Authored by John and Nisha Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“It is the function of mass agitation to exploit all the grievances, hopes, aspirations, prejudices, fears, and ideals of all the special groups that make up our society, social, religious, economic, racial, political. Stir them up. Set one against the other. Divide and conquer. That’s the way to soften up a democracy.”

- J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit

“Nothing is real,” observed John Lennon, and that’s especially true of politics.

Much like the fabricated universe in Peter Weir’s 1998 film The Truman Show, in which a man’s life is the basis for an elaborately staged television show aimed at selling products and procuring ratings, the political scene in the United States has devolved over the years into a carefully calibrated exercise in how to manipulate, polarize, propagandize and control a population.

Take the media circus that is the Donald Trump hush money trial, which panders to the public’s voracious appetite for titillating, soap opera drama, keeping the citizenry distracted, diverted and divided.

This is the magic of the reality TV programming that passes for politics today.

Everything becomes entertainment fodder.

As long as we are distracted, entertained, occasionally outraged, always polarized but largely uninvolved and content to remain in the viewer’s seat, we’ll never manage to present a unified front against tyranny (or government corruption and ineptitude) in any form.

Studies suggest that the more reality TV people watch—and I would posit that it’s all reality TV, entertainment news included—the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between what is real and what is carefully crafted farce.

“We the people” are watching a lot of TV.

On average, Americans spend five hours a day watching television. By the time we reach age 65, we’re watching more than 50 hours of television a week, and that number increases as we get older. And reality TV programming consistently captures the largest percentage of TV watchers every season by an almost 2-1 ratio.

This doesn’t bode well for a citizenry able to sift through masterfully-produced propaganda in order to think critically about the issues of the day.

Yet look behind the spectacles, the reality TV theatrics, the sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions, and the stomach-churning, nail-biting drama that is politics today, and you will find there is a method to the madness.

We have become guinea pigs in a ruthlessly calculated, carefully orchestrated, chillingly cold-blooded experiment in how to control a population and advance a political agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

This is how you persuade a populace to voluntarily march in lockstep with a police state and police themselves (and each other): by ratcheting up the fear-factor, meted out one carefully calibrated crisis at a time, and teaching them to distrust any who diverge from the norm through elaborate propaganda campaigns.

Unsurprisingly, one of the biggest propagandists today is the U.S. government.

Add the government’s inclination to monitor online activity and police so-called “disinformation,” and you have the makings of a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

This “policing of the mind” is exactly the danger author Jim Keith warned about when he predicted that “information and communication sources are gradually being linked together into a single computerized network, providing an opportunity for unheralded control of what will be broadcast, what will be said, and ultimately what will be thought.”

You may not hear much about the government’s role in producing, planting and peddling propaganda-driven fake news—often with the help of the corporate news media—because the powers-that-be don’t want us skeptical of the government’s message or its corporate accomplices in the mainstream media.

However, when you have social media giants colluding with the government in order to censor so-called disinformation, all the while the mainstream news media, which is supposed to act as a bulwark against government propaganda, has instead become the mouthpiece of the world’s largest corporation (the U.S. government), the Deep State has grown dangerously out-of-control.

This has been in the works for a long time.

Veteran journalist Carl Bernstein, in his expansive 1977 Rolling Stone piece “The CIA and the Media,” reported on Operation Mockingbird, a CIA campaign started in the 1950s to plant intelligence reports among reporters at more than 25 major newspapers and wire agencies, who would then regurgitate them for a public oblivious to the fact that they were being fed government propaganda.

In some instances, as Bernstein showed, members of the media also served as extensions of the surveillance state, with reporters actually carrying out assignments for the CIA. Executives with CBS, the New York Times and Time magazine also worked closely with the CIA to vet the news.

If it was happening then, you can bet it’s still happening today, only this collusion has been reclassified, renamed and hidden behind layers of government secrecy, obfuscation and spin.

In its article, “How the American government is trying to control what you think,” the Washington Post points out “Government agencies historically have made a habit of crossing the blurry line between informing the public and propagandizing.”

This is mind-control in its most sinister form.

The end goal of these mind-control campaigns—packaged in the guise of the greater good—is to see how far the American people will allow the government to go in re-shaping the country in the image of a totalitarian police state.

The government’s fear-mongering is a key element in its mind-control programming.

It’s a simple enough formula. National crises, global pandemics, reported terrorist attacks, and sporadic shootings leave us in a constant state of fear. The emotional panic that accompanies fear actually shuts down the prefrontal cortex or the rational thinking part of our brains. In other words, when we are consumed by fear, we stop thinking.

A populace that stops thinking for themselves is a populace that is easily led, easily manipulated and easily controlled whether through propaganda, brainwashing, mind control, or just plain fear-mongering.

Fear not only increases the power of government, but it also divides the people into factions, persuades them to see each other as the enemy and keeps them screaming at each other so that they drown out all other sounds. In this way, they will never reach consensus about anything and will be too distracted to notice the police state closing in on them until the final crushing curtain falls.

This Machiavellian scheme has so ensnared the nation that few Americans even realize they are being brainwashed—manipulated—into adopting an “us” against “them” mindset. All the while, those in power—bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporations—move their costly agendas forward.

This unseen mechanism of society that manipulates us through fear into compliance is what American theorist Edward L. Bernays referred to as “an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

It was almost 100 years ago when Bernays wrote his seminal work Propaganda:

“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of... In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

To this invisible government of rulers who operate behind the scenes—the architects of the Deep State—we are mere puppets on a string, to be brainwashed, manipulated and controlled.

All of the distracting, disheartening, disorienting news you are bombarded with daily is being driven by propaganda churned out by one corporate machine (the corporate-controlled government) and fed to the American people by way of yet another corporate machine (the corporate-controlled media).

“For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it,” writes investigative journalist Nick Davies.

So where does that leave us?

Americans should beware of letting others—whether they be television news hosts, political commentators or media corporations—do their thinking for them.

A populace that cannot think for themselves is a populace with its backs to the walls: mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it’s time to change the channel, tune out the reality TV show, and push back against the real menace of the police state.

If not, if we continue to sit back and lose ourselves in political programming, we will remain a captive audience to a farce that grows more absurd by the minute.

By John Kartch of Americans For Tax Reform

President Biden has formally proposed the highest top capital gains tax in over 100 years.

Here is a direct quote from the Biden 2025 budget proposal: “Together, the proposals would increase the top marginal rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends to 44.6 percent.”

Yes, you read that correctly: A Biden top capital gains and dividends tax rate of 44.6%.

Under the Biden proposal, the combined federal-state capital gains tax exceeds 50% in many states. California will face a combined federal-state rate of 59%, New Jersey 55.3%, Oregon at 54.5%, Minnesota at 54.4%, and New York state at 53.4%.

Worse, capital gains are not indexed to inflation. So Americans already get stuck paying tax on some “gains” that are not real. It is a tax on inflation, something created by Washington and then taxed by Washington. Biden’s high inflation makes this especially painful.

Many hard working couples who started a small business at age 25 who now wish to sell the business at age 65 will face the Biden proposed 44.6% top rate, plus state capital gains taxes. And much of that “gain” isn’t real due to inflation. But they’ll owe tax on it.

Capital gains taxes are often a form of double taxation. When capital gains come from stocks, stock mutual funds, or stock ETFs, the capital gains tax is a cascaded second layer of tax on top of the current federal corporate income tax of 21%. (Biden has also proposed a corporate income tax hike to 28%).

The proposed Biden top capital gains tax rate is more than twice as high as China’s rate. China’s capital gains tax rate is 20%. Is it wise to have higher taxes than China? And with Biden’s combined federal-state capital gains rate of 59% in California, residents will face a rate nearly three times as high as China.

The capital gains tax was created as its own tax in 1922, at a rate of 12.5%. See the chart below to see how Biden’s proposed capital gains tax for 2025 puts the United States in uncharted territory.

Biden’s proposed capital gains tax hike will also hit many families when parents pass away. Biden has proposed adding a second Death Tax (separate from and in addition to the existing Death Tax) by taking away stepped-up basis when parents die. This would result in a mandatory capital gains tax at death — a forced realization event.

As previously reported by CNBC:

“When someone dies and the asset transfers to an heir, that transfer itself will be a taxable event, and the estate is required to pay taxes on the gains as if they sold the asset,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. 

Biden’s proposal to take away stepped-up basis has already been tried, and it failed: In 1976 congress eliminated stepped-up basis but it was so complicated and unworkable it was repealed before it took effect.

As noted in a July 3, 1979 New York Times article, it was “impossibly unworkable.”

NYT wrote:

“Almost immediately, however, the new law touched off a flood of complaints as unfair and impossibly unworkable. So many, in fact, that last year Congress retroactively delayed the law’s effective date until 1980 while it struggled again with the issue.“

As noted by the NYT, intense voter blowback ensued:

“Not only were there protests from people who expected the tax to fall on them — family businesses and farms, in particular — bankers and estate lawyers also complained that the rule was a nightmare of paperwork.“

Biden’s 2025 budget calls for about $5 trillion in tax increases over the next decade.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Children who received an original COVID-19 vaccine have little protection against hospitalization just months after vaccination, according to a new study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Children initially have 52 percent protection against hospitalization but that estimated effectiveness plummeted to 19 percent after four months, according to the paper.

Protection against so-called critical illness also dropped sharply, from 57 percent to 25 percent, researchers found.

The researchers include CDC employees and the paper was published in the CDC’s weekly digest on April 18.

The study covered children who received two or more doses of the original Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 19, 2021, through Oct. 29, 2023.

The study involved children aged 5 to 18 who were hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and tested positive for the illness and compared them to a control group of children hospitalized with COVID-19-like symptoms but who tested negative for COVID-19.

Researchers drew data from the Overcoming COVID-19 Network, which includes health care sites in most of the United States, and ended up with 1,551 case patients and 1,797 in the control group.

The study found that “receipt of ≥2 original monovalent COVID-19 vaccine doses was associated with fewer COVID-19–related hospitalizations in children and adolescents aged 5–18 years; however, protection from original vaccines was not sustained over time,” Laura Zambrano, a CDC epidemiologist, and her co-authors wrote.

It also recorded a similar drop in protection against critical illness, defined as being placed on mechanical ventilation, vasoactive infusions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or dying.

The researchers asserted that the results highlighted the current CDC guidance that all people aged 6 months and older receive one of the newest COVID-19 vaccines, which were introduced in the fall of 2023 with clinical data from just 50 humans and no efficacy estimates. The CDC only publishes papers in its weekly digest, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, after they’re shaped to “comport with CDC policy.” The papers are not peer-reviewed.

Ms. Zambrano did not respond when asked for data suggesting that the currently available shots provide longer-lasting protection than the original vaccines.

The CDC’s website says, in promoting vaccination, that COVID-19 vaccines are “effective at protecting people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying” but the hyperlink that ostensibly supports the statement goes to a page that is not live.

U.S. authorities have been moving COVID-19 vaccines to a once-a-year model, similar to influenza vaccines. The model features updating the formulation of the vaccines on an annual basis, in an acknowledgment that any protection the vaccines give quickly wanes. The formulation is typically updated in the fall.

Just 14 percent of children, and 23 percent of adults, have received one of the newest vaccines as of April 6, according to CDC estimates. The available vaccines are messenger RNA (mRNA) shots from Pfizer and Moderna and an alternative from Novavax.

Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, noted that, according to the new paper, the maximum effectiveness estimates against hospitalization were 61 percent, regardless of how the data were sliced, that more deaths were recorded among the case patients, and the median hospitalization duration was four days for both groups.

“I do not see how a clinician whose concern is treating patients and whose job does not depend on pushing mRNA vaccines would find this a basis for recommending shots—quite the contrary,” Dr. Orient, who was not involved in the research, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“It reeks of conflict of interest.”

Stated limitations of the paper include not assessing post-infection immunity and a lack of sequencing data.

The conflict of interest section runs 688 words and includes some of the authors reporting funding from Pfizer and Moderna or ownership of Pfizer stock.

Smaller is better...at least in the world of building EVs for the Asian market.

And while less scrupulous publications might take this opportunity to make stereotypical jokes about height, we'll do no such thing and instead will simply report that according to the IEA's Global Electric Vehicle Outlook 2024, released Tuesday, China dominated the EV market in 2023.

In fact, it made up 60% of global sales, according to a new report from Reuters. The report forecasts that by 2030, electric vehicles will represent one-third of all cars in China.

The latest IEA report highlights China's increasing dominance in the global electric vehicle market, particularly across Asia's burgeoning economies. China is capitalizing on its extensive industrial capabilities to expand its EV influence, promoting more affordable electric vehicles in nations like Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia, the report says.

The key to China's success has been managing cost, the IEA report notes: "In China, we estimate that more than 60% of electric cars sold in 2023 were already cheaper than their average combustion engine equivalent."

It continued: "However, electric cars remain 10% to 50% more expensive than combustion engine equivalents in Europe and the United States, depending on the country and car segment."

"In 2023, 55% to 95% of the electric car sales across major emerging and developing economies were large models that are unaffordable for the average consumer, hindering mass-market uptake," the IEA report continued, according to Reuters.

"However, smaller and much more affordable models launched in 2022 and 2023 have quickly become bestsellers, especially those by Chinese car makers expanding overseas."

The report emphasizes China's growing edge due to making affordable EVs, which is proving successful across Asia.

European and U.S. automakers, by contrast, target wealthier customers with costlier, luxury EV models.

In Asia, countries like Thailand, Vietnam, and Indonesia are rapidly adopting EVs, supported by favorable policies and incentives, enhancing the market share of Chinese manufacturers.

In 2023, EV sales soared in these regions despite broader market contractions. Additionally, China faces its challenges, including potential EU tariffs and an oversupply in its EV market. The IEA report suggests that for widespread EV adoption, European and U.S. manufacturers need to focus on lowering costs and improving infrastructure.

You can read the IEA's full report here. 

Via The College Fix,

A new study out of UCLA says same-sex couples are at greater “risk of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change” than straight couples.

These effects include “wildfires, floods, smoke-filled skies, and drought,” according to a report from KQED.

Same-sex couples disproportionately live in coastal regions and cities, which are more vulnerable to such disasters. They’re also more likely “to live in areas with poor infrastructure, worse-built environments.”

Washington DC, which rates high for “climate risks” such as heat waves, floods, and “dangerously strong winds,” has the greatest proportion of gay couples in the U.S.

San Francisco ranks second, and also faces a high climate change risk. According to KQED report, the city’s Leather & LGBTQ Cultural District flooded 22 years ago, “swamping” the entire area.

The closest supermarket, Rainbow Grocery, also got flooded.

Ari Shaw, director of International Programs at UCLA’s School of Law’s Williams Institute who specializes in “international human rights, LGBTI politics, and U.S. foreign policy,” noted the study “cuts against the narrative” that LGBT individuals “have access to all the resources that they need.”

From the story:

Shaw said his team considered same-sex couples because the U.S. Census gathers information on cohabitating same-sex households but does not broadly collect sexual orientation or gender data.

“This study helps to shine a light on what is likely a much larger and more complicated picture,” he said. “Our findings probably understate the true impact that climate change is having on LGBTQ people.”

The new research moves the needle in helping the nation understand who is at risk of climate disasters, UC Irvine sociology professor Michael Méndez said. He previously studied how queer communities are often left out of disaster planning.

“The needle is moving slowly,” Méndez said. “These disasters are not happening in isolation. If an individual is feeling discrimination, or a lack of safety in their home and a disaster happens, they can feel even more vulnerable.”

But what Méndez said the study doesn’t reveal is who the same-sex couples are in terms of [race], income and their positions in society.

Among several recommendations, Shaw and study co-author Lindsay Mahowald say climate disaster relief should be “administered without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression,” and that future surveys like the U.S. Census ought to include “measures of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Authored by Tom Croner via RealClear Wire,

I’m an 81-year-old, seventh-generation farmer working with my son T. Richard on a multigenerational grain and hay farm in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. We grow corn, soybeans, wheat, rye, and hay.

I'm proud to see him out there by himself at night, and regret that I can’t always join him. As the Bible says in John 3:16: “That God so loved the world, he gave his only son.” I don’t know if I’d be able to do that, but I know I am fortunate to have a son who wants to continue the family farming tradition. He is raising his two teenage sons in the same tradition. God only knows what their choices will be.

The latest USDA agriculture census numbers show that the number of farmers over the age of 65 is greater than that of younger farmers. Almost 1.3 million farmers are now at or beyond retirement age, while just 300,000 farmers are under the age of 35.

Passing a new farm bill that addresses these challenges is the best way to help create an environment that attracts new farmers and enables families to pass their farms on to the next generation. In recent years, some federal programs have been put in place to help do that. 

We have participated in USDA cost-sharing programs that encourage cover crops (plants grown to benefit the future growth of other crops) and no-tillage practices that improve soil health, with less erosion and fewer cost inputs. We have seen significant increases in yield, with the same dollars invested.

In 2022, Congress made a generational $20 billion investment to help farmers adopt tried-and-tested conservation practices. Pennsylvania has already gotten $255 million to help farms in our commonwealth.

But unfortunately, like everything else it seems, the funding has been politicized, and it’s at risk in the upcoming farm bill. There’s nothing partisan about taking care of our soil, planting cover crops, and keeping our land viable year after year. That’s what conservation funding encourages, and it’s just good commonsense.

We need our lawmakers in Washington to maintain conservation funding and make sure that it’s included in the upcoming farm bill.

I’m proud that my son is still out managing the farm where I have worked. I’m proud that he’s using good practices that we’ve learned and refined, which have kept our farm healthy for years.

We need Washington to protect conservation funding so that the next generation of Pennsylvania farmers, and the generation after that, can continue to be stewards of the land.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 23 directed the U.S. Department of Justice to reply to a man convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on April 8, 2024. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)

Justices said the department’s response to Russell Alford is due May 23.

Mr. Alford was convicted by a jury of four misdemeanor counts but is challenging two of the charges, arguing that they don’t apply to his conduct.

The charges should not have been brought because the laws on which they’re based bar disorderly and disruptive conduct in a Capitol building and in a restricted building, but Mr. Alford merely entered the Capitol and stood silently against a wall before exiting, the Supreme Court was told in a filing from Mr. Alford’s lawyers.

U.S. District Judge Tonya Chutkan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, originally rejected Mr. Alford’s request to dismiss the counts, finding that his “mere presence inside the Capitol disturbed the public peace or undermined public safety.”

A federal appeals court, after reviewing the rejection, upheld it in January. While Mr. Alford was “neither violent nor destructive ... a jury could rationally find that his unauthorized presence in the Capitol as part of an unruly mob contributed to the disruption of the Congress’s electoral certification and jeopardized public safety,” the ruling stated.

“The court should grant review because this case presents an important question of federal statutory interpretation,” Mr. Alford’s lawyers wrote to the Supreme Court, describing the appeals court ruling as “establish[ing] a slippery and counter-textual standard for criminalizing conduct in settings for political activity.”

One of the laws, 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2), bars people from “knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of government business or official functions.”

The other, 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D), makes it a crime to “utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either house of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either house of Congress.”

The lower court rulings were wrong in part because they focused on the effects of Mr. Alford’s conduct, not the nature of the conduct, according to the writ to justices.

That focus “collapses the conduct element into the harm element by giving the adjectives no apparent force,” they said. They argued later that merely being present “is not disorderly conduct unless the presence is in defiance of an order to disperse.”

If the court grants the petition, it would review the case and decide if the rulings were appropriate.

The Department of Justice’s Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, told the court on April 12 that the government was waiving its right to file a response to the filing, “unless requested to do so by the court.” The petition was distributed to justices on April 18 for their scheduled May 9 conference. Then, on Tuesday, justices directed the Department of Justice to file a response to Mr. Alford.

Lawyers for Mr. Alford and the government did not respond to requests for comment.

If justices take up the petition and rule in favor of Mr. Alford, a number of other Jan. 6 defendants and convicts could see charges thrown out.

Obstruction Charge

The court already agreed to review another charge brought against many Jan. 6 defendants.

Justices sat for oral arguments on April 16 concerning obstruction of an official proceeding, a charge brought against former police officer Joseph Fischer after he entered the Capitol on Jan. 6.

One of Mr. Fischer’s attorneys said the charge should not have been brought because the law was only intended to be used in cases of evidence tampering.

Ms. Prelogar told justices that the charge was proper because it was “not limited to evidence impairment.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, appointed by former President Donald Trump, wondered whether the government would bring the charge against people who heckled the court.

“Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler in today’s audience qualify, or at the State of the Union address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?” he asked.

Another justice later questioned if protesters blocking access to a trial would face the charge, noting that protests have taken place in the past at the Supreme Court but the government did not charge the protesters under the law.

Ms. Prelogar said the law might apply in such cases, if there was proof of “corrupt intent.”

Justices are due to hand down a decision in the case at some point in the future.

Dairy cattle moving between states must be tested for the bird flu virus, U.S. agriculture officials said Wednesday as they try to track and control the growing outbreak.

AP reports that the federal order was announced a day after health officials said they had detected inactivated remnants of the virus, known as Type A H5N1, in samples taken from milk during processing and after retail sale. They stressed that such remnants pose no known risk to people or the milk supply.

“The risk to humans remains low,” said Dawn O'Connell of the federal Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response.

The new order requires every lactating cow to be tested and post a negative result before moving to a new state. It will help the agency understand how the virus is spreading, said Michael Watson, an administrator with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

“We believe we can do tens of thousands of tests a day,” he told reporters.

Until now, testing had been done voluntarily and only in cows with symptoms.

As The Epoch Times' Zachary Steiber reported earlier, commercially available milk from grocery stores has tested positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on April 23.

The FDA said in a statement it has been testing milk from cattle that have been sickened with the influenza, commonly known as the bird flu or H5N1, as well as milk “in the processing system, and on the shelves.”

“Based on available information, pasteurization is likely to inactivate the virus, however, the process is not expected to remove the presence of viral particles. Therefore, some of the samples collected have indicated the presence of HPAI using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing,” the agency said.

While samples tested positive, that does not mean they contain an intact pathogen, according to the FDA.

“Additional testing is required to determine whether intact pathogen is still present and if it remains infectious, which determines whether there is any risk of illness associated with consuming the product,” the FDA said.

The agency is injecting samples into fertilized chicken eggs to see whether any active virus replicates, among other experiments. It is also completing testing on samples taken from pasteurized milk from across the nation.

“To date, we have seen nothing that would change our assessment that the commercial milk supply is safe. Results from multiple studies will be made available in the next few days to weeks,” the FDA said.

The agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment for more details, including how many samples tested positive and which stores the milk that tested positive came from.

Bird flu has been confirmed in 33 herds of cattle in eight states after spreading to ruminants for the first time in the United States earlier this year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. One person, a farm worker in Texas, has also tested positive for the influenza.

U.S. authorities previously said that milk from diaries with sickened animals was “being diverted or destroyed so that it does not enter the food supply” and that “pasteurization has continually proven to inactivate bacteria and viruses, like influenza, in milk,” but critics noted the authorities produced no evidence of testing to back up their position.

“There could be viruses in the milk on grocery shelves right now,” Gail Hansen, a veterinary expert who was formerly the state public health veterinarian for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and Andrew deCoriolis, executive director of the group Farm Forward, wrote in a recent op-ed.

Ms. Hansen said on the social media platform X that the FDA finding virus particles was “a little bit better than finding whole virus” but was “still not good.”

Rick Bright, the former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, noted the shifting language from the government. The FDA now says that pasteurization “is very likely to effectively inactivate heat-sensitive viruses like H5N1 in milk from cows and other species.”

It also acknowledged that “no studies on the effects of pasteurization on HPAI viruses (such as H5N1) in bovine milk have previously been completed,” although it pointed to previous studies on effective pasteurization.

Yaneer Bar-Yam, president of the New England Complex Systems Institute, said the findings mean “milk from sick cows is being used” in the commercial supply. While pasteurization likely makes the milk safe, that safety is “not guaranteed,” he added.

Some experts emphasized that, at present, there were no indications that the positive tests meant the virus detected was infectious.

“There is no evidence to date that this is [an] infectious virus and the FDA is following up on that,” Lee-Ann Jaykus, an emeritus food microbiologist and virologist at North Carolina State University, told the Associated Press.

But Angela Rasmussen, a virologist, said on X that the positive samples “suggests there are undetected herds shedding virus into the milk supply” because they show intact virus “was once present.”

“It’s hard to say more as no raw data was shared, so we just have to take their word for it,” she added.