis. So this is a reiteration and a looking at the research to confirm what I just say said. Avian influenza viruses cannot be identified based only on clinical signs and symptoms because the lesions and symptoms of this illness are diverse and may be mistaken for those of other illnesses.

As a result, this disease cannot be clinically distinguished from other diseases such as nb, Ib, foul, cholera, ilt, E. Coli infection, and there’s more. Therefore serological and virological testing is required. Confirmation must be performed at a qualified laboratory. In other words, again, as I just said, this is very clear and this is the standard opinion and this is the exact same thing that you get with all these other human so called viral diseases, measles, smallpox, chickenpox, mumps, etc. There is no way to tell based on the clinical signs and symptoms, in other words, what you see.

Because you also have to realize if somebody says to you, no, I’m sure this is a case of bird flu, or I’m sure this is a case of measles, how can they can possibly confirm that? What will, what will they use? Let’s forget about diagnostic tests to show that that is true in 1930. Just think about that seriously for a minute. What would you do to prove that that’s true? It’s not like saying I think this woman is pregnant and then you could wait eight months and see if a baby comes out, or I think this bone is broken and you can do an X ray and see if there’s a crack in the bone.

There’s no test in 1930 that could possibly sort this out, or up until 1990, so that every epidemiological study on every viral disease that is said to not be able to be determined through clinical signs and symptoms, therefore we have no idea whether the diagnosis was correct. So anything about vaccines lowered the incidence of this or raised the incidence of that or whatever can’t possibly be accurate because we had no Reference no way to standardized who had which of these illnesses. That should be perfectly obvious to everybody who’s willing to think. Therefore, this entire edifice of all the virological diseases, including bird flu, rests on serological and virological testing of which viral isolation is the gold standard.

If there isn’t those tests, if those tests aren’t done, then there’s no way to know which of these illnesses, nbib, foul, cholera, ILT, whatever that is, E. Coli, etc. No way. The only way to do it is serological or virological testing, which therefore means that the virological testing serves as the state, the way one standardizes this on its by itself. In other words, you can’t say, well I thought it was, I had this symptom and I had this test. Therefore it must be true because you already have ruled out that the symptoms provide you any definitive answer.

So then we’re looking at is it, is it possible to use any of these tests to actually determine for sure that you have a virus in this situation that is and can be the only possible cause of this, these set of symptoms? That is what we have to be looking for. So in other words, we’re going to play a kind of a, like a whack a mole game of where’s the virus? And what we’re going to be looking at in these studies of that are looking at the gold standard. In other words, the definitive test of, of how do you isolate and propagate an influenza virus? We’re going to be asking the question at which step did they isolate, actually prove the virus exists, have it in pure form and show that it causes the disease? And it must be one of these tests because we already know the signs and symptoms don’t help us.

Okay, so now we go on to the testing part and we have a paper, same wonky format. This is the Journal of Visualized Experiments. Didn’t know there was such a thing. 2015 March 19 Influenza virus propagation in embryonated Chicken Eggs. So it turns out this is how influenza viruses, especially the avian bird flu virus, is grown or propagated. They do it in embryonated chicken eggs. So let’s go down to the protocol here. You can sort of see a picture and you can even watch a little video. So what do they do? And I don’t want to go through this whole thing, but they clean everything with ethanol, has to be done in a safe lab, etc.

So what they do is they obtain freshly fertilized chicken eggs from a suitable vendor, typically chicken Eggs are used, and they should be used immediately. Then you put them in the humidified egg incubator with an egg turner to rotate the eggs. And then you incubate them at 37 degrees in certain humidity for 10 to 11 days. And then you do this egg candling, which checks to see whether there’s a viable embryo in the chicken egg. In other words, you need to see a viable embryo growing in the chicken egg. Now let’s just again play find the virus.

So is there anything in this step, growing, in other words, incubating chicken eggs, that tells you there’s a virus? Well, obviously no. Incubating chicken eggs doesn’t tell you if it’s a virus. Seeing whether there’s a viable embryo in the chicken egg doesn’t tell you there’s a virus. So so far we’ve got nothing to do with viruses. Now next step, then they say you take influenza stock and you dilute it and put it in some solution and then you’re going to use this as the inoculation. So this is now we’re getting into. So this is how to grow an influenza virus.

And they’re assuming that they sent you this stock solution of influenza virus that that contains the virus. Now the question is, where did they get this stock solution? Because they’re now from this step on, there’s an assumption here that you’re inoculating the egg with a virus. This influenza virus stock is a broken down cell culture without ever having, and we’ll get into that a little bit, but they take basically, you know, some snot from a chicken’s throat and they put that on a cell culture and then they put some antibiotics and then they take away the nutrients and they add fetal bovine serum and they then incubated or watch it grow for about four days and then it breaks down and they say that is the influenza virus stock.

At no point in that procedure did they actually identify a virus. At no point in that procedure did they, did they actually purify and show us the isolated virus. So now everything after this is based on the circular reasoning that there must be a virus in here. So then they go through all the steps of how you do this and you cut the shell off and then you use a needle to punch a hole in the, in the shell and then you carefully insert the needle and then you inject it and try to get it in a certain pace place.

And then you use a glue gun or melted paraffin wax to seal up the wound and then you place the eggs back in the egg incubator with the airspace pointed up. And then you do it for a certain amount of days. There’s here 72 hours. And then you look and see whether the embryo has broken down. And that tells you that you have grown the virus. So in other words, you put unpurified material from a broken down cell culture, you inject that into a growing embryo in, in an egg, and then you see whether the growing embryo breaks down.

And if it does, that is called growing the virus. Again, I ask you, at which step in here did we identify a virus and did we use the virus as the independent variable and show that that’s the only thing that could have caused the embryo to break down and the so the virus to accumulate in the. A lantoid fluid. Not sure if I said that right. A lantoic fluid. So that’s where they harvest the viruses from. But at no point was any virus identified or used as an independent variable. They just assumed in this step here that they were injecting virus, whereas that’s obviously not true because they did not inject purified virus and then do the same thing with something that wasn’t a virus.

With not a virus. All they did was inject unpurified cell material, broken down cell culture into an egg, embryo, the embryo into an egg, the embryo and the egg died. And then you get a bunch of debris forming in the fluids of the egg and that’s called growing the influenza A virus. So at no point in this was the virus actually identified. And then they do a whole lot of PCR and antigen and antibody studies assuming that they have an virus, but the virus has never been isolated. Therefore we don’t know whether it has any proteins or not.

We don’t know whether it has any genetic material, and we can’t possibly know since we never isolated the virus from all the other material in the egg, whether the so called antibodies are directed against a actual virus or, or against something else in the egg. Okay, now just to bring that point home, so here’s a paper called Influenza A Virus isolation culture and Identification. This is from natural protocols or something like that, NAT protocols. And let’s see where I’m supposed to look here. First viral culture. So it’s basically the same thing how to grow a virus in an egg.

And it’s basically the same procedure. There’s something I wanted to show in this first viral culture. So just says to prepare virus cultures from surveillance samples, aliquot should be inoculated into embryonated chicken eggs or cell cultures, depending on the sample’s origin. So again, the two ways of so called culturing, that is what they call isolation, which is a horrible misrepresentation of the word isolation, which means separate one thing from all other things. Nobody is isolating or separating anything. They’re just inoculating unpurified samples into either cell cultures or the unique thing or the different thing about the influenza viruses is that they grow them in chicken eggs instead of just cultures.

But there is one thing I wanted to show in this study which was very interesting to me. Anyways, here we go. Table 1 Troubleshooting Table so now, so again, everybody knows this, but you take unpurified material, like a swab from a throat of a chicken, you put that on a cell culture and you take away the nutrients, you add antibiotics, you add some other chemicals, the cell culture breaks down. That’s called cpe and that is called the isolation of the virus. So here they’re saying what happens if you fail to get CPE in this viral culture? And again, the viral culture is the gold standard.

It is the bottom line. It is the equivalent of seeing or feeling a baby in a mother’s uterus. It’s the equivalent of seeing a crack in a bone on an X ray. It is the definitive word on whether there is a virus or not is whether you get a cytopathic effect when you put a unpurified sample. Even though, as we all know, that cytopathic effect can come from many other factors. So if you don’t get a cytopathic effect, the culture does not contain the virus. That should be the only possible reason. So this column is possible reasons, because again, if there is no cpe, that means there’s no virus.

Then they say something very interesting. And this is why I wanted to point this out. If the inoculated sample is known to contain a virus. But here’s the problem. This is the way the CPE is, the way that you know that it contains a virus. So how can you possibly know that the sample contains a virus if you don’t get a cytopathic effect? Again, I want you to think about this. The fact of a cytopathic effect is the proof. Yes or no? It’s a yes or no question for them. If you get a cytopathic effect, then that proves you have a virus.

And they’re saying if you don’t get a cytopathic effect, what happens if you still know there’s a virus? Well, that can’t be because you already just proved that there isn’t one. But they say, well, the virus doesn’t grow well in those cells. So if that means that a cytopathic effect could mean that that virus just isn’t growing well in those cells, or it could be that you didn’t add trypsin to the culture, why would you have to add trypsin, a chemical that breaks down cells in order to show that the virus is breaking down the cells, or you didn’t inefficient monolayer prior to inoculation.

In other words, you didn’t do it right. And so that the inoculation doesn’t have a chance, you didn’t get them thin enough and susceptible enough to the chemicals to show that the cytopathic effect would happen with the virus or the cells that you’re using are not metabolically active. In other words, they’re telling us that there’s so many other reasons why you wouldn’t get a cytopathic effect. Therefore this can’t possibly be the gold standard to say whether a virus is present or not, because there’s so many other things that can are affecting whether it works or not that you end up with a anti scientific experiment which can’t possibly give you a yes or no answer, which like you’re either pregnant or you’re not, either have a broken bone or you’re not either have this influenza virus or you don’t can’t give you that answer.

Therefore you have no way to standardize your results. In other words, the clinical signs and symptoms don’t tell you yes or no. The viral culture doesn’t tell you yes or no. And since you’ve never then purified the virus and shown that it exists, you can’t possibly say that the virus has a component which you could test with a pcr. So that can’t possibly tell you the virus exists. You can’t possibly find the proteins of a virus that you haven’t isolated from the rest of the culture or the egg. So an antigen which is a protein allegedly coming from the virus can’t possibly give you a yes or no answer.

And an antibody certainly can’t because you don’t never purified the virus from the egg or the cell culture. So any alleged antibody, how do you know it’s against the virus which you’ve never actually shown to exist or isolated or purified rather than against some other component of the cell culture. So the reality is none of these diagnostic tests give you a yes or no. The clinical signs or symptoms clearly, as they say, don’t give you a yes or no. So there is no yes or no. There is no definitive proof the virus exists. There’s no way to test for it that’s validated.

Therefore there is no way to diagnose avian bird flu or any other flu or any other viral disease, because they’re all the same. And that should be perfectly obvious to anybody who actually looks at this literature. Okay, so now we know that there isn’t an avian bird flu and that there is no evidence or a specific disease called avian bird flu. And we know there is no evidence for the existence of a virus and no gold standard test or any test that will give you a yes or no answer. Now, when I was looking into this, in a way I thought, well, this should be the end of it.

These poor farmers who are raising these ostriches, and more than the poor farmers, I said the poor ostriches, there is no reason to kill these other ostriches. They’re all perfectly healthy as far as we know. And the two that got sick a while ago, we have no idea why they did. But it hasn’t seemed to affect any of the other, I don’t know how many other ostriches. So do not kill the rest of the ostriches. Leave them alone. There’s nothing to see here. Everybody go home. And I thought at that point, anything we do to support those farmers, to not get their livelihood interfered with and their ostriches, I probably said oysters a few times, ostriches killed we should do, including protecting their farm, et cetera.

But then came something that put this in a little bit different light for me. And again, I don’t know all the details, and so I may be getting some of this wrong, but it turns out this is not your usual ostrich farm. That’s maybe raising stock ostriches to sell to other ostrich farms or raising the ostriches for meat or for eggs or, you know, the usual thing we associate with farms. If that was the case, I would have no qualms or repercussions about doing whatever we can. And we even have some forms that people have generated that you can give to the people who come to you to try to hassle you to get them to go away.

We can probably post that in the show notes, forms you can use. But to my surprise, it turns out this is not a normal ostrich farm. These people are raising ostriches to produce antibodies to protect people allegedly from COVID and other viral diseases. And that sort of put things in a different light in Other words, there is a movement, or at least some companies who are saying that ostriches are a kind of unique animal, they have a strong ability to, to make antibodies and the antibodies can be harvested. And if you, for instance, inject the ostriches with COVID vaccines, they will make antibodies that protect people from SARS, COV2, the so called COVID virus.

And so the ostrich antibody factory, which is sort of what they’re proposing here, is the way out of viral diseases, particularly Covid. And so that puts things for me in a different light because I can’t say that I’m interested in protecting farmers who think that way. Protecting the ostriches? Yes. I have no, nothing but hope and compassion that they don’t kill those ostriches for no reason. But the fact that they’re being used to produce antibodies again puts things in a whole lot different light for me. And I thought therefore I would take a look at what do they mean by producing antibodies in these ostriches.

So I found some studies that attempt to prove that. So here’s the first one. So this is the British Columbia ostrich farm developing antibodies that could put an end to the coronavirus. There’s the claim the biggest birds on the planet could be the key to ending the coronavirus, including the delta variant, which is causing much concern. This was, by the way, in 21, so it’s a little old. Nobody seems to care about the delta variant anymore. They don’t care that much about the coronavirus either. So they had a wildfire and they were worried about this universal ostrich farm.

It turns out the ostriches have a strong immune system and when exposed to Covid they quickly create antibodies. We inoculated our hens with dead COVID 19 viruses. The hens produced antibodies in two weeks and two weeks after that she put them into her eggs. Said Esperson. This is one of the reasons they’re so hesitant to abandon their 500 birds. In other words, these farmers are saying we don’t want to abandon these birds because they’re going to be producing the antibodies against Covid and save the world. So there’s some other things. They even say they were able to put these antibodies into a face mask and block 99.9% of the imaginary coronavirus.

And there’s some other claims in here and they even say again that they work with neutralizing the delta variant. Maybe they can have somebody hold something in their pocket and they were able to take these antibodies and keep them from dying or spray the antibodies, ostrich antibody nasal drops to prevent hospital acquired coronavirus. And if the patient is infected with the imaginary SARS CoV2, the doctor, thanks God, can spray the antibody solution of the nasal cavity of all the hospitalized patients. Close contacts and health care professionals. I won’t say that. Okay, so what do they, how do they substantiate this claim of the ostrich antibodies? So here is a paper from Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 2010.

Here’s the reference. Ostriches produce cross reactive neutralization antibodies against pandemic influenza virus H1N1 following immunization with seasonal influenza vaccine. In other words, you vaccinate the ostriches with the flu vaccine and they make neutralizing antibodies. So how did they do this? How did they prove it? As always, we go to the methods section. So a mixture of HA antigens, a vaccine strain of seasonal influenza, blah, blah, blah. So that is the vaccine which supposedly has these antigens taken from the mythical influenza virus. The female ostrich was immunized intramuscularly in the lumbar region at multiple sites with a mixture of this antigens, which means proteins allegedly taken from the virus, which we know are just broken down cell cultures.

And these shots were given every other week with each antigen. So we’re talking about basically poisoning, traumatizing and torturing these ostriches by giving them injections of foreign proteins multiple times, each time every other week into their thighs. Then the eggs were collected. After four weeks, the yolk was separated from the albumin and then it was diluted with a buffer and an initial 1 to 10 fold with 30% dextron sulfate in another buffer and then some other chemicals and then stored at 4 degrees. And then it was this liquid that allegedly contained the antibody was centrifuged and precipitated with 45% saturated ammonia sulfate.

Then it was centrifuged again at 4 degrees. Then it was redissolved and dialyzed. And the purified antibody solution was then verified because it gave a reaction with the dye. And so we’re sure that none of these reactions, in fact there was a step where they, I think I missed here, where they precipitated it or mixed it with some sort of ethanol. And so none of these had anything to do with changing the composition of what was in the supernatant, the liquid form of the egg. And then they got allegedly a very specific antibody, even though we know there is no such thing as a specific antibody that reacts with a specific protein or virus.

This has been proven over and over Again, so this is not a purified specific antibody. It’s just a chemical formed by the torturing of ostriches and then the chemical extraction of some sort of material that we don’t even know was actually there in the egg itself. Because we have all these chemicals which made something appear which we then purified one thing out of that which does not, is not a purified antibody. There’s no pictures, no confirmation that it’s an antibody of any sort of. And it certainly has never been proven to react with anything specifically. We’ve gone over that many times.

So, in fact, they are not getting a specific antibody against any influenza virus by any means. And the final paper along these same lines is how did they purify this antibody? Here’s the paper. The purification of the immunoglobulin Y I G Y from the ostrich by staphylococcal protein A. And this was from the Journal of Chromatography and Separation Techniques. They ought to know, right? And so we go down to the materials and methods. And so this isolation, the purification of this antibody, here’s where it is, was isolated from the egg yolks of the ostrich. It was isolated by chloroform and polyethylene glycol method, meaning they mixed it with these, got a chemical reaction and then claimed that this is a purified antibody because it came out in a band on their chromatography.

And then they did a whole bunch of other things and incubated it, et cetera, without actually showing that this protein was actually in the egg in the form that it was, which is a fatal flaw for all of these studies. So I have serious doubts about the whole antibody story. We’ve been over that many times. Mike Stone has been over that, Mark Bailey has been over that. And there is no evidence that antibodies are specific to any protein or virus. They will react depending on how you extract it and the conditions in the ph and a bunch of other factors.

And so these are not. They are not using ostriches to create specific antibodies to any virus like SARS, CoV2 or the Delta virus. That is simply a myth based on horrible science. And so my final comment here is, while I actually. So my. If this is what is happening at this farm, then I have no real interest in saving the farm, but I do have an interest in not torturing and saving the ostriches and in fact, maybe even using them for helping to have other ostriches, you know, like a breeding for ostriches. So My specific advice to the farmer who are involved with this antibody production is to immediately stop doing that to get your community involved with actual farming and raising healthy ostriches in the best way that ostriches live and then you will get a huge amount of community support because nobody wants to kill ostriches for no reason.

They should be grown in the best conditions possible for the ostriches and then maybe they can be sent to other places so we can have more ostrich farms all over different places and that is the appropriate use. That’s something that I can get behind and immediately get off this business of making imaginary antibodies for imaginary viruses because that will never work because it’s all based on flawed and phony science. So let me stop the share and I hope this clarifies my position or the science of ostrich farming and influenza bird flu virus and what it does and doesn’t mean.

So as always I welcome your feedback and comments and I hope everybody has a great week.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.