Early last week a Hong Kong infectious disease expert announced that – in his opinion – China was suffering an outbreak of bird flu among poultry. This conclusion was based upon two factors: first, eight people had been infected with H5N1 since early December; and second, Hong Kong scientists had detected H5N1 virus in dead birds on Lantau Island, suggesting – to them – that the virus was circulating in Guangdong Province.
Though no outbreak of bird flu has been detected on the Mainland, the wide geographic distribution of the human cases suggests that migratory birds must have been involved in the spread. At the same time, one of the frightening characteristics of H5N1 is its ability to remain asymptomatic among avian carriers. Likewise, one of the frightening characteristics common to some countries that have suffered bird flu outbreaks is an unwillingness to report outbreaks. In other words, bird fatalities aren’t sufficient evidence to judge a bird flu outbreak. Or, as Bloomberg reported last week:
China hasn’t reported any cases of H5N1 among birds since December. The human cases show the virus must be circulating among birds, said Vincent Martin, a senior technical advisor on avian flu for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
“There must be some cases which have not been reported,” Martin said in a telephone interview today. “It’s not normal that we don’t receive any confirmation or any reports of outbreaks in poultry.”
The Bloomberg story, and others issued in the wake of the Hong Kong announcement, suggested that the Chinese authorities, despite claims to transparency and honest reporting, were engaged in a SARS-like cover-up of an outbreak. The fact that state-owned media – in particular, Xinhua – were near silent on a possible outbreak only heightened suspicions.
And so it was no small matter when, on Friday, Xinhua (via China Daily) issued “Leading expert issues new bird flu warning.” The story focuses on Zhong Nanshan, a Chinese national hero, and one of the very first doctors to identify and help control the SARS virus:
GUANGZHOU — A leading Chinese expert on respiratory diseases has warned the public to be aware that poultry can be infected with the bird flu virus but show no symptoms.
Special attention should be paid to such animals, including those that have been vaccinated … [T]he existing vaccines can only reduce the amount of virus, rather than totally inactivating it,” he said.
In other words: the H5N1 virus is capable of defeating China’s large-scale and laudable efforts at controlling and containing it, and probably has. That, or some other, heretofore unknown means of transmission has emerged in China (far fetched).
Now, it’s one thing for Bloomberg to write a story about potential bird flu outbreaks, and another thing entirely when a “SARS hero” makes comments to the state-owned media that bolster and support Bloomberg’s story. The former is no threat to anybody’s job in Beijing, but the latter – which takes direct aim at anti-bird flu efforts being coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture, demands a sharp bureaucratic response. On Monday, in what might stand as one of the most unusual stories to ever run in China Daily (if not one of the best examples – ever – of infighting among Chinese public health authorities), that response was delivered in “Official explains human bird flu cases.”:
BEIJING — China’s Chief Veterinary said on Saturday that the human cases of bird flu did not necessarily mean there would be an outbreak among poultry, in response to the international expert’s doubt.
The human cases and the animal cases were not directly interlinked, which was quite common in the world. So far, 405 human cases from 15 countries have been reported, among which many occurred without the outbreak among animals. The infection sources is not clear yet, Yu Kangzhen, Chief Veterinary of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) told Xinhua in an interview.
The infection rate among high-risk group including those who feed, kill and sell the poultry was not very high as a matter of fact, and no such cases were reported in China, Yu said.
The international expert (presumably, Zhong Nanshan and/or the infectious disease authorities in Hong Kong, and those associated with the UN) don’t have direct evidence of a link between human and animal cases, and thus their conclusions cannot be trusted. The article continues:
There is still much unchartered water in the bird flu study, which needs more scientific exploration by international researchers, he said.
Got that? There’s lots of evidence out there, but, alas, there’s simply not enough to draw the dire conclusions being published elsewhere. So more research is needed, and – in the meantime – don’t you worry a bit about all those geographically scattered bird flu cases (which the Ministry will study further). Sound familiar? If you’ve ever watched or listened to oil companies drag their feet on the ever-accumulating scientific evidence for global warming, you’re familiar with this approach to denying scientific evidence. It goes like this: don’t deny the data, but instead claim that you need more. That way, you don’t come off as a flat-earth proponent, but merely as a (more) reasonable proponent of careful, rational scientific study (never mind that the Himmalayan glaciers are melting and China has just suffered the largest monthly number of human bird flu cases since 2003).
Strictly speaking, of course, this approach can’t be called a “cover-up.” It’s a face-saving, and possibly job-saving, bureaucratic head feint. And perhaps, in this case, it’s just a well-intentioned PR strategy, and no reflection of what people within the Ministry of Agriculture are actually thinking or doing in regard to H5N1. Let’s hope so.