host genetic determinants of infection outcomeThis is simple correlation. You could just as well go to a hospital and look at people with a favorable outcome for [insert disease of choice here] and look at what color their socks are. You will always find one color that is associated with favorable outcomes. Does this mean certain sock colors protect against certain diseases?
immunodeficienciesTaking AIDS as an example: The symptoms, like swollen lymph nodes, fever, throat inflammation, rashes, headache, fatigue, are nothing new to humanity. Neither was increased susceptability to disease (the so-called opportunistic infections). They have just been given a new umbrella and label. The causes are myriad and known. A big one is nutritional deficiencies (see sub-saharan Africa). Another well-documented case is the use of poppers and other drugs in the homosexual party scene in San Francisco in the 1980s, where the alleged first big "outbreak" happened. This is also why AIDS is defined differently and with slightly different symptoms in the West versus in Africa - because the actual cause is different.
We did not purify [isolate]Just one line above he touches on a very important point
Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he’s condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him.Where after the invention of AIDS, people were tested with a "test" that was caibrated against "non-purified" "virus" - that is, a completely unreliable "test". Then they were told they were going to die.
The simple notion that death from infection attests to an immunodeficiency remains poorly understood and accepted, even without considering death from allergy, inflammation, or autoimmunityYou'd do well to realize that writing death certificates is so badly defined that it's basically just guesswork. All of these conditions and more coincided with death, and while it's a pretty good correlation it remains just that - a correlation. Nothing can be said as to the actual cause. Modern medicine has correlations of "pathogens" stacked on correlations of bad or failed "immune function" stacked on correlations of organ failure stacked on correlations of death. Actual causality as per the scientific method (changing exactly ONE experimental variable until you arrive at one that actually effects something on it's own) was never done for any pathogen.
we now definitely know that specific genomic determinants of susceptibility to infections and the progression of infectious diseases do exist.Do you have anything concrete? Any study that did not just find a correlation? See my example with socks.
The same conclusions can be reached when the inter-individual variation in antimicrobial drug response is examined. Again, it has been clearly established that the variability observed in humans may depend on host determinants."clearly" -> "may" - looks like you can't get your story straight.
AutoantibodiesDid you know that there are no less than six theories on how antibodies are formed in the body? None of them has been confirmed. Tests with antibodies usually lack control experiments. They only put in materials/microorganisms against which they already suspect antibodies were produced. If clumping occurs they take it as confirmation of their hunch. They don't test for other materials. They would find out that antibodies are not specific. Specific antibodies are a myth. The body only produces simple repair proteins which can clump with any foreign material.
viral infectionCan you show any study/experiment that used the scientific method? As per my other response this means: changing exactly ONE experimental variable until you arrive at one that actually effects something on it's own. This changeable variable is called the independent variable, and you look for if it changes the dependend variable (i.e. the result of your experiment). To be able to test if a virus causes disease, or even just cellular response, reaction, invasion, damage, destruction or anything - you first need the virus on its own. You need to isolate it, that is remove it from any other material. This is the only way to be able to construct an experiment where you can change just ONE variable (the virus). This is the only way to show causality. This has never been done, ever.
cellular responses
Comment: It's usually the case that it's not the whole flock that is infected, however the whole flock is culled. And with a 'surveillence zone' that size, it's likely more cases will be found and many more chickens will be culled.
One wonders if this is the beginning of yet another season of mass culling across the planet, that, last year, significantly reduced flock numbers, further discouraging producers who aren't eager to invest in what is becoming an increasingly risky endeavour. Furthermore, this comes amid egg price corruption that has caused a significant number of farmers to leave the market. This also comes at a time of a startling number of suspicious, and devastating, fires at egg farms: