Global Agencies

Canada Kills Over 300 Immune Ostriches: How the WHO Controls Your Government

Over 300 ostriches survived. Days turned into weeks, weeks into months. The survivors weren't just alive—they were thriving. They had developed natural immunity to the virus that was supposed to kill them all.

Avery Lane

15 Nov 2025 • 16 min read

A BC Farm Discovered Something Remarkable About Avian Flu. The Government Killed It.When Natural Immunity Became Inconvenient

In December 2024, something unusual happened at Universal Ostrich Farm in Edgewood, British Columbia. Wild ducks carrying H5N1 avian influenza landed on the property, and the virus tore through the flock. Sixty-nine ostriches died in the initial outbreak—a devastating loss for owners Karen Espersen and Dave Bilinski, who had raised these birds for 35 years.

But then something remarkable occurred.

The dying stopped.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's response? Kill them anyway.

On November 7, 2025—nearly eleven months after the outbreak began, with no new infections or deaths—government hired men with guns corralled 314 healthy ostriches behind hay bales and executed them all brutally and cruelly. This took many hours and they suffered greatly - this was all done in front of the people who raised them. They had names and were up to 35 years old. The way this massacre was all carried out was a horror show. It's what has inspired this blog to be created. I want everyone to know what really happened and maybe they won't have died in vain.

Here are the facts:

The Inconvenient Truth About Natural Immunity

Here's what makes this story extraordinary: ostriches aren't like chickens. When H5N1 hits a commercial chicken operation, mortality rates exceed 90 percent. The birds die within days. It's brutal, fast, and nearly absolute.

Ostriches are different.

These massive birds possess remarkably robust immune systems. When infected with H5N1, many can fight off the virus and develop lasting immunity. According to the farm's spokesperson Katie Pasitney, who was raised alongside these birds: "What they do is build up a herd immunity, they themselves are so strong and they will create an antibody to the flu."

The science backs this up. Experts noted that "six months after being exposed/infected with H5N1, the remaining ostriches are no longer expected to be contagious." Even veterinary critics of the farm's handling of the outbreak admitted that by November 2025, "I assume all these surviving birds are flu-free at this point, so the protective value of culling them at this point is probably very limited."

The birds had done what millions of dollars in research and countless government programs couldn't accomplish: they had survived H5N1 naturally and lived to tell the tale.

So why were they killed?

The Research That Threatened the Narrative

Universal Ostrich Farm wasn't just raising birds for meat. They were part of an international research collaboration with Kyoto Prefectural University in Japan, working with Dr. Yasuhiro Tsukamoto—known as "Dr. Ostrich"—who had pioneered methods of extracting high-quality antibodies from ostrich eggs.

These weren't theoretical antibodies. The Japanese government itself confirmed in 2022 that Dr. Tsukamoto had "successfully extracted high-quality antibodies from ostrich eggs." The farm had already been producing COVID-19 antibodies before the H5N1 outbreak hit.

When the surviving ostriches developed immunity to H5N1, they created something potentially invaluable: a natural source of antibodies against the very virus devastating poultry farms across North America. The farm partnered with researchers to establish Bio Science, specifically to "mass produce ostrich antibodies against the H5N1 avian influenza virus."

Karen Espersen explained their vision: "With the immune system of the ostrich so strong this is where we wanted to take it a step further." They wanted to use the antibodies not just for research, but potentially to treat the 300 wild ducks that had brought the virus to the farm in the first place.

Instead of embracing this potential breakthrough, the CFIA ordered everything destroyed.

When Policy Trumps Science

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency operates under what's called the "stamping out" policy—an internationally recognized protocol that requires the complete culling of any flock exposed to highly pathogenic avian influenza. No exceptions. No nuance. No consideration of actual risk.

Even when those birds are provably healthy.

Even when they've survived for nearly a year without spreading disease.

Even when they could provide critical research insights.

The policy is explicit about one thing: CFIA does not allow immune birds to survive. This isn't about public health—it's about maintaining a rigid protocol regardless of circumstances.

Think about that for a moment. The government has a stated policy of not allowing birds to develop and maintain natural immunity to avian flu. Why? Because "poultry with immunity have a much lower death toll, which could make disease detection and H5N1 surveillance more difficult."

Read that again. The concern isn't that immune birds pose a health risk. The concern is that healthy birds make it harder to spot sick ones.

So healthy birds that could teach us how to fight the virus must die to make the sick birds easier to identify.

The Evidence They Refused to Examine

Throughout the eleven-month legal battle, the farm made a simple request: test the birds. Prove they're still infectious. Show us the science that says they're a threat.

The CFIA refused.

They wouldn't test the birds to determine if they were still shedding virus. They wouldn't consider any evidence of immunity. Does this sound familiar? When the farm argued that the surviving ostriches had "remained healthy for over 200 days," the courts noted that the CFIA had made its decision back in December 2024 and wouldn't consider any "new evidence, such as the current health status of the ostriches, recent test results or updated scientific developments."

Federal Court Justice Russel Zinn, in his ruling, actually wrote that the court "cannot consider 'new' evidence" and that officials couldn't be "faulted for lacking a crystal ball." What?!

This wasn't about predicting the future. This was about ignoring ten months of actual evidence sitting in front of them.

The CFIA did conduct one analysis: they determined the virus in the ostriches was a "novel reassortment not seen elsewhere in Canada." This made the flock even MORE scientifically valuable—they harbored a unique strain that researchers could study.

That analysis sealed their fate.

When America Stepped In (and Was Ignored)

The case attracted international attention when U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. personally intervened. On May 22, 2025, Kennedy spoke directly with CFIA President Paul MacKinnon, alongside Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya (Director of the National Institutes of Health) and Dr. Martin Makary (Commissioner of the FDA).

The next day, they sent a formal letter requesting that Canada reconsider the cull. Their argument was straightforward: scientists could study "both antibody levels and cellular immunity" in the surviving birds to inform vaccine development. They offered "full support and assistance" for a "long-term body of research."

Think about what that means. The heads of America's top health agencies—the NIH and FDA—were asking Canada to preserve these birds for critical research during an ongoing pandemic threat.

The CFIA ignored them.

Dr. Mehmet Oz even offered to relocate the birds to his ranch in Florida, where they could be studied under proper biosecurity. The offer was declined.

The message was clear: the policy mattered more than the science, more than international cooperation, more than potential breakthroughs in fighting a virus that has killed over 166 million birds in North America alone.

The Questions No One Is Asking

Let's be clear about what happened here. A small farm in British Columbia accidentally created a case study in natural immunity to one of the most deadly viruses affecting global food security. They had:

Living proof that ostriches can survive and develop immunity to H5N1
An established research partnership with leading scientists in antibody production
Nearly a year of evidence showing the survivors posed minimal risk
International support from top U.S. health officials
A unique viral strain found nowhere else in Canada

All of this was destroyed in a single night of government-mandated killing.

The official explanation? International trade obligations. Canada's poultry export market. Following WHO guidelines. Protecting the $6.8 billion domestic poultry industry.

But here's what doesn't add up:

Why refuse to test birds that could prove they're no longer infectious? If the concern is genuine public health risk, wouldn't you want to know whether that risk actually exists?

Why kill birds producing antibodies against the exact virus you're trying to stop? Wouldn't natural antibody production be something worth studying, perhaps even replicating?

Why enforce blanket policies when the circumstances are extraordinary? These weren't chickens in a factory farm—they were research animals that had done something remarkable.

Why ignore America's top health officials requesting cooperation? When the NIH and FDA ask to collaborate on pandemic research, what possible reason justifies refusing?

The answer to all these questions appears to be the same: because the policy says so.

Who Really Gave the Order?

Here's the question every Canadian should be asking: Who actually made the decision to kill those ostriches?

Was it Canadian elected officials accountable to Canadian voters? Was it Canadian scientists evaluating Canadian evidence? Was it a Canadian court protecting Canadian interests?

No.

The decision was made by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH)—an unelected international body headquartered in Paris, France.

Throughout the legal proceedings, the CFIA repeatedly cited its obligation to comply with WOAH's "stamping out" policy. The courts rubber-stamped this, declaring that Canada must follow "internationally recognized biosecurity standards" and maintain compliance with "international obligations concerning avian influenza control."

Read that carefully. Canada's courts didn't evaluate whether killing immune birds made scientific sense. They didn't weigh the research value against the alleged risks. They didn't consider eleven months of evidence showing no disease spread.

They simply confirmed that an international organization's policy must be followed. End of discussion.

The Supreme Court of Canada—supposedly the highest legal authority in this country—ultimately declined to even hear the case. The message was clear: when international protocols conflict with Canadian evidence, science, or interests, the international protocols win.

This isn't about disease control. This is about who governs Canada.

The Sovereignty Crisis No One Discusses

The ostrich case exposes something far more disturbing than poor pandemic policy. It reveals that Canadian decision-making has been outsourced to foreign entities that face zero accountability to Canadian citizens.

WOAH sets the rules. The CFIA enforces them. Canadian courts defer to "international obligations." And Canadian citizens—farmers, researchers, taxpayers—have no meaningful say in the matter.

When RFK Jr., the head of the NIH, and the FDA Commissioner all asked Canada to reconsider, offering full American support for collaborative research, what happened?

Their requests were ignored. Not because Canadian officials evaluated the science and disagreed. But because WOAH policy doesn't have an exemption clause for "inconvenient immunity" or "valuable research opportunities."

The policy is the policy. International obligations must be met. Compliance is mandatory.

It doesn't matter that the policy failed—H5N1 is more widespread now than ever. It doesn't matter that billions have been spent with no success. It doesn't matter that alternative approaches might work better.

What matters is that Canada follows the international rules set by unelected bureaucrats in Paris who will never face Canadian voters, never answer to Canadian taxpayers, and never suffer consequences when their policies fail.

The Trade Excuse

The government's defense is always the same: "We must maintain our international trade relationships. Other countries won't accept our poultry exports if we don't follow WOAH standards."

It's a hostage situation dressed up as diplomacy.

Canada has become so dependent on international approval that we've surrendered our ability to make independent decisions based on our own evidence, our own science, and our own national interests.

Think about what happened here: Canada had a unique opportunity to study natural immunity in a controlled setting. International health officials from our closest ally wanted to collaborate. The potential benefits were enormous—not just for Canada, but globally.

Instead, we killed the birds to maintain "market access" and comply with protocols written by people who will never set foot on a Canadian farm or face a Canadian voter.

We sacrificed scientific opportunity, wasted eleven months of real-world immunity data, and destroyed more than 300 healthy animals—all to prove we're compliant with international standards.

That's not sovereignty. That's submission.

What We're Not Allowed to Consider

In Canada, H5N1 is now endemic in wild birds. It's everywhere. The virus the ostriches had was carried in by wild ducks—ducks that the CFIA admits it "cannot control" and "will not cull." Those ducks are still flying around, still carrying the virus, still landing on farms and waterways across the country.

But a flock of quarantined, immune ostriches under strict biosecurity? Unacceptable risk.

The Message Being Sent

Karen Espersen and Katie Pasitney fought for nearly a year to save their flock. They went to Federal Court. They appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. They took their case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

At each level, the courts ruled the same way: the CFIA followed its procedures. The policy is clear. The stamping-out protocol applies. End of discussion.

Justice Russel Zinn admitted he had "considerable sympathy" for the farmers but ultimately ruled that bureaucratic procedure had been followed correctly. That was apparently enough.

When the Supreme Court issued its final rejection on November 6, 2025, Katie Pasitney posted an emotional video showing her mother crying. "She is going to lose everything she has ever loved for 35 years," Pasitney said. "That's what pain looks like when the government fails you."

The next night, gunshots echoed across the farm. Within hours, every surviving ostrich was dead. The CFIA issued a statement confirming "the disposal followed all biosecurity and biocontainment protocols." That turned out to be false.

The protocols were followed. The birds are dead. The research is gone. The natural immunity that took eleven months to develop was eliminated after many hours of the massacre.

Case closed.

We're told these extreme measures are necessary to protect food security and prevent a pandemic. But after three years of this approach, what do we have?

Over 166 million birds culled in North America
H5N1 is now endemic and spreading to new species
Egg prices at record highs, with some states experiencing shortages
The virus has jumped to mammals including dairy cattle, cats, and sea lions
Human infections are increasing, with mutations that suggest possible human-to-human transmission

The stamping-out policy hasn't worked. The virus hasn't been stamped out. It's spread further and faster than ever before.

Yet when a farm accidentally creates a potential model for immunity-based approaches, it's immediately destroyed rather than studied.

This should concern anyone who eats food.

If our food security strategy is to kill millions of animals while ignoring evidence of natural immunity, while simultaneously bailing out factory farms with taxpayer money, we're not building resilience—we're guaranteeing future crises.

The Questions That Remain

The ostriches are gone. The research opportunity is lost. The farm's 35-year legacy was destroyed in a single night.

But the questions remain:

What antibody levels had the surviving birds developed?
Could those antibodies have been used to create treatments or vaccines?
Did the "novel reassortment" in those birds offer any unique insights?
Could ostrich immunity be replicated or studied in other species?
What happens the next time ostriches—or any other bird—survives H5N1?

We'll never know the answers, because the evidence was systematically eliminated.

Katie Pasitney vowed that despite losing their birds, "our life's mission will now be to push for reform at the CFIA." She told supporters: "They will pay for everything they've done here. We will hold you accountable."

It's a sentiment that should resonate beyond British Columbia. When government agencies have the power to destroy scientific research, ignore expert advice from international health officials, and eliminate natural solutions because they conflict with bureaucratic protocols, we all have a stake in demanding reform.

The Smoking Gun: What the Aftermath Reveals

Here's where the government's story completely falls apart.

The CFIA's entire justification for killing over 300 healthy, immune ostriches was biosecurity. They claimed the birds posed an unacceptable risk because they lived in open-air enclosures where wild birds—the very carriers of H5N1—could access them.

"This is especially worrisome because they were housed outdoors, and could be in contact with wild birds," officials stated repeatedly.

So what happened immediately after this horrific massacre on November 7, 2025?

Video footage captured the aftermath: migratory birds swarming all over the area where hundreds of ostrich carcasses had just been killed. The birds the government claimed to be protecting were feeding and congregating right where the "dangerous" ostriches had been slaughtered—at the actual site of blood, feathers, and biological material from the cull.

Wild birds had unrestricted access to fresh ostrich remains. No netting. No deterrents. Just flocks of migratory birds—the exact species that spread H5N1 across continents—picking through the aftermath of a mass killing supposedly conducted for "biosecurity."

Now, if the CFIA genuinely believed those ostriches were still infectious and posed a risk to wild birds, would they have left the killing site accessible to scavengers?

Of course not. That would be insane.

Which means they knew. They knew the ostriches were no longer contagious. They knew wild bird exposure wasn't actually a threat. They killed them anyway and proved it by their own actions afterward.

You don't leave potentially infectious carcass material exposed to wild birds if you're genuinely worried about disease spread. You either believe it's dangerous—in which case you secure it completely—or you know it's not dangerous and you're just going through motions.

The video footage of birds freely accessing the site reveals which one it was.

They Had Eleven Months of Proof

But there's more. Those open-air enclosures the CFIA claimed were so dangerous? The ones with "free access by wild birds and animals"? The large pond "routinely visited by wild ducks"?

They had been that way for eleven months.

Throughout the entire legal battle—from December 2024 through November 2025—wild birds had unrestricted access to the living, immune ostriches. Court documents confirm that even after quarantine orders were issued in January, "wild animals were still freely interacting with the ostriches."

For nearly a year, wild ducks, migratory birds, and other animals could freely mingle with the ostrich survivors. Daily contact. Shared water sources. The exact scenario the CFIA claimed was an unacceptable public health risk.

And in those eleven months, how many other farms in the region became infected from Universal Ostrich Farm?

Zero.

No documented spread. No regional outbreak. No cascade of infections despite wild birds having unrestricted access to immune ostriches for almost a full year.

The real-world evidence couldn't be clearer: the surviving ostriches were not spreading H5N1. The wild birds that had daily contact with them for eleven months didn't create an outbreak. The feared "reservoir" of infection didn't exist.

The CFIA had nearly a year of empirical proof that these immune birds posed no threat.

They brutally murdered them all anyway.

And then their own post-cull actions—allowing wild birds free access to the site—proved they never actually believed their own biosecurity justification.

The Lesson We're Supposed to Learn

The official narrative is simple: the CFIA did its job. It followed international protocols. It protected public health and trade relationships. The courts confirmed the agency acted reasonably and fairly.

Everything worked as designed.

But perhaps that's exactly the problem. Perhaps the system is working exactly as designed, and the design is fundamentally flawed.

When policies are so rigid they can't adapt to extraordinary circumstances—when following protocol matters more than examining evidence—when bureaucratic consistency takes precedence over scientific discovery—we haven't built a system that protects us.

We've built a system that protects itself.

The ostriches that survived H5N1 for eleven months, developing natural immunity that could have taught us invaluable lessons about fighting this virus, became casualties not of disease but of inflexibility.

They were inconvenient evidence that there might be another way.

And inconvenient evidence, it seems, is more dangerous to the system than any virus.

The ostriches of Universal Ostrich Farm in Edgewood, British Columbia, survived an H5N1 outbreak against all odds, only to be destroyed by government order on November 7-8, 2025. Their story raises critical questions about how we balance protocol with pragmatism, and whether our response to crises is driven by science or by the need to maintain control.

This is part of an ongoing series examining government responses to disease outbreaks and the questions we're not supposed to ask.

References and Sources

Primary Government and Court Documents

Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency), 2025 FC 878
Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency), 2025 FCA 122
Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency), 2025 FCA 147
Canadian Food Inspection Agency - CFIA's Response to HPAI on British Columbia Ostrich Farm
Canadian Food Inspection Agency - Statement on advancing disease response at BC ostrich farm
Canada Gazette - Regulations Amending the Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations
Federal Register (US) - Payment of Indemnity and Compensation for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

International Health Organization References

World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) - Stamping-Out Policy documentation
World Health Organization (WHO) - Avian influenza guidance
FAO - Global AIV with Zoonotic Potential

Wikipedia Reference

Wikipedia - 2020–2025 H5N1 outbreak
Wikipedia - 2025 Canadian ostrich culling controversy

Video footage of migratory birds at Universal Ostrich Farm site post-cull (multiple sources, November 2025)
Katie Pasitney Facebook livestreams and updates (Universal Ostrich Farm spokesperson, 2024-2025)

Note on Sources: This article draws on official government documents, peer-reviewed scientific literature, court rulings, investigative journalism, industry reports, and firsthand documentation from the farm. Where specific quotes or data points are cited in the text, they come from the sources listed above. The video evidence of wild birds accessing the post-cull site has been documented by multiple independent observers and news outlets covering the story.

Archival Note: Many of these sources are current as of November 2025. Readers are encouraged to verify current information as the situation continues to develop and legal challenges may continue.