Agent, if I do seem to be missing your point I humbly suggest to you that it is either that you are not making your position clear enough to me or the methods to achieve your desired objectives do not make much sense (to me anyway for what it’s worth).
Thanks for your reply Shuswap. Thanks for being respectful, as well.
I guess I am struggling with what exactly you don't get. Is it the "science" part of the disease testing - or something else?
... just because you get a virus doesn’t necessarily mean that the associated disease develops. There are other factors that can come into play whether the host develops the disease. ).
yes, I agree - and have also pointed this out numerous times on this forum - the last time a couple of posts back on this thread.
... My point wasn’t because beef cattle are ranging on Crown lands with or without associated diseases and parasites that is an excuse to not do what you suggest. I was bringing to the forefront that transfer you talk about can also happen in terrestrial environments, but tends to get skip here for some reason (at least at the beginning anyway). This is why I asked the question: “If there are cattle that are suspected to have a federally reportable virus or disease are those ranchers required to report their preliminary results to the public?”).
Well - reference the title of this thread. It is in relation to aquatic environments - and there are some substantial differences between the 2 environments - as I pointed out a couple of posts back. Another rather major difference I did not mention is that fish farms operate in "public" waters verses private lands.
As far as the "approved" CFIA/OIE reporting requirements go:
1/ Yes close similarities between reporting for "federally reportable" diseases between terrestrial and aquatic diseases,
2/ How a disease gets on the list is a longer conversation, as is the information exchanges between vets and up to the OIE - but yes - again very similar between aquatic and terrestrial environments, and more importantly,
3/ This CFIA modelling the OIEs developing disease reporting procedures is a
MINIMUM requirement - not a "MAXIMUM" expected by a public servant in a Canadian public service. We are NOT stuck with just only the CFIA and the OIE, either. There are many other components and authorities we need to consider and integrate, as well.
...Ok…but are you referring to scientifically documented cases of the presence of these “new” diseases or suspected ones based on suspicion? They are not the same thing, in my opinion. ... But I am not sure how this answers my question: What is the urgency of the public knowing these preliminary results? ...
Yes - all outbreaks - including "confirmed" using CFIAs rather restricted and potentially insensitive cell culture confirmation process. The reasons SHOULD BE obvious - as I already pointed out in many past posts. I am not sure why you do not appear to understand this.
...Recent studies by the US and Canada have not found what others think is here (ISAv). With regards to ISA/ISAv, Cohen also said that the evidence to date (up to 2011) does not allow him to conclude ISAv or an ISAv-like virus currently exists in Fraser Sockeye. It doesn’t mean that this is the end of the story as most of what we know (as stated in Cohen Technical Report #1) is from cultured fish. As I stated before, the PSF, DFO and Genome BC are collaborating on a very large Fish Health Initiative project, so I believe more information is forth coming in the next few years. But I am not sure how this answers my question: What is the urgency of the public knowing these preliminary results? On this coast, the companies have actually been reporting preliminary findings of viral outbreak to the media (i.e. 2012 IHNv outbreak at Mainstream’s Dixon Bay farm. The fish were destroyed from the initial farm before confirmation and an order from the CFIA, so we knew that location long before final confirmation.)..
ya - my assertions over fish disease testing and reporting were broader in context than just over ISAv. It is a longer conversation over ISAv - specifically.
No - I do not agree with your assertions that ISAv results have been communicated properly (through proper, mandatory channels), timely (in time to sample an outbreak), and with geographic co-ordinates from farm-specific sites through the current DFO/CFIA pipeline - which is updated only monthly and only after confirmation has taken place - and most importantly - w/o geographic coordinates - it is USELESS. Any ISAv results have been consistently denied by DFO and CFIA spokespersons and even hidden from court even when ordered by Justice Cohen. It is - as I just said - a longer conversation over this controversy.
...Have you checked out the WAHID interface on the OIE website? For each case they go into the epidemiology that is known. Is this information collected by the OIE inadequate?..
yes and yes:
1/ The OIE is not actually a regulatory body - certainly not one accountable to the Canadian public,
2/ Any information they post first goes through Information received and selectively filtered by Dr Brian Evans, Chief Food Safety Officer/Chief Veterinary Officer, Office of the President, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, OTTAWA, Canada - which means that in any event - it is weeks old and only for "confirmed" outbreaks of diseases that are "federally reportable diseases". See above answer for more.
...Well there is nothing new about ISAv on the east coast of Canada. As for cases of ISAv or ISA here in BC I will defer to the scientific evidence gathered to date. If you know of a documented case of ISAv or ISA here I would be interested in seeing it as will many others. As for a delay in reporting of a suspected case there doesn’t appear to be one from the companies as they seem to get these preliminary results done as soon as a case is suspected, but there seems to be a delay before final confirmation is made. This is why it seems fish farm companies have taken action early before final confirmation is made.?..
Well - the ones I can track are through the Cohen Commission's exhibits - where CFIA's website is blank on these investigations - which already speaks to the lack of transparency and openness by DFO/CFIA:
Cohen Commission Exhibit 2051
Cohen Commission Exhibit 2052
Cohen Commission Exhibit 2053
Cohen Commission Exhibit 2042
Cohen Commission Exhibit 2043
Cohen Commission Exhibit 2040
Cohen Commission Exhibit 2060
Cohen Commission Exhibit 2045
Cohen Commission Exhibit 1549
it also looks like they got some 12 out of 35 liver samples with ISA hits on Creative Salmon's Chinook at the Indian Bay site in Dec 13th 2011 using PCR - but couldn't confirm using cell culture. Chinook were yellowed and jaundiced. Player, Snow and Christensen primers were used - tested segments ISAv 7 & 8. FLUIDIGM process used by Gagne's lab. Sequence looked like the EU ISAv. European strain ISAv - in the Pacific. Wanna hazard a guess how that happened?
...Oddly enough, Kristi Miller’s lab at Pacific Biological Station was one of a group of labs utilized by the CFIA in its recent, 2 year viral surveillance study.
Yes it is odd - considering Kristi's testimony at the Cohen Commission about how she was muzzled. CFIA has not formerly recognized Kristi's work and methodology in the past - instead sticking to the talking notes generated by their PR people. The surveillance study also has it's limitations and restrictions.
However, Kristi's developing methodology on Genomics - verses genetics - is yet another example of why we need other testing methodologies and research partners - which all starts with getting notifications of a disease outbreak. I guess we can all agree that we appreciate Kristi and the PSF and hope their results are released soon - because we sure cannot depend upon DFO and CFIA at this time.
Just something to think about.
