Rare Asymptomatic Human H5N1 Bird Flu Cases Found
Practical, empiric nasal/oral immune defense sprays much better choice than mass routine PCR testing
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
A recent report from Dawood et al reported on very rare PCR positive H5N1 human cases. In an accompanying editorial, former BARDA director Rick Bright who fought against early SARS-CoV-2 treatment, is calling for mass PCR testing of animal workers.
At The Wellness Company we believe a far more practical approach is to use Immune Defense nasal and throat sprays twice a day to guard against ambient H5N1 exposure. For higher risk individuals, we have a free bird flu kit available which will help prevent serious cases. Together Immune Defense and TWC Bird Flu Kits eliminate the need for routine PCR testing or counterproductive biosecurity measures.
In many ways, the Dawood report is good news meaning that human natural immunity is settling in and working fine to prevent the clinical manifestations of H5N1 upper respiratory tract infection.
Please subscribe to FOCAL POINTS as a paying ($5 monthly) or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Chief Scientific Officer, The Wellness Company
Dawood FS, Garg S, Patel P, Uyeki TM. Asymptomatic Human Infections With Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus Confirmed by Molecular and Serologic Testing: A Scoping Review. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(10):e2540249. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.40249
Bright RA, Lurie N. Asymptomatic Influenza A(H5N1) Infections and Sustained Surveillance—Sustaining Surveillance Beyond the Crisis. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(10):e2540255. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.40255
hmmm. imo the paper should be accompanied with an 'oxymoron warning' stemming from its use of the term(s) "asymptomatic highly infectious" for this "highly pathogenic" virus. one of the summary tables for this paper included two "reported asymptomatic cases" with relatively high PCR test results - the Oliver et al paper (2022) with a PCR Ct reading of "mid-30s" and the Aznar et all paper (2023) with (only) "two" PCR Ct readings of "35.8" and "34.6".
so i asked my browser's AI: is an "asymptomatic case" of H5N1 automatically an "infection" at PCR Ct readings of 31 or more? here's its reply:
"A positive PCR test for H5N1 with a Ct value of 31 does not necessarily mean the virus is highly infectious. The Ct (cycle threshold) value reflects the amount of viral genetic material detected—higher Ct values (e.g., 31–35+) indicate lower viral load. However, detecting RNA does not confirm the presence of live, replicating, or transmissible virus.
For example, a study on H5N1 in milk from infected cattle found samples with Ct values of 31, but no viable infectious virus could be isolated using cell culture or egg propagation methods, suggesting the detected RNA may come from non-infectious viral fragments.
While H5N1 is inherently a highly pathogenic virus in birds and can cause severe disease in mammals, its transmissibility between humans remains very limited. A Ct value of 31 alone does not confirm high infectiousness—it must be interpreted alongside clinical symptoms, exposure context, and virological data such as viral culture." [end of quote]
my conclusion: a high Ct reading recorded from an asymptomatic host does not automatically confirm infection! though the paper does qualify its conclusions in the last sentence, the headline is misleading. and please also note that the CDC affiliation.
There’s a theory that our understanding of “viruses” is completely wrong and flawed.
Our modern understanding comes from a financial incentive to produce vaccines— but when see what viruses are in a different light, there nothing to be afraid off: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/why-disease-causing-viruses-are-pseudoscience