No ISA in BC CFIA

[agentaqua]

So you would agree it is misleading to state the "the results are from a news release" and that this was a "study" requiring peer reviews?

Absolutely NOT! - it is the crux of the issue. Let me explain...

I consider the following news releases by the CFIA/DFO to be irresponsible, intentionally misleading, and "impossible to defend using a science-based argument":

http://www.salmonfarmers.org/no-isa-virus-found-farmed-or-wild-salmon-cfia-investigation-shows
"...Further follow up testing by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency continues to confirm that there is no Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) in British Columbia...."

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/11/13/cfia-cant-find-salmon-virus-should-we-still-be-worried/
"...the Canadian Food Inspection Agency this week released a terse statement to the press, declaring that B.C. is entirely free of ISAv..."

The reason?: "... the restricted and problematic cell culture methodology used for "confirming" that the disease exists..."

In ADDITION - statistically and scientifically - you can't actually prove a negative. You can say you FAILED TO FIND evidence of a positive, but NOT that you "found" a negative - i.e. no ISAv in BC. CFIA has NEVER provided statistical qualifications (i.e. there is a 90% probability that the unconfirmed positives reported were actually FALSE positives). That is because they can't. They simply don't know, and hope that most of the readership misses the subtle nuances that really mean quite a difference in the science world - i.e. that there is ISAv in BC.

If you BN - or anyone else reading this post has a science background - they will recognize this as basic stats and basic science failure.

If the standard response from CFIA is that unconfirmed PCR positives are "false positives" - how do you deal with Types I and II statistical errors??: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors). Claiming that the results are a “false positive” (without any proof), and then rejecting the alternative hypothesis that there is a statistically-significant weak or unconfirmed positive – is failing to observe a difference when in truth there is one - is a classic Type II Error. Anyone familiar with the rigours of peer-reviewed science and statistics would have serious concerns over the unproven assertions in this approach – particularly when the Precautionary Approach is supposed to be used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_approach).

That is why I stated that these press releases from CFIA are: "impossible to defend using a science-based argument"

 

[wstcoaster]

rivers inlet once held the second best sockeye runs on the west coast...where have they gone..only a few remances remain .. Morton found isa in smolts from there. likely a good place for cfia to look..but do they

 

[agentaqua]

rivers inlet once held the second best sockeye runs on the west coast...where have they gone..only a few remances remain .. Morton found isa in smolts from there. likely a good place for cfia to look..but do they

Exactly the point, wstcoaster. That's the "irresponsible" part. Instead of being cautious about the presumptive, preliminary ISA results and going-off and doing more testing to confirm/deny the results which is what a responsible regulator would do - CFIA instead engages their PR team and scriptwriters and issues new releases.

 

[agentaqua]

Seems to me (IMHO) that I am not the only one misreading/misunderstanding:

Wow, what a surprise - neither side of the debate trusts the other side's data or conclusions … as though any amount of peer reviewed science would sway either side from their firmly entrenched beliefs. Ukee

Trust always depends on familiarity and the building of a relationship where there is an open and honest exchange of freely-given commitments - in this case data. If the side you perceive as "anti" has not gotten open and honest information - then whose fault is that? Do you deny that politics and interference in governance/management institutions does not happen? Do you truly believe that our Harper government is not out to "protect trade" - as their primary focus? Who benefits the most by not being open and honest wrt data to base decisions on?

If you wish to coach people who demand transparency and openness from their democratic institutions - as one side or another who cannot be swayed in their "firmly entrenched beliefs" by "peer reviewed science" - then that is YOUR perception that YOU own - and you are valid in owning any particular perspective, but not valid in assuming the intentions or perspective of people (like myself) who apparently are thrown into an "anti" camp by questioning data and governance institutions and demanding openness and transparency. Science operates on questioning data and getting open and transparent answers to their concerns. That is the peer-publishing process - as opposed to the news releases - that you state you know the difference between. If so - I have to assume you instead support asking hard questions no matter what colour of political banner one hoists. If you disagree with the points I made challenging the results as posted in the news articles - then let's hear them.

... thought it was pretty clear in my post that my reference to data, conclusions and "any amount of peer reviewed science" was general in nature and referring to the larger, on going debate.

I thought you were referring to the specifics of the debate on this thread - disease testing by CFIA. I apologized once already for misreading - I will again.

Your overly defensive response, to say nothing of your condescension (trust me I know the difference between a news article and peer reviewed science, thank you very much), proves my point about firmly entrenched positions not being swayed much better than my attempt at some light sarcasm. Thanks.Ukee

I am swayed by the science, Ukee. Don't confuse "firmly entrenched positions" with experience and knowledge. There is a difference. Am I condescending and defensive? Well - I believe that the industry and CFIA are the ones being defensive in this issue. Condescending? Not trying to be. trying to be open, honest and frankly - very tired of the BS from certain government and industry spokespersons. If you felt that anger targeted at you - I would apologize if I was trying to target you with it. Again - I don't think that I am the only one misreading things here.

... I was in fact referring to your overzealousness leading you to interpret neutral comments teasing both sides on their stubbornness and close-mindedness as a pro-fish farm or pro-CFIA statement? Your continued (over)reaction to my neutral comments continues to confirm that you're so invested in arguing your point of view that you don't seem to have the ability to step back and objectively view neutral, generic commentary for what it is. Cheers and good luck with your combative approach! Ukee

I will agree that I can have a combative approach at times - especially when past frustrations bubble out. If you felt I was targeting you - then of course I apologize. Again - I don't think I am the only one misreading things here.

As far as "overzealousness" ... interesting you would develop that perception. How do you define and rate "over-zealousness" when describing a search for truth, transparency, and openness when dealing with regulators and democracy? Should we just give up and forget about it when we believe we are being lied to, stalled, blocked, minimized - and/or any one of numerous strategies that are being used? Is that what you would recommend your kids to do in their lives - with their lives? I think I am certainly NOT the only one with "firmly held beliefs" or judgments on people in these posts, Ukee.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Wow, you definitely clarified that you're not over reacting or reading more into my comments than intended, not sure how I ever could have thought that? Also, thanks for the lesson on how science "operates", not quite sure how I've managed my 40+ years of fisheries science without it?

Again, good luck with your attitude and approach.

Cheers

Ukee

 

[agentaqua]

you totally skipped the "hard" questions I asked, Ukee. Good luck with ignoring the science, as well. Seems to me you are afraid of having a real debate on the science - your asserted 40+years of Fisheries Science notwithstanding. instead it appears you want to try to make it into a debate on "attitude and approach". That's unfortunate, and frankly - unprofessional for someone claiming to have such an extensive science background. Are you afraid of debating the science, or are you instead on the side who cannot be swayed in their "firmly entrenched beliefs" by "peer reviewed science"?

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Totally, LOL! None of my comments have been about science or any specifics of the open net pen fish farm debate, which is why I've chosen not to respond to your references to it - I've never shared my opinions on open net fish farming publicly and I'm not about to now on a sport fishing forum. My postings on this thread have been about two opposing views that continue to clash over this issue on a number of threads on this forum over numerous years and, specifically, my opinion that there is no hope of changing each other's firmly entrenched positions (my words, my perception). My last few posts have been about an egomaniac's pathetic grandstanding. As is proven time and again, people come by their reputations honestly.

Cheers

Ukee

 

[agentaqua]

You do - of course - realize that this is an open ANONYMOUS forum - where we should feel free to express ourselves and debate the content of issues w/o worrying about getting in trouble for being honest? I simply don't understand your fears of being real and honest on this forum, Ukee. I really don't see the rationale you just posted for not debating the science.

 

[bigdogeh]

egomaniac's pathetic grandstanding ? I for one am certainly thankful that there are "egomaniacs" out there trying to keep us little guys informed to what's going on around us. Just want to say thxs for that, agentaqua. your efforts are truly appreciated by myself and i'm sure, many others.

 

[UkeeDreamin]

Couldn't agree more agent. Though not sure how or why you infer that either worry or fear are factors in my personal choice, as this is indeed a public fishing forum each person choses what they'd like to share or discuss. As I've stated repeatedly, it's my personal opinion the two sides of the debate have had no positive impact on influencing the other and, as such, it's my personal choice not to enter such a debate in a public and non-scientific forum. It is also my personal opinion that folks should inform themselves before drawing conclusions about any particular topic as it's been my experience that relying on others as your primary source of information pretty much guarantees bias (not inferring that is what anyone on here is doing). As my personal opinion on this matter is based on the abundance of published scientific data on the subject, anyone with the ability to use Google can access this publicly available information directly and form their own opinions and conclusions without my personal interpretation and/or bias factoring in.

Ukee

 

[shuswap]

More info including a link to request the full report is a ailable here: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/animals...ous-salmonids/eng/1410057185143/1410057186002
Just type in your name and email address.

After reading the comments so far it doesn't seem like many have read either report. Very easy to obtain. Takes no more than a day. Those evil government people anyway...lumps of coal for them all...lol.

 

[shuswap]

Couldn't agree more agent. Though not sure how or why you infer that either worry or fear are factors in my personal choice, as this is indeed a public fishing forum each person choses what they'd like to share or discuss. As I've stated repeatedly, it's my personal opinion the two sides of the debate have had no positive impact on influencing the other and, as such, it's my personal choice not to enter such a debate in a public and non-scientific forum. It is also my personal opinion that folks should inform themselves before drawing conclusions about any particular topic as it's been my experience that relying on others as your primary source of information pretty much guarantees bias (not inferring that is what anyone on here is doing). As my personal opinion on this matter is based on the abundance of published scientific data on the subject, anyone with the ability to use Google can access this publicly available information directly and form their own opinions and conclusions without my personal interpretation and/or bias factoring in.

Ukee

Good answer. I should take your advice in this post more often and then I would have more time to fish....maybe watch the Canucks hoist the Cup.

 

[agentaqua]

I agree with both you guys that nobody HAS TO engage or debate on this forum. It is - however - a open, public DISCUSSION forum - where the intent is to discuss and debate issues. I take advantage of other people's insights and skill base to dig into issues - here - on this forum. We all contribute in our own ways to any debate. I welcome that debate, and have in the past learned many valuable insights into issues from people like GLG, seadna, sockeyefry, shuswap and many others. If there were no debate - you would have nothing to read on here - and it would be pointless to have an open discussion forum.

On the issue of fish health/fish farms - I find it demeaning and unfortunate that the so-called "pro" side applies the label of egomanic when anyone on the so-called and labelled "anti" side disagrees with them - rather than debating the issues/science. It's another way to shoot the messenger and avoid anteing-up to a full discussion where the so-called "pro" side wishes to avoid having difficult, open and honest discussions where they have to admit things they would rather not. That is used on Alex Morton all the time. She is an egomanic - she isn't a scientist - she comes from money - the list gos on and on ad nausium. It's a pretty unprofessional approach and instead PR spin intended to avoid the discussion.

 

[agentaqua]

...As I've stated repeatedly, it's my personal opinion the two sides of the debate have had no positive impact on influencing the other...

I agree the debate on FF has been contentious, raucous and at times - unproductive. However, who is it that benefits by not being open and honest with data? Who benefits the most by keeping the debate elevated and emotional - rather than sitting down and doing due diligence in a public risks assessment and management regime? Who does that work for? If there were no critiques - would anything ever improve?

 

[agentaqua]

After reading the comments so far it doesn't seem like many have read either report. Very easy to obtain. Takes no more than a day. Those evil government people anyway...lumps of coal for them all...lol.

Got one sent - Thanks for that link Cuttle! They say that they didn't get enough samples for IHN, and they didn't target susceptible life history stages because: "the objective was to determine status in returning adults from a variety of species to inform trade negotiations". That was the actual reason they gave for not using targeted surveillance!

 

[Dave]

Good answer. I should take your advice in this post more often and then I would have more time to fish....maybe watch the Canucks hoist the Cup.

Well, I can see the fishing part but the 'Nuks hoisting the cup?? Hope you're right!!

You have done more than your part shuswap, and if you decide to retire for a while.. good on ya!

 

[Birdsnest]

C-DNA, Care to chime in on this one?

 

[Fish Assassin]

'Nuks hoisting the cup??

He did say maybe

 

[seadna]

C-DNA, Care to chime in on this one?

I've submitted an email to request a copy of the full report and once I have time to read it, I'll chime in with more detail. However, one thing that is of concern to me is that it's my understanding that the current testing protocol requires a culture positive result - e.g. they have to get the virus from the sample to grow out in culture. In human clinical testing, most viral measurements these days are made via PCR as virus culture can be quite difficult and results in many false negatives. From what I've read, the testing agency is worried more about potential false positives from PCR and hence has chosen culture as their "gold standard". Both false negatives and false positives are a concern. However, false positives cause problems for the farming industry while false negative are potentially a problem for the wild fish and those whose living depends on the wild fish. How one strikes an appropriate balance between false negatives and false positives is a interesting topic and often depends on what costs the most to those making the decisions.

 

[Birdsnest]

Thanks for the quick reply. Why is this testing on the east coast so cut and dry where here in BC it so "complicated"? What makes the 2 locations so different in terms of this testing? They cant seem to find it in washington or alaska and there is no debate about ISA in those regions but here in bc man oh man we are on the "brink of an outbreak" according to some.

It seems Alaska is not to concerned even if this virus was in bc.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=pressreleases.isav_info
Important considerations regarding the B.C. ISAv:

• Research on ISAv indicates that risk to Alaska’s salmon stocks is low. Pacific salmon are relatively resistant to infection and disease from ISAv, which is a viral disease of Atlantic salmon. The susceptibility of sockeye salmon to ISAv has not been experimentally tested. Other Pacific salmon including Chinook, coho, and chum salmon as well as steelhead trout do not develop disease when injected with the Norwegian strain of ISAv, but may become infected and carry the virus for varying periods of time. However, injection is an unnatural route of infection that would not occur in nature.
• Other strains of ISAv in North America are not pathogenic in Atlantic salmon. However, these viruses can mutate into more virulent strains, therefore we have cause for some concern.
• Atlantic herring reportedly carry the virus, but do not become diseased. This forage species could act as a reservoir and source of the virus.
• Although live Atlantic salmon are prohibited from importation into Alaska, there is some straying of escapees from B.C. farms, which could provide an avenue for the virus to enter Alaska waters. However, ISAv testing by PCR of Atlantic salmon (4,726 tests) from B.C. farms by the Canadian government over the last 8 years, including the past three months, has been negative for the virus. Therefore, the risk of virus transmission from such escapees is very low.
• ISAv does not transmit to humans and is not a human health or food safety issue.

Same opinion in Oregon: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/fishing/docs/ISA_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Same thing in Washington where there are atlantic salmon farms: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/2013/faq_isa_pacific_nw.pdf


Q. Are the U.S. and Canadian surveillance efforts for ISA similar?
A. Both countries refer to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)-recommended testing methods for detecting the ISA virus. APHIS is working with CFIA and Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) to ensure that our surveillance efforts are in line with each other and with the OIE.

ISA and the Pacific Northwest
Q. Is ISA found in the Pacific Northwest? A. No. While some media reports indicate that ISA
virus is found in both farmed and wild salmon from British Columbia, Canada, these statements are not accurate. In October 2011, university researchers from British Columbia reported finding ISA in wild salmon from British Columbia; however, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the Federal agency with authority for fish health in Canada, tested fish tissue samples from British Columbia using internationally approved methods and found no ISA virus present. ISA has never been confirmed in the Pacific Northwest.

Of course all of the above is moot if ISA is not found.