Ms. Morton isn't doing scientific investigation, it is forensics where you work with the evidence you have. It seems she has found several smoking guns. Now it is up to the 'authorities' to check the fingerprints, ballistics, alibis etc. Problem is that it is not apparent to interested observers, many of us, that the authorities are taking the smoking guns seriously. Maybe they know better in which case they need to share their insight with us.
Let me get this straight…..Alexandra Morton is a member (Registered Professional Biologist) of the BC College of Applied Biology, holds an honorary doctorate degree from Simon Fraser University, has been author and co-author of scientific reports published in peer-reviewed journals, but she isn’t doing scientific investigation in this particular case - rather forensics where you work with the evidence you have? So, forensics do not involve “scientific investigation”? Instead, it is up to the “authorities” (the ones she does not trust in the first place) to check out her claims to see if they are valid? I totally disagree. At some point the “authorities” are involved, but they are not responsible for holding her hand while she is doing this “study”. One would think that if Morton is as competent as she claims to be (given the number of papers with her name on them) then she would take the time to do it right. If Morton is supposed to be a reputable scientist wanting defensible data then there is no short cut. A clear chain of custody is imperative when you conduct sampling – especially for samples destined for DNA analysis. What methods and protocols were employed in the collection and preservation of these samples – other than just going to the store? Do we know much more about these fish other than they were purchased at these stores? If she wants credibility then it has to be earned with some actual scientific investigation. This again falls short.
After reading Morton’s findings, I am surprised that not many people have commented much on the size of these fish (regardless of their general condition on the outside). If the majority of these fish had a deadly disease then why did they survive to market size? HSMI tends to affect younger fish and not these larger fish that Morton apparently purchased. I agree with Dr. Marty when he says that the finding of this reovirus in these larger fish is good evidence that the reovirus is very common in Atlantic Salmon, but not the cause of disease in these fish.
I believe Dr. Kristi Miller is doing good work, but farm critics might want to know more about her recent findings as they might not align with their new-found love for DFO scientists (you know…the scientists they love to call corrupt and biased). In fact, Dr. Miller’s recent study of ISAv in farmed Chinook was much better than Ms Morton’s. Dr. Miller’s results were linked to data from licensed veterinarian that sampled the fish and a board-certified veterinary pathologist who did the examination. Sections of organs were examined under a microscope. At this point it should be noted that actual “scientific investigation” is being used by people that know what they are doing. There was no going to the store and asking the store clerk or whoever where the fish came from. There was no “flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants” type of science or rush to get this out the door to score media points. I doubt there were chain of custody issues given that a person like Dr. Miller is involved. The results were that the prevalence of ISAv was the same in healthy fish as it was in unhealthy fish. I believe Dr. Miller makes mention of this in Cohen Inquiry testimony. Although the results still need to be confirmed it provides strong evidence that whatever Dr. Miller was finding was not the cause of the disease in the farmed Chinook.
Author
Topic: New Norwegian Virus In Supermarket Farm Salmon (Read 23733 times)