When exactly was this? I do not remember such an invitation being extended to her. I apologize in advance if that was the case.
I thought the reason the government scientists ignored the discovery of PRV in the farmed salmon was because they found it in wild salmon as well (without any increase in disease rates in those cases) so they concluded that PRV must not be not related to HSMI.
If what you say is true, then you both are. Two wrongs do not make it right.
No apologies necessary because I admit that I do not have an exact date when this happened. The fish farm industry made attempts to work collaboratively with Ms Morton back when sea lice was the flavour of the day. This information has come from blog responses from the people in the industry. This came up when people were questioning why Morton wasn’t allowed to test at fish farms. Now one can say that fish farmers are lying, but I think there was a time when the collaboration was possible. After Cohen, these virus scares in the media and the demarketing campaign being waged I doubt that is even possible anymore. It is too bad that divisions are as wide as they are now.
Government scientists didn’t ignore PRV. What they did that Morton didn’t do is actually look at the tissues themselves for disease. It didn’t just involve just looking for the virus. People make the false assumption that having a virus means that you always have a disease. As Miller’s study displayed, even healthy fish can have a virus.
How am I attacking her character? It is her methods and her study design which I question. In my opinion, Morton has made assertions which are not substantiated with an actual defensible study. She is supposed to be a RPBio. There is a certain level of expectation that comes with that. In her blog, there is no mention of methods followed other than she went to these supermarkets with these other ladies to purchase these “gutted” fish. There is also no chain of custody mention and more importantly we really have no idea where the fish really came from. In fact, she is still trying to find out, but subtly linking this to the BC industry apparently made more sense at the time. There is also no mention of controls for this study. She makes conclusions without even becoming aware of all the literature on the subject. If you read the abstract from the study she posted on her blog those researchers looked at the actual tissues of the fish (i.e. cardiac tissue). On the other hand, Morton was working with gutted fish so she was not able to properly assess for disease through histological examination, but she does not really make that disclaimer known in her blog. Previous work by the province involved looking at the tissues for disease – not just looking for the virus.
Sorry, but Morton does not get a free pass on this from me because she couldn’t test fish directly from the farms. It is all the more reason why she could have shown a little more restraint in her blog. I can tell you for a fact that government scientists or biologists with private consultants are not treated with kid gloves for these types of glaring omissions. Many of the things Morton missed in her “study” are well known by those doing this work already. A reputable biologist should be aware of a proper study design. In my opinion, Morton is not qualified to do this type of work. Someone more competent from her side needs to be involved in any testing. That is why I do not feel she should be doing any testing of farmed salmon on BC farms. That is not attacking her character. If farm critics feel she should not be questioned about her methodology and study design then she has no business being a RPBio.
Author
Topic: New Norwegian Virus In Supermarket Farm Salmon (Read 23730 times)