Top virologists sound the alarm on bird flu and plead with world leaders to prepare for another pandemic
Leading virologists from over 40 countries are sounding the alarm over the increasing threat of H5N1 avian flu—which can cause coughing, body aches, fatigue, pneumonia, and other symptoms in humans—urging global leaders to step up with a range of measures and to use knowledge gained during the COVID pandemic.
'In the U.S. sporadic human infections with no known contact with infected animals highlight the possibility of viral adaptation for efficient human-to-human transmission,' Global Virus Network (GVN) scientists write in a commentary published this week in The Lancet Regional Health–Americas. 'Concurrently, the virus continues to circulate in wild birds, backyard flocks, and hunted migratory species, further amplifying the risk to humans and domestic animals.'
The experts compel leaders to address the issue by boosting surveillance, enhancing biosecurity, and preparing for potential human-to-human viral transmission.
The authors note that more than 995 dairy cow herds and at least 70 people have been infected with H5N1, including severe cases and the first reported U.S. death.
'Understanding the current landscape of H5N1 infections is critical for effective prevention and response,' Dr. Sten H. Vermund, chief medical officer of the GVN and dean of the USF Health College of Public Health at the University of South Florida, said in a press release. 'The virus's ability to infect both animals and humans, combined with recent genetic changes, underscores the importance of proactive surveillance and rapid response measures.'
The highly pathogenic influenza virus is now circulating in all 50 states and Canada, the virologists warn, resulting in the loss or culling of more than 168 million poultry animals in the U.S. since 2022. While human-to-human transmission is not documented, experts warn that virus mutations or the combination of two flu viruses could increase transmissibility.
The researchers made several recommendations:
Continuously monitoring animals, including testing milk, wastewater, and people working with infected animals, to track virus evolution that may lead to human-to human transmissibility.
Accelerating the sharing of genomic data among global research networks to track virus evolution and spread.
Using personal protective equipment and strict farm-cleaning protocols.
Advocating for self-administered diagnostic tests for farmworkers and health care access for frontline medical workers.
Providing more funding for responses, especially in high-risk regions.
Investing in predicting traits of avian flu viruses from genetic data.
Developing and rapidly administering vaccines to people and animals.
Conducting clinical studies on the properties of emerging virus strains, potential therapies, and vaccines.
'A robust nationwide monitoring system is essential to quickly detect and quarantine affected animals and implement preventive measures to curb further spread and human infections,' said Elyse Stachler, GVN member and a research scientist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. 'Further, we believe it is crucial to maintain trust and stakeholder buy-in for monitoring programs, particularly from farmworkers.'
'We are advocating for community-driven strategies to ensure the successful implementation of vaccines, if necessary,' said Dr. Christian Bréchot, president emeritus of the GVN and director of the USF Health Microbiomes Institute and senior associate dean for research in global affairs in the USF Health Morsani College of Medicine. 'The situation with H5N1 demands heightened vigilance and collaboration across public health sectors. Early detection and robust surveillance are critical to prevent further spread.'
More on infectious disease:
At this rate, measles could become endemic again within 2 decades, researchers warn
As measles spreads throughout the U.S., here's how to tell if you need a booster shot
What are the symptoms of bird flu and how does it spread?
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
NIH employees publish ‘Bethesda Declaration' in dissent of Trump administration policies
In October 2020, two months before Covid-19 vaccines would become available in the US, Stanford health policy professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and two colleagues published an open letter calling for a contrarian approach to managing the risks of the pandemic: protecting the most vulnerable while allowing others largely to resume normal life, aiming to obtain herd immunity through infection with the virus. They called it the Great Barrington Declaration, for the Massachusetts town where they signed it. Backlash to it was swift, with the director-general of the World Health Organization calling the idea of allowing a dangerous new virus to sweep through unprotected populations 'unethical.' Bhattacharya later testified before Congress that it – and he – immediately became targets of suppression and censorship by those leading scientific agencies. Now, Bhattacharya is the one in charge, and staffers at the agency he leads, the US National Institutes of Health, published their own letter of dissent, taking issue with what they see as the politicization of research and destruction of scientific progress under the Trump administration. They called it the Bethesda Declaration, for the location of the NIH. 'We hope you will welcome this dissent, which we modeled after your Great Barrington Declaration,' the staffers wrote. The letter was signed by more than 300 employees across the biomedical research agency, according to the non-profit organization Stand Up for Science, which also posted it; while many employees signed anonymously because of fears of retaliation, nearly 100 - from graduate students to division chiefs - signed by name. It comes the day before Bhattacharya is due to testify before Congress once more, in a budget hearing to be held Tuesday by the Senate appropriations committee. It's just the latest sign of strife from inside the NIH, where some staff last month staged a walkout of a townhall with Bhattacharya to protest working conditions and an inability to discuss them with the director. 'If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe,' said Dr. Jenna Norton, a program officer at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and a lead organizer of the Declaration, in a news release from Stand Up for Science. She emphasized she was speaking in a personal capacity, not on behalf of the NIH. The letter, which the staffers said they also sent to US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH, urged Bhattacharya to 'restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue,' citing work in areas including health disparities, Covid-19, health impacts of climate change and others. They cited findings by two scientists that said about 2,100 NIH grants for about $9.5 billion have been terminated since the second Trump administration began. The NIH budget had been about $48 billion annually, and the Trump administration has proposed cutting it next year by about 40%. The research terminations 'throw away years of hard work and millions of dollars,' the NIH staffers wrote. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million.' They also urged Bhattacharya to reverse a policy that aims to implement a new, and lower, flat 15% rate for paying for indirect costs of research at universities, which supports shared lab space, buildings, instruments and other infrastructure, as well as the firing of essential NIH staff. Those who wrote the Bethesda Declaration were joined Monday by outside supporters, in a second letter posted by Stand Up for Science and signed by members of the public, including more than a dozen Nobel Prize-winning scientists. 'We urge NIH and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) leadership to work with NIH staff to return the NIH to its mission and to abandon the strategy of using NIH as a tool for achieving political goals unrelated to that mission,' they wrote. The letter called for the grant-making process to be conducted by scientifically trained NIH staff, guided by rigorous peer review, not by 'anonymous individuals outside of NIH.' It also challenged assertions put forward by Kennedy, who often compares today's health outcomes with those around the time his uncle John F. Kennedy was president, in the early 1960s. 'Since 1960, the death rate due to heart disease has been cut in half, going from 560 deaths per 100,000 people to approximately 230 deaths per 100,000 today,' they wrote. 'From 1960 to the present day, the five-year survival rate for childhood leukemia has increased nearly 10-fold, to over 90% for some forms. In 1960, the rate of measles infection was approximately 250 cases per 100,000 people compared with a near zero rate now (at least until recently).' They acknowledged there's still much work to do, including addressing obesity, diabetes and opioid dependency, 'but,' they wrote, 'glamorizing a mythical past while ignoring important progress made through biomedical research does not enhance the health of the American people.' Support from the NIH, they argued, made the US 'the internationally recognized hub for biomedical research and training,' leading to major advances in improving human health. 'I've never heard anybody say, 'I'm just so frustrated that the government is spending so much money on cancer research, or trying to address Alzheimer's,' ' said Dr. Jeremy Berg, who organized the letter of outside support and previously served as director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH. 'Health concerns are a universal human concern,' Berg told CNN. 'The NIH system is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but has been unbelievably productive in terms of generating progress on specific diseases.'
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
‘We're Just Becoming a Weapon of the State'
Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. Bhattacharya, the NIH, and the Department of Health and Human Services did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants —originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, ' the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Aethlon Medical to Present New Pre-Clinical Data at the Keystone Symposium on Long COVID and Other Post-Acute Infection Syndromes
Poster Presentation Reviews the Hemopurifier® Affinity Resin's Ability to Bind Extracellular Vesicles in Long COVID Samples SAN DIEGO, June 9, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Aethlon Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: AEMD), a medical therapeutic company focused on developing products to treat cancer and life-threatening infectious diseases, today announced that an abstract has been accepted for poster presentation at the Keystone Symposium on Long COVID and Other Post-Acute Infection Syndromes being held at Eldorado Hotel & Spa, Santa Fe, NM, United States, August 10-13,2025 ( Long COVID refers to persistent symptoms following acute SARs-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). These symptoms - including fatigue, post-exertional malaise, shortness of breath, chest pain and cognitive difficulties such as "brain fog" - may last for weeks or months after the initial illness. Long COVID is estimated to affect between 44 and 48 million people in the United States alone with a projected economic burden of $2 billion for those with symptoms lasting a year. Despite over $1 billion allocated to Long COVID research funding, no treatment has proven effective. Extracellular vesicles (EVs), nanoparticles 50-500nm in diameter, released from all cell types and involved in cell-to-cell communication, have been implicated in the pathogenesis of Long COVID. EVs have been found to contain viral particles and other cargo associated with abnormal blood clotting and inflammation. Aethlon Medical's Hemopurifier® is an investigational extracorporeal device designed to bind and remove harmful EVs from the blood through a combination of plasma separation, size exclusion and binding to a proprietary affinity resin containing the plant lectin Galanthus nivalis agglutinin (GNA), previously found to bind to the sugar mannose. The Hemopurifier has previously been shown to remove EVs in a patient with severe acute COVID-19 infection. Aethlon Medical collaborated with the University of California San Francisco Medical Center Long COVID clinic to evaluate plasma samples from participants with Long COVID and control participants who had fully recovered from COVID-19 in order to examine whether individuals with Long COVID would have EVs with the mannose target on their surface that would bind to the affinity resin in the device. The data to be presented will review the binding of both larger and smaller EVs to GNA lectin and the lectin-based affinity resin, respectively. Presentation details and times are as follows: Title: Extracellular Vesicles from Participants with Long COVID are Mannosylated and Bind to the Galanthus Nivalis Agglutinin Resin in the Aethlon Hemopurifier® Authors: Miguel Pesqueira1, Rosalia de Necochea Campion1, Thomas Dalhuisen2, Emily A. Fehrman2, Jeffrey N. Martin2, Timothy J. Henrich2, Steven G. Deeks2, Michael J. Peluso2, Steven P. LaRosa1 Aethlon Medical Inc., San Diego, CA, USA University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA Presenter: Steven P. LaRosa, M.D, Chief Medical Officer, Aethlon Medical, Number: 2001Date and Time: August 12, 2025, 1930, MDT. This poster will be available following the meeting on the Aethlon Medical, Inc. corporate website at About Aethlon and the Hemopurifier® Aethlon Medical is a medical therapeutic company focused on developing the Hemopurifier, a clinical stage immunotherapeutic device which is designed to combat cancer and life-threatening viral infections and for use in organ transplantation. In human studies, the Hemopurifier has demonstrated the removal of life-threatening viruses and in pre-clinical studies, the Hemopurifier has demonstrated the removal of harmful EVs from biological fluids, utilizing its proprietary lectin-based technology. This action has potential applications in cancer, where EVs may promote immune suppression and metastasis, and in life-threatening infectious diseases. The Hemopurifier is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designated Breakthrough Device indicated for the treatment of individuals with advanced or metastatic cancer who are either unresponsive to or intolerant of standard of care therapy, and with cancer types in which EVs have been shown to participate in the development or severity of the disease. The Hemopurifier also holds an FDA Breakthrough Device designation, and an open Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) application related to the treatment of life-threatening viruses that are not addressed with approved therapies. Additional information can be found at Company Contact:Jim FrakesChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerAethlon Medical, Inc. Jfrakes@ Investor Contact:Susan NoonanS.A. Noonan Communications, LLCsusan@ View original content: SOURCE Aethlon Medical, Inc. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
