Like Fred Kibenge or Edward Snowden you mean, Ziggy?
Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders' (an expert DFO fish scientist) recent estimony
- Thread starter Englishman
- Start date
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Well I believe Snowden worked for the CIA in the United States did he not? Are you suggesting that the American CIA demands the same level of security from its employees as DFO Canada?
Was Kibenge destroyed? He seems to have gained more prominence than ever? Was he a government employee?
I think you are missing my points, Ziggy. Let me clarify:
The government - at large - ours and other governments - do not wish to operate on openness and transparency since often there are competing and conflicting conflicts of interest (read collusion, corruption) that they wish to remain hidden. They do not welcome oversight and accountability from the citizenry - which is what is supposed to happen in a democracy. Let's not forget that both of these listed above whistleblowers are citizens - whether they are employees of the government is irrelevant wrt them demanding accountability and honesty from the governments as citizens. Just being an employee should not negate your rights and responsibility as a citizen. Governments are supossed to work on behalf of their citizens - and NOT crooks and corporations behind the scenes. Anyone refusing to release information important to the management of our resources should be the crooks IMHO. That definitely includes some upper-level decision makers in both DFO and CFIA.
Just because something bad happened in the states or another country does not mean it can not or did not happen here. It has. The Gomery inquiry, the sponsorship scandal, the Schriber affair are but a few recent examples of that. As I am writing this post IronNoggin is posting another example of Provincial collusion and corruption at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...ss-for-fishing-legal-fight.65123/#post-818422
https://www.desmog.ca/2013/07/04/cf...nowned-canadian-oie-research-lab-loses-battle
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/winning-salmon-pr-war-cohen-commission-gillis/
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/...sh-health-agency-wins-the-war-against-us.html
The government - at large - ours and other governments - do not wish to operate on openness and transparency since often there are competing and conflicting conflicts of interest (read collusion, corruption) that they wish to remain hidden. They do not welcome oversight and accountability from the citizenry - which is what is supposed to happen in a democracy. Let's not forget that both of these listed above whistleblowers are citizens - whether they are employees of the government is irrelevant wrt them demanding accountability and honesty from the governments as citizens. Just being an employee should not negate your rights and responsibility as a citizen. Governments are supossed to work on behalf of their citizens - and NOT crooks and corporations behind the scenes. Anyone refusing to release information important to the management of our resources should be the crooks IMHO. That definitely includes some upper-level decision makers in both DFO and CFIA.
Just because something bad happened in the states or another country does not mean it can not or did not happen here. It has. The Gomery inquiry, the sponsorship scandal, the Schriber affair are but a few recent examples of that. As I am writing this post IronNoggin is posting another example of Provincial collusion and corruption at: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...ss-for-fishing-legal-fight.65123/#post-818422
Kibenge had his lab credentials stripped, his samples seized and destroyed, his reputation besmirched in an attempt to discredit him and mitigate the implications of what a positive ISAv result would mean. See:
https://www.desmog.ca/2013/07/04/cf...nowned-canadian-oie-research-lab-loses-battle
http://commonsensecanadian.ca/winning-salmon-pr-war-cohen-commission-gillis/
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/...sh-health-agency-wins-the-war-against-us.html
Last edited:
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Hey Ziggy
ask Fred Kibenge what can happen when you report something that threatens the tight little circle Fish Farms DFO and the Government enjoy.
"I'll leave this discussion"
Don't shoot and run...eh You seem to have something to offer to this subject.
"A lab that revealed the first evidence of an infectious virus in British Columbia salmon has been stripped of its international credentials.
The lab, run by Fred Kibenge of the Atlantic Veterinary College – University of Prince Edward Island, was one of a handful certified by the World Organization for Animal Health for its expertise in detecting the infectious salmon anemia virus."
Feel free to share, Ziggy...
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I don't know the guy, only what I read, how about you? So tell me, what happened? I see he has a book out, does he discuss it?
I find it funny that neither the Academic community seemed to defend him,( which is amazing for university professor), nor the scientific community?
Was the government conspiracy against him that good? Or could he have actually made a mistake?
I find it funny that neither the Academic community seemed to defend him,( which is amazing for university professor), nor the scientific community?
Was the government conspiracy against him that good? Or could he have actually made a mistake?
ziggy
Well-Known Member
What do you need to know Agent? Happy to help!
fogged in
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="ziggy, post: 818430, member: 5332
Or could he have actually made a mistake?[/QUOTE]
Lets say Kibenge made a mistake.
Any reason not to supply him with more samples to either prove or disprove his findings?
Would you not agree "stripped of its international credentials." is pretty heavy handed?
Or could he have actually made a mistake?[/QUOTE]
Lets say Kibenge made a mistake.
Any reason not to supply him with more samples to either prove or disprove his findings?
Would you not agree "stripped of its international credentials." is pretty heavy handed?
I don't know whether or not he made a mistake big enough to loose his OIE certification or not. I don't think the timing of DFO/CFIA reporting him to the OIE was a mistake though. It happened AFTER he reported the positive ISA results. It also happened AFTER Canada gave the OIE $1.5M AFTER Fred reported his results. It wasn't like Fred was next on a list of labs to get investigated. The OIE didn't do the same for the DFO/CFIA labs, neither. I don't think seizing and destroying the samples was a mistake, neither. Fred works out of UPEI - which is a vet University - servicing the aquaculture industry. His book is about Aquaculture Virology - not politics. He and his wife Molly certainly have enough to write about though. Simon Jones (DFO) refused Molly permission to publish her results when she found ISAv in the Cultus Lake (endangered) sockeye smolts. Simon did not submit this information when under legal oath in the Cohen Commission, too. See: http://www.sportfishingbc.com/forum...-risk-to-wild-salmon.52571/page-2#post-654580
fogged in
Well-Known Member
DFO and the Federal Government's actions regarding Fish Farms are certainly not transparent and open!
Their actions against Fred Kibenge is typical of how sensitive Fish Farm science is treated.
If you look at the history of Fish Farming it is clear they have a problem with pollution, viruses, disease, sea lice antibiotics and slice.
The Fish Farms in B.C. are no exception
The question is not do they present a threat to our wild salmon but to what extend is that threat.
I see nothing in the OIE report that says his positives were false: http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/e...ission/Evaluation_OIE_Ref_Lab_ISA_website.pdf
fogged in
Well-Known Member
Hey Ziggy
Are you of the opinion that IF one mistake was made, the lab should loose it's accreditation?
And I know of no proof a mistake was made from the samples available at the time.
Can you explain why fresh samples were not given to the lab to be retested?
Do you feel all things regarding Fish Farms are transparent?
Do you feel Fish Farms do not and have not been a threat in ANYWAY to our wild salmon?
Please let me add....either way, it's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to an opinion
Last edited:
Is government perfect? No. Are government the best communicators? No. However, taking a broad brush and painting many public servants the way you are doing is not right and not accurate as Ziggy pointed out. It's like if I took a broad brush and called all environmentalists a bunch of PR propagandists because.....they are still environmentalists after all. Changing ruling parties probably doesn't necessarily reset the clock, but in this case there are much clearer and flexible communication lines between departmental scientists and the media as well as the public.
Scientists like Dr. Miller and university scientists have done presentations to stakeholders talking about their preliminary work. I actually got to see and hear some of these people in person so that's why I know some of what I read here is more alternative fact, misinterpretation or miscommunication. However, the social science aspect of this particular issue and science in general is gaining more attention and is actually quite revealing - likely going playing a greater role in how scientists and stakeholders interact in the near future. It's sort of like having different personality types where certain individuals of one type tend to process and think about information differently than another. In that course, we learned to recognize different personality types and work with them.
Scientists and stakeholders engage in different information seeking behaviours. Findings suggest that scientists need to branch out from their realm and engage stakeholders and the public more directly by building relationships. Scientists should go to where these stakeholders are rather than be separate from them. It is thought that working relationships will build some of the trust that many believe is lacking. In this way, scientists and stakeholders can work from a common set of facts and knowledge rather than competing with one another. In some respects these working relationships with different groups is going on right now and are quite successful, but with others there could still be improvement. However, it's important to note that this is not necessarily because some manager, Regional Director or Faculty Dean is preventing their staff from engaging in these relationships. What I'm learning is that, in some instances, people work in parallel environments with little understanding of the other. Stakeholders want to see how relevant the research is to them and how can it be applied. Merely stating findings appears to fall short of their expectations.
Many will say this isn't mind blowing and I agree with that to some extent, but I don't believe we (everyone) look at these differences as much as we should, especially here. When I read some of the comments (especially the more recent ones) here I feel that some of what is discussed in this social science work is found here in this forum. However, for some prominent activists this will likely not really matter much - working relationships and greater understanding are not high on their agenda so it's a moot point, in my opinion.
This sort of relates to my previous post on this thread topic. I have provided an explanation of why this current research has not been as "final" as some would prefer. It's not because everyone in government is being tight-lipped. It's not because Deputy Ministers are actively engaged in deceptive practices to prevent stakeholders and the public from knowing what's going on with this. Miller would love to talk more about her work, but many people seem to want to discuss how she is muzzled - the political aspects. I provided some places folks can inquire to get more information. If they don't trust contacting government scientists because they feel there is a gun to their heads after what I just said they can talk to the other parties involved, such as the universities.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116302520 (Sorry only an abstract).
This part (p.7 http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/e...ission/Evaluation_OIE_Ref_Lab_ISA_website.pdf) is important and needs some explaining:
“Final reports are provided with limited interpretation even when the results of different assays were conflicting. In an example provided to the panel, seven wild caught cutthroat trout were tested by PCR. The results showed all samples to be negative by real ‐ time RT PCR, while all fish were positive by the conventional segment 8 RT ‐ PCR and also with an in ‐ house conventional segment 6 RT ‐ PCR. In the absence of a real ‐ time RT ‐ PCR result to support the conventional RT ‐ PCR results the panel considers these results to be highly dubious, and that the results should be reported as inconclusive pending further investigation. As a general principle, no further testing should be necessary if a primary screening test (in this case real ‐ time RT ‐ PCR) gives a negative result. The rationale for carrying out “confirmatory” testing (conventional RT‐ PCR) on negative samples is not clear”.
So the panel figured one should not investigate any negative results further – even if by using alternative PCR primers you get a positive - but Fred did. That's the big criticism of Fred's work – after CFIA reported him to the OIE for reporting positive ISAv results. Did DFO/CFIA do any follow-up testing? NOPE! Wonder why...
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Did you happen to notice the list of concerns the Independant International Agency itemized? Would you accept findings from a Lab with these shortcomings if they proved you wrong and where contrary to other labs results? I doubt it! wWho removed the labs accreditation, the Canadian government or an Independant International Agency .Did you also notice where they stated they didn't read the CFIA report prior to writing their own so as not to introduce bias? Maybe though they are also corrupt and colluding and in on the conspiracy?
I enjoy many of your posts Agent, but on this whole conspiracy, corruption issue I think we are too far apart to have meaningful exchanges.Neither of us is going to change their mind.
Thanks Ziggy. You are probably correct in that neither of us is likely to change the other's mind. That's ok. It's been a respectful interchange. I appreciate that.
I think for me the biggest unresolved issue wrt CFIA and disease testing is that they arbitrarily set how many cycles of PCR determines a "false positive" verses a "weak positive". I have seen no defensible science over this point wrt CFIA and their labs determining this.
My understanding of viral loads is that farm fish - the aquatic couch potatoes - are fed and protected from predators. They can potentially withstand higher viral loads and still survive. Wild fish - on the other hand - have to run from predators - and any restrictions on their ability to swim and do aerobic feats (e.g. PRv) could cause mortality. Mortality (and associated viral loads) that you won't see - as those fish magically "disappear" as opposed to the infected farm fish.
So - I don't think it is correct to expect the same viral loading should be used as the same "trigger" to determine between a "false positive" verses a "weak positive" for wild samples using PCR. As the investigators admitted: " while all fish were positive by the conventional segment 8 RT ‐ PCR".
That's why there is a debate between these so-determined "false positive" verses a "weak positive" for wild samples.
Last edited:
Similar threads
