Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bently]

I didn't ask for your opinion on the subject. I asked for some evidence you weren't misrepresenting that opinion as testimony given at the Cohen Inquiry.

Are you able to provide that or not?

Of course he can't, he's just blowing smoke as usual.

[absolon]

You were the one that copied stuff from the Cohen commission......  where in my post did you get the idea I did the same?  Are you suggesting we can only use quotes from the Cohen commission to support our discussions?

Yes, I did quote testimony from the Cohen Commission that suggested there is a database that has established that your arguments about amplification are pure and simple nonsense. Perhaps you should have your "experts" look at it.

In replying, rather than prefacing your opinion with "In my opinion.......", you precisely duplicated the format of the testimony I quoted; the obvious inference being that you were quoting testimony. Unfortunately, rather than a quote of actual testimony, it was , surprise, surprise, "testimony" you manufactured and now, surprise, surprise, you're suggesting that wasn't your intent. The applicable description of such an approach would be intellectual dishonesty. And best of all, it was exercised in the process of attempting to brand a scientist who reached informed conclusions that you disagree with as intellectually dishonest and ethically challenged. If the shoe fits...........

[alwaysfishn]

The applicable description of such an approach would be intellectual dishonesty. And best of all, it was exercised in the process of attempting to brand a scientist who reached informed conclusions that you disagree with as intellectually dishonest and ethically challenged.

Are you suggesting Dr Garver would have given different answers than suggested in my little interview example?

From the news article link I provided: “It’s pretty clear that for federal scientists, Ottawa decides now if the researchers can talk, what they can talk about and when they can say it,” senior science journalist Margaret Munro, with Postmedia News, told a group gathered at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting.

I'm not suggesting that anything is wrong with Dr Garver other than in order to save his job and pension he may have said what DFO wanted him to say rather than what the science indicated he should have said. He works for a closed shop that does the science and promotes the industry. I don't believe any third party scientists are over seeing their work. What we hear is exactly what they want us to hear.... 

[shuswapsteve]

By branding Dr. Garver as basically dishonest is kind of cheap and dirty way to argue your point, AF.  It is a common tactic by anti-fish farm opponents to basically label government scientists as dishonest and even corrupt without even talking about the actual data itself.  It is a deflection by opponents to avoid what the data is saying.  Dr. Garver comes to these conclusions based on defensible data collected.  He has to defend this data amongst his peers.  As you can see, he was called to testify about his work at the Cohen Commission judicial inquiry.  If you want to be critical of Dr. Garver you should focus more on his findings and back up your own critique of him with some actual data of your own.  However, as we have come to find out now, you are unable to do this.

What is even more hilarious is that you seem to accept parts of Dr. Garver's work which you believe aligns with your claims, but then discount his other testimony at the inquiry that Absolon posted.  It seems like he is dishonest when he starts saying something you do not agree with.  Do you actually read what you post?

IHN is a reportable disease in Canada.  Farms are required to report this.  It is on the CFIA website that I posted.

[alwaysfishn]

By branding Dr. Garver as basically dishonest is kind of cheap and dirty way to argue your point, AF.  It is a common tactic by anti-fish farm opponents to basically label government scientists as dishonest and even corrupt without even talking about the actual data itself.  It is a deflection by opponents to avoid what the data is saying.  Dr. Garver comes to these conclusions based on defensible data collected.  He has to defend this data amongst his peers.  As you can see, he was called to testify about his work at the Cohen Commission judicial inquiry.  If you want to be critical of Dr. Garver you should focus more on his findings and back up your own critique of him with some actual data of your own.  However, as we have come to find out now, you are unable to do this.

What is even more hilarious is that you seem to accept parts of Dr. Garver's work which you believe aligns with your claims, but then discount his other testimony at the inquiry that Absolon posted.  It seems like he is dishonest when he starts saying something you do not agree with.  Do you actually read what you post?

IHN is a reportable disease in Canada.  Farms are required to report this.  It is on the CFIA website that I posted.

Like absolon you are attempting to twist my words.....  at no time have I suggested he was "basically dishonest".

However it becomes rather laughable when absolon says that feedlots don't amplify IHN, when Dr. Garver says an infected feedlot can shed 650 billion infectious viral IHN particles an hour. The virus (like most virus's) is transferable right??

It's also curious that Dr Garver would say, there was no correlation in the IHNV prevalence as between adults and its occurrence in fry, while as far back as 1987 a report showed that more than 50% of the sockeye fry in Weaver Creek died from IHN virus. [url]http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/6/d006p221.pdf[url] If the adults didn't bring IHN to the spawning beds who did?

And why haven't any of you experts answered the question as to why, if the feedlots have access to an IHN vaccine, why aren't they using it?!

[shuswapsteve]

I'm not suggesting that anything is wrong with Dr Garver other than in order to save his job and pension he may have said what DFO wanted him to say rather than what the science indicated he should have said. He works for a closed shop that does the science and promotes the industry. I don't believe any third party scientists are over seeing their work. What we hear is exactly what they want us to hear.

You can spin it anyway you want to, but you are basically saying that Dr. Garver is being dishonest – in this case to save his job.  Making assumptions still does not make it true.  If the science was supposed to say something else then state what it should have said by providing some evidence of your own.  Where can we find this, AF?  In addition, Dr. Miller provided testimony during the Cohen Commission in regards to genomic research with this suspected parovirus.  Fish farm opponents rallied behind this testimony claiming that it justified their opposition to net pen aquaculture.  They even called her Scientist of the Year.  Was she being dishonest along with Dr. Garver during testimony?

Studies done by the department, including Dr. Miller’s, are peer-reviewed and published.  How is that a closed shop?  This means that people like you can access them.  This means that scientists other than those in the department are looking at them.  The issue is that people (media, fish farm opponents) feel that government scientists are being prevented from talking to the media about this already published work.  In this case it is not really the department that is to blame, but rather the Privy Council that should be shouldering most of the criticism.  However, then you have communications personnel in government that drop the ball making things even worse.  You might be interested to know that people that normally disagree with you on many issues regarding fish farming might agree with you here.

However it becomes rather laughable when absolon says that feedlots don't amplify IHN, when Dr. Garver says an infected feedlot can shed 650 billion infectious viral IHN particles an hour. The virus (like most virus's) is transferable right??

It's also curious that Dr Garver would say, there was no correlation in the IHNV prevalence as between adults and its occurrence in fry, while as far back as 1987 a report showed that more than 50% of the sockeye fry in Weaver Creek died from IHN virus. [url]http://www.int-res.com/articles/dao/6/d006p221.pdf[url] If the adults didn't bring IHN to the spawning beds who did?

And why haven't any of you experts answered the question as to why, if the feedlots have access to an IHN vaccine, why aren't they using it?!

Of course adult salmon bring IHN to the spawning beds, but you do not understand Dr. Garver or how it relates to Weaver Creek.  You need to read more of Dr. Garver’s testimony where he makes reference to Weaver Creek.

http://www.cohencommission.ca/en/Schedule/Transcripts/CohenCommission-HearingTranscript-2011-08-24.pdf#zoom=100 (page 85 and 86)

As for the vaccine, I agree with nibbles that cost vs risk could be the reason.  However, according to Marine Harvest (the largest fish farm company off our coast), they have been vaccinating for IHN since 2007.  The last major outbreak in BC fish farms was 2003, so perhaps other companies have adopted a different strategy to combat this which includes good fish husbandry and routine monitoring of their fish.  You should really contact a company like Mainstream and find out from them.

[absolon]

Are you suggesting Dr Garver would have given different answers than suggested in my little interview example?

From the news article link I provided: “It’s pretty clear that for federal scientists, Ottawa decides now if the researchers can talk, what they can talk about and when they can say it,” senior science journalist Margaret Munro, with Postmedia News, told a group gathered at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting.

I'm not suggesting that anything is wrong with Dr Garver other than in order to save his job and pension he may have said what DFO wanted him to say rather than what the science indicated he should have said. He works for a closed shop that does the science and promotes the industry. I don't believe any third party scientists are over seeing their work. What we hear is exactly what they want us to hear.... 

You are putting words in Dr. Garver's mouth with those fabricated answers. They are a reflection of your agenda rather than any truth and as such, are entirely irrelevant and more than a little dishonest. So is this statement you made:

However it becomes rather laughable when absolon says that feedlots don't amplify IHN, when Dr. Garver says an infected feedlot can shed 650 billion infectious viral IHN particles an hour

I didn't make that statement and you are clearly aware of that. I quoted Dr. Garver's testimony that the database shows that outbreaks on farms are not reflected in outbreaks in wild stocks and that no correlation shows between prevalence in wild juvenile fish and prevalence in wild adult fish. This isn't me arguing with you. This is the results of real research refuting your claim that farm infections amplify the prevalence of IHN in wild stocks. Attempting to discredit Garver does nothing to refute that claim; all it shows is that you are unable to refute the observations any other way.

Individual statistics isolated from context are meaningless and arguments developed from those isolated statistics are also meaningless. An infected feedlot may indeed shed that many particles but there is a difference in the production of viral particles between a infected population dealing with an active outbreak of the disease and a population not showing clinical symptoms but culled before an outbreak of the disease because the virus was isolated in that population. The lifespan of the particles is also relevant as is the distribution. Ignoring the context might support your agenda just as manufacturing that "testimony" did but it is equally dishonest and equally irrelevant.

[alwaysfishn]

They are a reflection of your agenda rather than any truth and as such, are entirely irrelevant and more than a little dishonest.

That's amusing considering everything you post supports your agenda. While the rest of your statement is untrue, maybe I should be taking it as a complement that you think I am using the same approach you are.

......... An infected feedlot may indeed shed that many particles .........

Well at least you are admitting half the truth....   

Once the feedlot fish show signs of IHN, they are already transmitting the virus. It also appears that none of the feedlots test for IHN unless their fish show signs of the disease due to the cost of the tests. So by suggesting that the feedlots may have culled the Atlantics before they began transmitting the virus is deceptive, because you don't know that, and the facts suggest they were already transmitting the virus before they even tested the Atlantics.

And because there isn't a scientific study showing that the feedlots amplify IHN, just like they amplify sea lice, doesn't mean it isn't happening. By using a little logic most people can take the facts and conclude that IHN is amplified by diseased feedlots, which will result in higher mortality of salmon fry and smolts.

[AnnieP]

Like your pro-feedlot buddy, you are trying to refocus the blame on the wild fish.

While wild fish are carriers they do not live in the close confines of a feedlot so the IHN virus is not as easily transferred between wild fish as it is in the feedlot fish. Take the example of a kid with a cold...... sneezing and infecting some of his class mates. Imagine a class room packed with kids who all have a cold..... and are sneezing......  The chances of a passerby being infected, go up substantially.

The recently announced infected feedlots, have been spewing 100's of millions of the IHN viruses, infecting every wild fish swimming by. Even after the infected feedlot is "isolated", the viruses it has been spewing, continue to live and infect wild salmon for up to 3 weeks in the salt water. This in the midst of 100's of 1,000's of migrating salmon.

Not a problem for the wild fish as absolon suggests.....   however once these infected wild salmon reach a fresh water lake and mingle with the sockeye smolts still living there, they become killing machines. Add to that the fact the virus lives for up to 7 weeks in fresh water, they can potentially kill an entire years worth of sockeye.

Is this really the fault of the wild fish?  

 




Claims about salmon viruses simply incorrect






August 24, 2012
 
Claims about salmon viruses simply incorrect
 Gary Marty, Nanaimo Daily News, August 24, 2012

Re: ‘Government testing of salmon a flawed process’ ( Your Letters, Aug. 21)
 
As the fish pathologist for the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, I am disappointed to see Alexandra Morton continue to mislead readers with inaccurate statements about salmon diseases in British Columbia.
 
She says that the farmed Atlantic salmon virus “infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV) is one of these farm animal influenzas and it has spread everywhere large numbers of Atlantic salmon are raised in ocean pens.” This statement has two errors.
 
First, ISAV is not an influenza virus; instead, it is an isavirus. And second, B.C. has millions of Atlantic salmon raised in ocean pens but no confirmed evidence of ISAV. This conclusion is supported by thousands of tests, including all results reported by Alexandra Morton.
 
Morton said that “I found (ISAV) in B.C.”
 
This is not correct. It has now been 10 months since Morton first reported positive PCR test results for ISAV in fish that had no evidence of the disease ISA, but her test results have not confirmed either the ISA virus or the ISA disease.
 
Unconfirmed PCR test results that are not related to disease are usually false positives. False positive test results are not a threat to either wild or farm salmon.
 
Morton also said that “during the (Cohen) inquiry we learned DFO found 100% of the Cultus Lake sockeye . . . had tested positive for this virus.”
 
This is not correct. Researcher Molly Kibenge sequenced her PCR product and reported that “The sockeye clones do not resemble any ISAV isolate” and, they “show homology to short sequences of human, mouse, rat and zebrafish clones” (Cohen Commission Exhibit 2140).
 
These results are called “nonspecific amplification.” It means that the test did not work properly and needs to be redone. Tests that do not work properly are not a threat to wild or farm salmon.
 
Finally, Morton says that “CFIA will not be testing the millions of farm salmon being raised among the wild salmon” and, “The status of these viruses in salmon farms will be left to the industry to report.” The first statement is misleading; the second is not correct.
 
DFO’s website “Fish Health Management in the Pacific Region” clearly describes their extensive fish health program that tests for ISAV in fish that die on the farms. CFIA sees these results, and the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture runs these tests for DFO. So far this year, ISAV test results on all 341 farm salmon analysed as part of this program have been negative — no virus.
 
For early detection of disease, I estimate that testing fish that die on the farms is 400 times more sensitive than random testing of live fish or harvested fish. This means that this year, DFO has tested the equivalent of 136,400 of the supermarket fish tested by Morton.
 
Alexandra Morton is a great story teller, but much of what she says is just that: a story.
 
For the best information about salmon diseases and their control, I depend on CFIA, DFO, and the fish farm veterinarians.

Gary Marty B.C. Ministry of Agriculture
































 



.
















.

[alwaysfishn]

Nice hyjack Annie......    This thread is actually about IHN.   

[absolon]

That's amusing considering everything you post supports your agenda. While the rest of your statement is untrue, maybe I should be taking it as a complement that you think I am using the same approach you are.

Well at least you are admitting half the truth....   

Once the feedlot fish show signs of IHN, they are already transmitting the virus. It also appears that none of the feedlots test for IHN unless their fish show signs of the disease due to the cost of the tests. So by suggesting that the feedlots may have culled the Atlantics before they began transmitting the virus is deceptive, because you don't know that, and the facts suggest they were already transmitting the virus before they even tested the Atlantics.

And because there isn't a scientific study showing that the feedlots amplify IHN, just like they amplify sea lice, doesn't mean it isn't happening. By using a little logic most people can take the facts and conclude that IHN is amplified by diseased feedlots, which will result in higher mortality of salmon fry and smolts.

The difference in our approaches is that mine depends on established evidence and yours depends on evidence you manufacture. There is also a difference in our agendas. You are trying to shut down the farms and I am trying to shut down the flow of misinformation.

The farms are subject to regular, required monitoring and it is that monitoring that discovered the presence of the virus, not a clinical outbreak of the disease. As has been reported, the fish were not showing clinical signs of the disease. There are no facts that suggest the fish were already transmitting the virus; that again is another product of your overworked imagination.

By your own reasoning, the fact that there isn't a study eliminating farms infection as the cause of wild infections doesn't mean that isn't the case. There is, however, a long data series that does indeed suggest the feedlots don't amplify the disease and that there is no correlation between juvenile and adult sockeye carrying the disease. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean that information should be discarded or ignored and more importantly, it is one of the few sources of experimental data that speaks to the issue so it should be considered important, and certainly more important than the uninformed machinations of an overactive, agenda driven imagination.

[alwaysfishn]

The difference in our approaches is that mine depends on established evidence and yours depends on evidence you manufacture. There is also a difference in our agendas. You are trying to shut down the farms and I am trying to shut down the flow of misinformation.

You must have a sore shoulder from patting yourself on the back. What you are doing is attempting to use the idea that you are more knowledgeable than anyone else in the field of aquaculture and because of that we should take your word for whatever you say. At least sushwapsteve provides some backup for his statements and doesn't have the haughty attitude that you use in your posts. At the end of the day both of you are tied closely the the feedlot business and therefore anything you post is suspect with respect to the survival of wild salmon....

The farms are subject to regular, required monitoring and it is that monitoring that discovered the presence of the virus, not a clinical outbreak of the disease. As has been reported, the fish were not showing clinical signs of the disease. There are no facts that suggest the fish were already transmitting the virus; that again is another product of your overworked imagination.

Nice try .......  taken right out of the feedlot public relations manual.

By your own reasoning, the fact that there isn't a study eliminating farms infection as the cause of wild infections doesn't mean that isn't the case.

Usually I have an idea of what you are trying to say......   in this case you are not making any sense.

There is, however, a long data series that does indeed suggest the feedlots don't amplify the disease and that there is no correlation between juvenile and adult sockeye carrying the disease.

Ya, I'm gonna take your word for that because your handle is absolon.....  if there is no correlation how are you suggesting the juveniles are infected?? The Weaver Creek report suggests the opposite of what you are.

[absolon]

Bottom line is that having been educated in the relevant subjects and having broad experience in the field I do know more about salmon farming than most. It is because of that I have some ability to distinguish between the nonsense and the valid and because of that I have no tolerance for the fools who propagate misinformation about it. The conclusions about salmon farms should be based on scientific evidence and consideration of the practical realities, not on the misleading rhetoric of an agenda driven group with a pre-established conclusion. Further, I pointed out to someone a while back that in any discussion with me, I'll turn back at you the attitude you give me. Respectful begets respectful, a point that you seem to have missed in your complaining about my attitude. I could care less what you believe, I do care about the intentional dissemination of misinformation.

If you don't understand the basis of Dr. Garver's observations you would be well advised to contact him and ask. Deciding on your own what they really mean is a fool's errand, particularly for someone who lacks even the most rudimentary toolset to apply to the problem. Choosing instead to denigrate his integrity in order to cast doubt on his results is a suitable tactic for a Conservative election campaign, but not for a discussion about a scientific issue.

[alwaysfishn]

Are you done???

The topic is actually about IHN......  not how wonderful, intelligent , educated and obnoxious you can be...   
 

[shuswapsteve]

It also appears that none of the feedlots test for IHN unless their fish show signs of the disease due to the cost of the tests.

This is false.  This was shown to be false the first time you said it, the second time you said and every other time you mentioned it.

So by suggesting that the feedlots may have culled the Atlantics before they began transmitting the virus is deceptive, because you don't know that, and the facts suggest they were already transmitting the virus before they even tested the Atlantics.

And the facts are?  Please go ahead.

And because there isn't a scientific study showing that the feedlots amplify IHN, just like they amplify sea lice, doesn't mean it isn't happening. By using a little logic most people can take the facts and conclude that IHN is amplified by diseased feedlots, which will result in higher mortality of salmon fry and smolts.

This is a classic.  So, in the previous quote you say, “the facts suggest that they were already transmitting the virus before they even tested the Atlantics”.  However, in this next quote you suggest that there isn’t a scientific study showing that the fish farms amply IHN, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.  This seems to imply that facts are now irrelevant, but they were relevant before.  Then you miraculously switch back and use your “logic” to suggest that most people can take the facts and make the conclusion.  Ok…and the facts are??  Data??  References??  Authors??

Nice hyjack Annie......    This thread is actually about IHN.

Annie’s posting of Dr. Marty’s letter is totally relevant to this discussion of IHN.  However, I can understand why you feel threatened by it because it gets tough to keep finding more unsubstantiated rhetoric and then having to find out that you contradict yourself further into the discussion – even in the very next sentence.  Dr. Marty’s letter is relevant because he discusses the extensive routine testing that goes on at fish farms.  ISAV along with IHNV are some of those viruses that are routinely tested for.  Secondly, the letter shows how people like Ms Morton have been misinterpreting the facts – sort of what you are doing with IHN.

Nice try .......  taken right out of the feedlot public relations manual.

Which public relations manual, AF?  Under the new federal regulations, farms are required to have a Health Management Plan.  One of the key components of the plan is that farms must be able to characterize the health status of the population.  I already posted the link on this information in another thread, so I am not going to repeat it.  Do your own research for a change…Please.  Secondly, it is in the farms best interests to routinely test for viruses like IHNV and ISAV because these viruses have demonstrated to inflict a great deal of damage on Atlantic Salmon.  It would make no sense not be diligent before the fact due to the investment involved as well as the legal responsibilities required (i.e. IHN is a reportable disease in Canada).

At the end of the day both of you are tied closely the the feedlot business and therefore anything you post is suspect with respect to the survival of wild salmon....

Would it really matter if I said I was or was not tied closely to the fish farm business?  You were so convinced long ago that I was that you have not taken the time to read what I have posted (even recently) which might give you some indication what I might do.  In reality it would not change a thing because fish farm opponents such as you seem to always find another excuse to link people like me to fish farming.  Funny thing is that I never called you a paid anti-fish farm propagandist or suggested that you were involved with the Pew Foundation or the David Suzuki Foundation; however, in order to make your point, you conveniently believe that I am closely linked to the fish farm business to make it seem like I have a financially vested interest in them and therefore cannot be trusted.  Like your assault on Dr. Garver recently, it is cheap and dirty way to argue your point which basically deflects away from the issue – instead focusing on the messenger rather than the information provided by that person.  For that reason, there is no motivation from me to provide any information or disclaimer about my involvement or lack of involvement with fish farms.  Actually, I think it is kind of funny how some of you keep assuming.