New experiments confirm milk from H5N1-infected cows can make other animals sick — and raise questions about flash pasteurization | CNN
www.cnn.com
New experiments confirm milk from H5N1-infected cows can make other animals sick — and raise questions about flash pasteurization
  •  IHeartBadCode   ( @IHeartBadCode@kbin.social ) 
    31•4 months ago

    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”.

    •  usernamesAreTricky   ( @usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml ) OP
      4•4 months ago

      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 rare cooked beef until journalists started asking why it was conspicuously absent

      EDIT: correction, rare not medium-rare EDIT2: On further look, it seems that the USDA’s definition of medium-rare is probably actually higher than most people assume medium-rare is, so it’s unclear about medium-rare either