The possibility of bacterial growth in unpasteurized milk is without question, but this clearly states there is no known evidence that flu virus can be passed through raw milk. So why are there official warnings being issued about this? I want to be clear I don’t think drinking raw milk is a good idea, but I also want the public to trust our institutions, and putting out a warning based on zero evidence doesn’t foster trust
It’s not zero evidence, it’s just not 100% certain. There have had known H5N1 infections in other mammals consuming raw milk that spilled. Many of them have died from it. Additionally, the testing that has happened shows that 1 in 5 US dairy samples are positive for H5N1 so it’s prevelence is rather high making there be a very real risk
The possibility of bacterial growth in unpasteurized milk is without question, but this clearly states there is no known evidence that flu virus can be passed through raw milk. So why are there official warnings being issued about this? I want to be clear I don’t think drinking raw milk is a good idea, but I also want the public to trust our institutions, and putting out a warning based on zero evidence doesn’t foster trust
It’s not zero evidence, it’s just not 100% certain. There have had known H5N1 infections in other mammals consuming raw milk that spilled. Many of them have died from it. Additionally, the testing that has happened shows that 1 in 5 US dairy samples are positive for H5N1 so it’s prevelence is rather high making there be a very real risk
Zero evidence doesn’t mean it’s safe - zero evidence means we don’t know.
I’m sure it’s being looked into, but why would “go ahead, take a chance!” be the trustworthy take?