Bird Flu. What's going on? Should milk drinkers be worried?

written by

posted on

May 10, 2024

Bird flu, bird flu, bird flu. I'm sure you've seen scary headlines like these:

💥 "Deadly flu virus is not just for the birds anymore"
💥 "Bird flu has spread to dairy cows. Is our milk safe?"
💥 "Could Avian Influenza Be The Next Covid-19?"

I mean, how sensational. At this point, you've likely had (at least) a small moment of fear. You maybe have even done an internet search on "bird flu symptoms" (or something like that).

I mean, the government and the media do such a good job of seeding fear about disease. Any fear or anxiety you have about this is not your fault. Gee, just imagine how you'd feel and what the headlines would look like if, instead, the focus switched to spreading hope about natural health! That would be the day.

What's really going on? What do we have evidence of? What questions remain unanswered? Here's a breakdown of it all from my perspective.

Heads up -- it's a loooong post. It needs to be. Instead of fragments of scary information like most media sites put out there, I figure I'd take the time to delve deep and answer the questions that I have (and you might have, too).

*As a disclaimer, I'm not a doctor or a scientist. I'm a passionate real food consumer that loves research and learning new things. Sources are listed at the very bottom.

The truth is that there is zero evidence of viral transmission from milk to humans (even raw milk).

Yes, strains of bird flu were found in US milk (and fragments of these strains were found in pasteurized milk). However, the CDC and USDA reported that the strains lack the genetic markers for viruses adapted to infect humans. You heard that right. Anything that would potentially be in the milk can't infect humans.

The two people infected in this "outbreak" have been farm workers who've had direct contact with infected animals (and, by the way, with one of those cases it's unknown whether the animals were cows or dead birds).

For farm workers, the "WHO assesses the public health risk to the general population posed by this virus to be low and for occupationally exposed persons the risk of infection is considered low-to-moderate." So low risk for everyone, and low-moderate risk for farm works.

Furthermore, the two people infected have NOT transmitted it to another human. Sure, the virus could mutate to spread from human to human, but that's not the current reality.

Raw milk has antiviral properties that can prevent disease.

Science shows that raw milk can inactivate viruses and prevent foodborne illness. Multiple researchers have shown that this is a synergistic effect, meaning that there's not one specific thing in the milk that provides this protection. Rather, it's a combination of many things working together in our complex gut ecosystems that include innate and adaptive immune systems

Beyond the studies, this just makes sense in our gut. Let's take this example. Say a breastfeeding mom gets sick. She should NOT stop breastfeeding. Rather, she should 100% continue because she passes immunity along to protect the baby.

It's my opinion that it's better to improve your immune system than try to avoid a specific handful of the billions of bacteria and viruses around us (terrain theory, not germ theory). With potentially harmful pathogens, it's not an "if" you come in contact, it's a "when" you come in contact. Strengthening your body and immune system is your best defense (rather than avoidance).

There's zero evidence showing spread through eating meat or eggs.

I don't think I need to write more here. The above sentence says it all.

Unanswerable Bird Flu Questions

The hard part about writing about bird flu right now is that I have so many questions that I simply cannot find answers to. How can I have an educated stance when I'm confused, when I don't feel like I have all the info? Here are some questions that I'd love to have answered to help formulate a truly educated opinion.

--> How widespread is bird flu in cows? How many farms have been affected?

Some charts show number of positive tests in animals, some show positive milk tests, and some show it combined. Some show the number of states affected, and some show the number of farms. You need to be diligent when looking at the numbers.

From what I found, as of May 2, it looks like there are 36 herds that have had at least one cow with a positive bird flu test. Since there's about 25,000 dairy herds in the US, about 0.1% of farms that have been affected. If we round, that's 0%.

It's my understanding that these are only farms with a reason to test. How many farms have cows with bird flu and don't know it? Furthermore, how sensitive are the tests? Are we counting tests for the full virus, fragments of the virus, or a specific amount of the virus?

So many unknowns and opportunities to skew data to make a point.

--> Are there any farming practices that make bird flu transmission to cows more or less likely?

When there's a food safety risk, headlines nearly always say things like "Dump milk from This Specific Farm" or "Throw away your lettuce from This Specific Company." They call out the specific farm or company producing the food.

But, with the bird flu thing, it's very vague. The articles say "a farm in Texas" or "a farm in Colorado."

Because they're not naming names, I can only assume that the farms affected are part of big ag. They likely sell their milk to mega companies, which are lobbying to protect their brand name (and sales). And that means that, most likely, the infected cows live inside, are fed corn and soy, are given drugs, and all that industrial ag stuff.

And, if that's the case, then it means that cows on small natural farms like ours would be much less likely to contract bird flu. The cows are outside as much as possible (at this time of year, it's all day and night), they eat a natural diet of grass, and are drug-free. They're in natural health. The outside thing might be the biggest variable, because just like with COVID (and basically any virus), outdoor viral spread is rare.

But, of course, I have no way to prove this one way or another. Again, they're not naming farms! And, even if they did, big ag will protect its name. Those industrial farming practices are just fine, right? This makes it impossible to draw any conclusions about why transmission to cows happened in the first place.

--> How serious is bird flu in humans?

This should be a simple one, right? Nope. The info out there is quite confusing.

According to the CDC, "The signs and symptoms of bird flu virus infections in humans range from no symptoms or mild illness such as eye redness or mild flu-like upper respiratory symptoms to severe illness such as pneumonia requiring hospitalization." OK, that sounds like a normal flu virus. Symptoms range from mild to severe, and the most vulnerable are probably those who are immunocompromised (sick, elderly, etc).

But then, according to the WHO, the death rate is 56% (other sources cite the fatality rate from 40-60%). Seriously!?!? If that were true for all people, it would be truly terrifying.

Most likely, there should be some disclaimers about the fatality stats. I'd like to know these things. Was the percent based on hospitalized people only? If some people show no symptoms, were they be included in the total count of those infected (of course not)? Where did these deaths happen? How long were people infected before getting treatment? What was the quality of care and resources in those hospitals?

But, let's stop and think. How can anyone put a scary stat about death out there without some serious disclaimers about the data? It's obvious that that stat is for people who are already very sick and hospitalized.

--> How does bird flu get into milk anyway?

Bird flu is a respiratory disease, NOT a blood disease. Why is this important? Because milk is made from blood. If the bird flu virus isn't in blood, then there's no way for it to get into the milk (at last the milk when it's inside a body).

So, how does it get into the milk? Articles online haven't really explained this. They've only cited that fragments of bird flu have been found in pasteurized milk. In the same articles, they tout how amazing our testing capabilities are and how we can detect even the smallest fragments. So how much of the virus is in the milk is unknown, too.

Again, how does the virus get into milk? The only explanation is that it must be from an outside source. Perhaps droplets from an infected cow's saliva, respiratory droplets, urine, or feces. Another theory is that mastitis happens as an inflammatory response, and the infection is spreading to the teats. But again, this is yet to be proven.

In my opinion, it's most likely from respiratory droplets in the air in poorly ventilated milking spaces. But again, I have no way to prove that.

--> Why the hype?

Given the data, bird flu in humans doesn't seem like a big threat. This is especially true when compared to the wars, malnutrition, lack of clean water, and all the other huge issues around the world.

So, why? I mean, it's definitely click bait that gets ratings up. Maybe it's just something to talk about. Maybe it's a distraction from other news. Maybe it's a ploy to promote pasteurized dairy. Or maybe it's to promote a new bird flu vaccine. We may never know!

What is Miller's Bio Farm doing to prevent bird flu?

Well, we're going to continue doing what we normally do. Our cows will live a naturally happy, healthy life. They're outdoors at pasture as much as the weather allows. They eat a natural diet of 100% grass. We have meticulous cleaning and milk safety standards to minimize any potential pathogens getting in the milk. And, as usual, we carefully watch the health of our cows (they rarely fall ill).

We will not be testing for bird flu... unless we're required to. We don't feel it's necessary. Given the current info, we don't view bird flu as a risk. If we see evidence showing otherwise, of course we would take action then.

What do you think about bird flu? Are you nervous, or is it just hype?

I'd love for you to join the conversation. Comment below (no account required - start typing for the guest option to appear) or contact us.

-----

Sources

Our bone broth tested A+++ for heavy metals 🥳 NATURAL AND CLEAN

*Originally published on 3/14/25. Updated on 4/15/25. Over the past few months a bunch of people asked us if we tested our bone broth for toxic heavy metals. When we get the same question a lot, we of course look into it. My first question was --- Is there an issue with toxic metals in bone broth? As it turns out, yes, there "can" be an issue! Heavy metals are naturally present in our environment. We need the "good" heavy metals to thrive: iron, zinc, magnesium, copper, etc. But, we can 100% do without the toxic heavy metals: arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, etc. Too many toxic heavy metals can lead to a host of pretty awful issues: nervous system damage, cardiovascular issues, cancer, endocrine disruption, kidney damage, and so on. Our body is designed to excrete heavy metals through urine (and a little bit through sweat, hair, and breastmilk too)... but only so much. There's a limit. If you're overloaded, your body will store those heavy metals in your bones, blood, tissues, and organs. Similarly, if an animal is exposed to heavy metals via food, water, air, dust, or soil, those heavy metals accumulate in the body. Depending on the metal, it can accumulate in the bones, muscle, skin, brain, etc. Maybe the farm's soil or air is contaminated from a nearby factory. Maybe the pipes for the water has lead solder connecting them. Maybe the feed a farm is buying was grown on contaminated soil or processed on contaminated equipment. And, of course, a main purpose of bone broth is drawing out as much as possible from the bones. If there are heavy metals in bones, they will make their way into the broth. This is especially true when you use apple cider vinegar to draw everything out and make it thick and gelatinous and nutrient rich (like our broth). And that led me to my second question --- Should I be concerned about every bone broth? Where is the fear coming from? Well... it seems it might be a little political. There was a study done in the UK in 2013 that scared a lot of people. It's titled "The Risk of Lead Contamination in Bone Broth Diets". This study found high levels of lead in organic chicken bone broth, which is quite concerning. And, in fact, this one study is still cited in articles written today! Let's dig a little deeper. Let's go farther than the short abstract. Here are the broths tested in the study and their test results for lead: (9.5 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus skin and cartilage(7.01 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus bones(2.3 parts per billion): Broth made from tap water plus meat(0.89 parts per billion): Tap water alone cooked for the same amount of time as a control. But, they only used organic chicken from one farm. And, there's zero information about that farm, their practices, the feed, and the broth recipe. Did they use vinegar or wine in the broth? Was the chicken's water contaminated with lead? What was the quality of the feed and the soil? Were the chickens raised indoors or outdoors? So many unanswered questions! All we get is that it was one "organic chicken" that created a lead issue with broth. Another curious thing is that the broth with skin and cartilage contained more lead than the broth made with just bones. Bones are where lead is stored, so why wouldn't the broth made with bones only contain more lead? It's an odd result. Moreover, the abstract of the study specifically called out "bone broth diets" like GAPS and paleo. They even go so far as to write, "In view of the dangers of lead consumption to the human body, we recommend that doctors and nutritionists take the risk of lead contamination into consideration when advising patients about bone broth diets." That's quite curious. Why are they worried about these diets? Are the researchers anti healing through food? Who funded the research? Is it political? My opinion? This study is not comprehensive. It does not speak to all bone broths. But it does cover a potential issue if the water or animals are overloaded with heavy metals. And, as we know, our poor planet is becoming more and more contaminated with toxins like these toxic heavy metals 😢 What I glean from this study is that we need more research. We need to stay vigilant and test from time to time. We don't need fear to spread and people to stop drinking broth from this one study. Regardless of whether the fear was fabricated or legit, we tested our bone broth anyway. After all, it's always nice to validate that your food choices are as clean as you think. For Miller's, here were my concerns before testing: What if there's mercury in the fishmeal in our chicken feed?What if the soil that our animals live on is contaminated?What is the well water that the broth is made with is contaminated?What if the Celtic sea salt has lots of heavy metals? We actually tested twice. As it turns out, the first test results from March had a LOQ (limit of quantification) that was to high. So, we sent new products in April for testing at a lower LOQ. The results are in! Our bone broth tested A+++ for arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. You can find the actual Eurofins test results right here! For easy reference, here's a chart summarizing the results: You'll notice that, for every sample, the results are "<2.0 μg/kg" and "<4.0 μg/kg". The "<" indicates the limit of quantification (LOQ), the lowest concentration that can be accurately tested using the test procedure in that sample type. So if a "<" result appears, it means that none of that metal was found in the sample above the specific reporting LOQ. Whether or not they were present below this LOQ is information that's not provided by the test. It's also important to note that a μg/kg is a part per billion (ppb). So, for 1 μg/kg, in every billion grams of that food, there would be one gram (or 0.0000001%) of that particular heavy metal. The small numbers matter when it comes to toxic heavy metals, since it doesn't take all that much for your body to become inundated and start experiencing issues or damage. These results are excellent. It means the broth definitely isn't overloaded with toxic heavy metals and are within safe levels. Our amazing customers mentioned Mike Adams to me numerous times after we released the first set of broth results. Mike Adams is an outspoken consumer health advocate, investigative journalist, activist, and science lab director. It turns out Eurofins, the lab we used, is a lab that he recommends. Moreover, our results land us in his highest rating when it comes to heavy metals! I think we're doing pretty great when it comes to providing clean, natural food. But, one result did make me pause. You might be thinking what I first thought -- "But wait, you got a reading above 4.0 μg/kg for arsenic. Isn't that bad?" Let's dive in -- What's up with arsenic? First off, it's important to note that there are organic forms of arsenic as well as inorganic forms. Our body can handle the organic kind pretty well. But, the inorganic kind is carcinogenic. Our test results show the level of all arsenic, and it doesn't divide inorganic and organic. Second, as you can see from the Health Ranger rating above, your body can tolerate way more arsenic than the other three toxic heavy metals. It can handle 6x more than cadmium, 25x more than lead, and 103x more than mercury. Third, it was a mystery to me how arsenic had a reading in the ground beef but not the beef bone broth. Thankfully, that has a pretty easy explanation. Whereas lead mainly accumulates in the bones, arsenic accumulates more in the organs and muscles. And, of course, meat is muscle. And finally, it was also quite perplexing how arsenic showed in our beef as well as our chicken. You see, our beef and chicken are grown on two separate farms (hours apart) and are processed at two separate processors (also hours apart). They're fed two completely separate diets, too! My only explanation is farmland in general or maybe even our environment in general. Organic arsenic has always been naturally present in the soil and water. It's just there in small amounts. But, levels nowadays are likely higher due to overuse of products laden with inorganic arsenic over time. Starting in the 1940s, conventional farmers would include drugs filled with inorganic arsenic in the feed for pigs and chickens and turkeys to encourage fast growth and prevent disease. Ugh. This actually led to concerns about arsenic poisoning, and that that practice was banned recently, in 2016. It makes me think that all the agri-waste has contaminated our farmland a bit, perhaps in both the soil and water. And then of course there are synthetic pesticides and herbicides and fertilizers that may contain inorganic arsenic. And their use on conventional farms might runoff everywhere else. Since our meats are grown on farms that have been naturally managed for some time, I think that's why our arsenic levels were so low, especially compared to conventional meat. Now, let's compare our results to food in general. Ours are extremely low. The data below is based on a few scientific studies: Arsenic: Rice contains anywhere from 90-450 ppb (that includes that rice cereal for babies, too). Meat and poultry in general typically contain 100-200 ppb. The max ours has is 6.8 ppb.Cadmium: Spinach contains 117-222 ppb. Rice contains 6-19 ppb. Meat and poultry in general contain about 10 ppb. Our has less than 2 ppb.Lead: Meat and poultry in general contain about 25 ppb. Our has less than 4 ppb.Mercury: The larger the fish, the more time it has to accumulate mercury. Swordfish and king mackerel can have about 1,000 ppb. Meat and poultry in general contain about 10-50 ppb. Ours has less than 2ppb. Wow! Putting that into perspective, it looks like our broth and meat are quite clean and extremely low in toxic heavy metals! Are you satisfied with our heavy metal results? Do you think we should take further action? Should we test other products? Do you worry about toxic metals (or other junk) in your food? Where have your fears stemmed from? I'd love to hear from you. You can comment below (no account required) or contact us 😊 ----- Sources The risk of lead contamination in bone broth dietsBone Broth and Lead Toxicity: Should You Be Concerned?Bone Broth and Lead Contamination: A Very Flawed Study in Medical HypothesesBone Broth, Collagen, and Toxic Metals: A Research ReviewInorganic arsenic toxicosis in a beef herd Consumer Wellness Center Labs Heavy Metal RatingsArsenic in Meat and Animal ProductsInorganic arsenic toxicosis in a beef herdArsenic in brown rice: do the benefits outweigh the risks?A Survey of the Levels of Selected Metals in U.S. Meat, Poultry, and Siluriformes Fish Samples Taken at Slaughter and Retail, 2017–2022Arsenic in your foodDietary exposure to cadmium from six common foods in the United StatesMercury Content in Commercially Available Finfish in the United States Author links open overlay panel

Bird Flu. What's going on? Should milk drinkers be worried?

The truth is that there is zero evidence of viral transmission from milk to humans (even raw milk).

Raw milk has antiviral properties that can prevent disease.

There's zero evidence showing spread through eating meat or eggs.

Unanswerable Bird Flu Questions

What is Miller's Bio Farm doing to prevent bird flu?

What do you think about bird flu? Are you nervous, or is it just hype?

More from the blog

Our bone broth tested A+++ for heavy metals 🥳 NATURAL AND CLEAN

Raw milk or fermented dairy and lactose intolerance. Why might it help?

Celebrating the Heritage of Corn on National Popcorn Lovers Day

Do

Learn

Uphold

Connect

Miller's Bio Farm, 523 Valley Road, Quarryville, PA 17566