No ISA in BC CFIA

[ClayoquotKid]

You guys really don't make any sense at all.
The only reason you would question these results is the fact that the presence of ISAv in BC would equate to an incredibly significant negative impact to the Atlantic salmon industry here.
All the BS about mutation and potential harm to wild stocks is purely self-serving rationalization.
If it were here millions of our fish would be dead, it wouldn't pop up in random locations in random Pacific species and life stages around the coast and only express itself in potential fragments seen in PCR tests.
You don't need to be a molecular biologist, capable of poring through and categorically validating every sample in order to show it isn't present.
You just need to use your brain.
Get off the farm-bashing cognitive dissonance train and actually think about what you are saying here.

And, maybe, if you want to nit-pick some more just for the hell of it:
Start a focused monitoring program on the many established Brown Trout populations in BC.
They've been here since the 30's and since they came from Europe pre-PCR - my guess would be if that there is something odd that is triggering our new and increasingly sensitive tests, they might be a good place to start.
http://alienspecies.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/eng/species/brown-trout

 

[Dave]

They're stretching the lynching rope CK, lol!

 

[Charlie]

If you believe ISAv is not in BC - Follow her links and I believe you will change your mind!
Just what is CFIA reporting - No ISA "disease" confirmed in BC.

Plus, these are VERY valid questions and observations:

Dear CFIA What Test Did You Use?

Dear Dr. Ian Alexander (CFIA):

I am writing in regards to your recent announcement CFIA finds no evidence of infectious salmon anaemia on the west coast.

I have 2 questions:

1 - What test did you instruct the labs to use to test for ISAv? None of your communications include this information. Because so many labs have detected ISA virus in BC, including two of the labs you used in this project, it is important that the CFIA provide detailed methods so that we can understand why these labs are no longer detecting ISA virus and previous ISAv positives have been discounted.

2 - Why wasn’t your test validated for the tissue that you provided to the labs? Two of your labs report lack of validation prevents them from confirming the results they provided to you.

ISA virus is internationally reportable, one of the most lethal salmon viruses known, a member of the influenza family, a substantial risk to wild salmon and Canada’s trade partners clearly don’t want to import it. For all these reasons, disclosing the test you used is critical information and the standard in science.

What test?
I downloaded your “Complete Report” from your website announcement that BC is ISA virus - free.

The only detail provided in your Complete Report on the PCR test used by the CFIA was that it was “standard.” However, there is no “standard” PCR test for ISA virus. Please reference Plarre et al. (2005), a similar study done in Norway where the PCR test is described in great detail to include the primers, probes and method.

There is a Cohen Commission exhibit reporting that the Province of BC screens BC farmed salmon using an ISA virus test developed by a master’s student (below). The Province of BC Animal Health Center is one of the few labs that has not reported an ISA virus positive for BC. Is this the test that the CFIA adopted? Download Cohen Exh 2048 - G.M. explains his ISA tests.pdf (180.5K)

Not validated
Test results provided to you from the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo include this clause; “The customer acknowledges that the species and tissues used to validate the aforementioned tests (may) differ from those tested. In these cases NAAHLS cannot attest to the validity of the results.” Download Pacific Biological Station test reporting.png (355.2K)

The Freshwater Institute of Winnipeg states: “Because this tissue matrix and species were not part of the diagnostic assay validation study, FWI cannot attest to the validity of the result.”Download Freshwater Institute test reporting.png (480.9K)

The CFIA used “weakness" in “validation" as a reason to discount ISA virus positive results from the Atlantic Veterinary College, even though three other labs got the same results (Cohen Commission Exhibit # 2075) and yet now the CFIA’s own labs warn the same problem exists in the CFIA surveillance for ISAv in British Columbia Canada.

Can you please provide your “Diagnostic assay validation study”? Perhaps it will help resolve why the new results are more definitive, despite the lab disclaimers, than the tests done previously for ISA virus in BC.

ISA virus positives in many labs conflict with CFIA report
In your December 2013 letter to me, see below, you note that the CFIA never retested the ISA virus-positive results from the Atlantic Veterinary College, so they stand unchallenged. I also have not seen any CFIA retesting of the ISA virus positive results from the Miller, Garver or Gagne Canadian federal labs that reported ISA virus positives in 2011. The University of Bergen also reported ISA virus positive results from British Columbia samples. Download letter from Ian Alexander.pdf (439.5K)

Two of the three labs used by the CFIA in this recent work reported ISA virus positive results for BC in 2011. Were they instructed to use the same tests as they used in 2011 or different tests and if so why?

Dr. Sonja Saksida also apparently reported ISAv positives in farmed salmon to the CFIA (see below), what test did she use and have these been retested and found to be false positives? Download ISA Saksida Exh 2055.pdf (69.2K)

An email from Nelle Gagne of the Moncton lab (that you used in this recent study) questions if she should report ISA virus positive results to Ottawa. Download Exh 2040 ISA Gagne email positive .pdf (111.8K)

There has to be a technical reason why so many labs have reported ISA virus positive results in salmon from BC, but the CFIA’s position is that new tests contravene earlier reports by some of the same labs.

If the CFIA provided information on their method of testing for ISA virus in BC perhaps we could reconcile these differences and understand why we should ignore ISA virus positive tests from so many labs (three federal labs, an industry lab, Canadian academic lab and Norwegian academic lab) and accept that all these labs were mistaken and that BC is ISA virus - free.

Thank you, I hope you can understand this is a high-priority question to the people of British Columbia, Canada. As you can see below ISA virus is a serious global problem with the salmon farming industry.

Alexandra Morton
Independent Biologist

If you would like to email the CFIA: Ian.Alexander@inspection.gc.ca
If you would like to email the federal Minister in charge, Rona Ambrose: rona.ambrose.c1a@parl.gc.ca
If you are American and would like to contact USDA Chief Veterinary Officer John Clifford: john.clifford@aphis.usda.gov

If you would like to make a monthly donation to this work:

- See more at: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/...at-test-did-you-use.html#sthash.ieH0l3v1.dpuf

 

[rockdog]

Sorry CK AND Birdie. Big difference between a couple of dudes who work at an open net salmon pen, and scientists. I'll go wih science, thanks!

 

[absolon]

You guys really don't make any sense at all.

That depend on how the objective is defined. In terms of being subject oriented, you're right. However, in terms of being process oriented, the arguments make perfect sense. These discussions are textbook examples of the Gish Gallop with particular reference to the "Spurious argument from authority" and "Argumentum ad tl;dr" techniques, usually originating from a single source here but with occasional additional support. The original questions and points in question are long lost in a flood of semi-relevant, semi-accurate information; the goal is to win the argument rather than enlighten. It is not a discussion, it is a contest; join or not as you choose. The world is going to keep turning no matter the outcome.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Sorry CK AND Birdie. Big difference between a couple of dudes who work at an open net salmon pen, and scientists. I'll go wih science, thanks!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is a scientific consensus regarding the absence of ISAv on the Pacific Coast.

 

[Birdsnest]

Based on the logic that viruses mutate and we are sitting on a ticking time bomb with the perceived ISA, why havent all the other pacific viruses wiped out pacific salmon stocks? Should be any day now according to morton, charlie and agent. Viruses such as IHN? Been around for thousands of years but any day now...salmon are doomed. It just hasn't happend.

 

[Birdsnest]

Interesting observations abs.

In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons with a title proudly boasting the number of reasons involved. The individual points will be fairly terse; but combined, they may run to the length of a multi-page essay running into thousands of words. A Gish Gallop tries to create the illusion of authority and an incredible weight of evidence by sheer quantity alone, without quality to back it up. To supporters, the illusion works — quantity has a quality all its own.

Argumentum ad tl;dr, a related distraction technique popular on the bottom half of the Web, involves swamping an opponent in long-winded screeds of text to artificially inflate the appearance of depth and quality of information presented. Quite often, the actual content of several paragraphs can be summed in a sentence. The point is to bury and obfuscate the core points that need to be discussed under a quantity of superfluous information. The text-producing bioweapon will then claim that any misconception you didn’t answer, you must be conceding.

 

[absolon]

Interesting observations abs.

As well:

Spurious argument from authority

The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating opinions.

It is often successfully combined with the "point refuted a thousand times" (PRATT). The Gallop must consist of as many points as possible, and even old and worn out arguments are useful in overwhelming the respondent and bamboozling the audience. The technique also takes advantage of the one single proof fallacy, since if a respondent only manages to refute 99 out of 100 points there is still one point that proves the galloper correct. The galloper takes to heart Joseph Stalin's advice that "quantity has a quality all its own."

 

[shuswap]

They use sentinel hatcheries because it is convenient, and the broodstock was going to be killed anyways - that's why. Makes sense to build on what you already have. Then they tried to move boundaries around to try to justify using a particular DFO-funded hatchery to cover-off retwerked disease zones. Those disease zones should be watershed-based - and they clearly are not, as can be referenced by the maps in the Appendices. It they wanted to test a certain percentage of the population - you would want to know what the escapements were by watershed - which they have not done.

Sentinel hatcheries were used because they provided better representation across abundant salmon runs with the river systems. There are also more species and stocks to choose from. When you read the report it would have explained the use of sentinel hatcheries on Page 8 of the one report. Again, it is not as easy to collect wild salmonid juveniles for this type of study unless there is another group doing that sort of work. Again, the CFIA doesn’t have the resources to go out and collect wild salmon (juveniles or adults). They partner with other groups (as listed in one of the reports) to obtain them for them. The CFIA were able to get wild samples for their analysis, but sentinel hatcheries definitely assist by enabling access to multiple stocks and species over greater geographic area. That’s tremendously valuable. You also have to consider the potential negative impact of killing wild salmon to achieve adequate samples sizes in systems where abundances are low or escapement data is spare. As we talked about previously, live fish are the best to sample – not carcasses that have been lying around for an undetermined amount of time.

I don’t understand your argument against their justification for boundary zones. As indicated in the report the sampling areas were refined to better match the major drainage areas of the region. Using Conservation Units (CUs) as a structure sounds good in theory, but would be a major undertaking. Fraser Sockeye alone has 24 CUs not to mention the CUs for the other species, even outside the Fraser watershed. There would be some big logistical considerations for collecting wild salmon for that sort of structure (especially in the Fraser Chinook and Coho realm) if a large sample size is required as well as having a good representation in multiple CUs by species. You can be dealing with remote areas and some systems with very low abundances of adults. Ideally you would want to piggy-back off some other initiative or study going on at the same time where you can collect some wild juvenile and adult salmon for samples. This is what universities do and this is what the CFIA tried to do with this study; however, if it was by CU that likely would not be going on. In the Fraser Chinook and Coho world those projects are few and far between. Fraser Sockeye conducts only two smolt outmigration enumeration projects – Chilko and Cultus. If you only capture low numbers that percentage would be kind of meaningless and not very defendable, in my opinion.

Personally, I don’t see the reason why one would want to do this by CU when we are not seeing anything to suggest that any of the viruses tested in the study are problematic, causing a great deal of mortality in wild Pacific salmon, especially on the spawning grounds (in multiple locations). A person just can’t look at some prespawns on the spawning grounds and conclude that disease is out of control. As we talked about before, a salmon carcasses lying on stream bank can have numerous pathogens in them – it can become a very difficult “Who Dunnit”. There is also no correlation between prespawn mortality and IHNv because you can have years of high prespawn mortality and low prevalence of IHNv and visa versa. Last year, high mortality for Fraser Sockeye didn’t materialize during a prolonged period of high water temperatures. Some years, you can have very high prespawn mortality right from the get-go and it never gets better and in those same years with co-migrating species spawning success can be at or above historical averages. Generally, spawning success starts out poor, but gradually improves as peak of spawn approaches. At this stage, the presence and absence approach is better route to go, in my opinion. For a 2 year study they covered quite a large area. Lastly, if the pathogenic form of ISAv was present it would likely be on the BC fish farms (as suggested by Dr. Are Nylund during the Cohen Inquiry) and it would be millions of dead fish – not just a few.

 

[shuswap]

I've obtained and read through the report. I've submitted a few questions to those who supplied the report asking for some details about the methodology. In particular, I want to understand how they handle the samples prior to the culture based tests and I want to understand what they use for positive controls to assure that the testing methods they are using will detect virus if it is present. My concern remains that the testing methods appear to require a positive culture based result and I'm worried that this may result in a high false negative rate. If that's controlled for in an appropriate way AND the actual false negative rate is similar to or less than that assumed in their sample size calculations, the rest of their plans seems fairly reasonable to me.

However, I note that they could go a LONG way to improving the perception of openness and integrity in their process with the following steps:
1) Just post the full reports online instead of making one go through a gate keeper to get them.
2) Post the full protocols online
3) Post summary data online - in particular what percentage of the samples were positive by PCR and negative by culture? I'd really like to know the answer to that one. If there was no detection by PCR, then my concerns about false negatives in the culture based confirmatory tests would be moot. If a significant percentage were positive by PCR but not confirmed by culture, I'd want to be convinced that the PCR detections were false positives - this could be done by sequencing the PCR products and showing that the sequences are not the targeted viruses.

I also think that the integrity of the process would be less open to question if the reporting of confirmed cases was in real time (as opposed to delayed) and if more detail were provided (actual location as opposed to a general area). Also, the government scientist should not feel like they are muzzled and should be able to speak freely about the process and data. I must admit that the level of suspicion of these reports would be MUCH lower, if the entire system was more open.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your points; however, I didn’t find much of an issue obtaining the reports online. I basically entered my email address and they sent me a pdf in less than a day. It wasn’t as if I had to type out a big application form. I believe entering the address is an option if the person wants a hardcopy sent to them instead of having an electronic copy. As for transparency in all this I agree with you; however, it shouldn’t just be limited to the CFIA. Those that have engaged in viral surveillance work outside of the CFIA have not produced one report (not even a summary) with methods and results yet have come up with numerous conclusions of virus and disease presence in our province since the end of the Cohen Inquiry two year ago. On the other hand, the CFIA has already produced an interim report of viral surveillance activities last year and has followed up this year with additional reports. All these reports are available to the public online. If I go to the Department of Wild Salmon website will I find a similar report on viral surveillance activities? The answer would be no. Granted, the CFIA could have included some more details, but their transparency with this has been much more than those environmentalists that have criticised them.

 

[shuswap]

Alaska is less concerned about the BC fish. One cannot say Alaskans are unconcerned about this virus or potential wild fish/farmed fish pathogen interactions as they ban finfish farming entirely in Alaska. Washington is less concerned as we tend not to site net pens in terminal fisheries (and we don't have near as many as BC). I think the areas of prime concern are where net pens are placed in terminal fisheries or near significant concentrations of out migrating smolts. BC is a place where there is extensive siting of fin fish in terminal fisheries and near shore smolt migration.

When you are talking about terminal fisheries between Canada and the US and opportunities that exist, you have to factor in things like the diversion rate (which can change annually and within a season). In 2014, an unprecedented percentage (as high as 99%) of Fraser Sockeye diverted through Johnstone Strait (between Vancouver Island and the BC mainland). Washington State commercial fishermen generally get a chance to Fraser Sockeye if they divert through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but didn’t get much of an opportunity to catch many this season. I had the opportunity to speak to a few of those Washington State commercial fishermen this season.

 

[agentaqua]

You guys really don't make any sense at all. The only reason you would question these results is the fact that the presence of ISAv in BC would equate to an incredibly significant negative impact to the Atlantic salmon industry here.

Talk about - what was the label liberally being thrown around - "egomaniac" was it?

From my intent - it should be obvious that I have always posted in regards to providing scientifically-defensible risk assessment and management tools for the open net-cage industry vis-a-vis potential and realized impacts to the WILD stocks. If the industry can make a buck w/o causing significant impacts to adjacent wild stocks using the open net-cage technology - then I am not against that. Siting criteria and the opportunity to study and understand the etiology and epidemiology of new and existing diseases is key to that (the sea lice debate was covered some years back and they now treat in the spring at the time of the smolt outmigration). How can anyone truly justify NOT needing more information on these interactions is baffling to me.

The release of a new or novel disease-causing organism onto naïve population(s) could and usually does cause unintended and negative population-level effects. The epidemiological history of new and expanding diseases often follows a pattern of low-level, spotty outbreaks with difficult to detect genetics and hard to understand symptoms since these viruses are often mutations of previously-known viruses that have found a new host.

An example of that is IHN. There are 3 clades of IHN - 1 clade for sockeye thought to be the original established virus with less genetic diversity - and 2 "new" clades that are still evolving and have though to jump hosts from sockeye - 1 for Chinook and 1 for steelhead.

ISA may be in the early stages of host jumping. The HPR0 so-called non-pathogenic strain of ISA cannot be cell-cultured, and therefore cannot be "confirmed" using this method. Having this strain of ISA or a close variant would explain why CFIA/DFOs testing method cannot "confirm" it's existence - currently.

 

[agentaqua]

When you are talking about terminal fisheries between Canada and the US and opportunities that exist, you have to factor in things like the diversion rate (which can change annually and within a season). In 2014, an unprecedented percentage (as high as 99%) of Fraser Sockeye diverted through Johnstone Strait (between Vancouver Island and the BC mainland). Washington State commercial fishermen generally get a chance to Fraser Sockeye if they divert through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, but didn’t get much of an opportunity to catch many this season. I had the opportunity to speak to a few of those Washington State commercial fishermen this season.

You did catch the part CDNA posted about the JUVENILES, Shuswap? I will respond to your other posts soon when I get some time.

 

[ClayoquotKid]

The Americans have come to the same conclusion.



ABSTRACT



Federal, state, and tribal fishery managers, as well as the general public and their elected representatives in the United States, were concerned when infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAV) was suspected for the first time in free-ranging Pacific Salmon collected from the coastal areas of British Columbia, Canada. This article documents how national and regional fishery managers and fish health specialists of the U.S. worked together and planned and implemented actions in response to the reported finding of ISAV in British Columbia. To date, the reports by Simon Fraser University remain unconfirmed and preliminary results from collaborative U.S. surveillance indicate that there is no evidence of ISAV in U.S. populations of free-ranging or marine-farmed salmonids on the west coast of North America.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03632415.2014.967348

You are more than welcome to cough up $25 and nitpick about testing methods there as well, but I don't think it will change the reality of the situation any...

 

[Birdsnest]

25$!!!!!???? Thats not very open and transparent but you wont hear any crying about it over there. How odd. Why is the issue so cut and dry in Alaska and Washington yet here it's an epic tale of dooms day prophesies followed with conspiracy theories and all the rest of it???

 

[Charlie]

The Americans have come to the same conclusion...

Excuse me? The Americans have NOT come to the same conclusion. In fact, the Americans have NEVER tested any “BC salmon” for ISAv.

FYI… just for the record the State of Maine is required to test their salmon feedlots for ISAv and report their findings to the Feds. It also appears, since there hasn’t been any ISA and/or ISAv found in Maine since 2006 there is a good chance it has been eradicated. Want to know how it was done? We don NOT allow any salmon from NORWAY in the United States and… WE KICKED YOUR NORWEGIAN FRIENDS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!

Now you don’t believe ISAv is in BC? How about explaining that to these people?

Transcript: ISA Day 1

Dr. Kibenge replied (starts on page 12, line 24):
“…in total we received… [four] submissions, the very first one was the 48 hearts of sockeye smolts. And in that testing we found two positive samples out of 48… the second set of samples was saved, we have from a different submitter and in that case I think we found in total three positive samples. And then in the third and the fourth, those samples were negative… So by the time we put a result, we are confident that is a true positive result.”

Dr. Nylund replied:
“among the first 48 I had one positive, and it was sample number 36…Among the others…There was one positive in the report from the 23rd, sample H10 and that was repeatable…And I also got sample 14 heart positive, but that was not possible to repeat… I had no sign of contamination…And it was only these tissues that came up positive. But of course I was not able to sequence any ISA virus from these samples. So I was not able to verify that this was actually ISA virus I was picking out. But you know that the assays that we are using…are very specific, so they should only be picking out ISA virus.”

Ms. Gagné replied: “They are negative.” Commission Counsel pursued this further, “At the bottom of the document there's a row… highlighted,…"Interpretation of DFO testing" is the heading, and then we see "inconclusive" or not applicable, depending. Were your RT-PCR results inconclusive?” Ms. Gagné replied,
“We reported them as inconclusive based on our policy. Samples are tested additionally for the quality of the RNA tissue, and in this case all samples submitted show extensive to total degradation of RNA.”

Brock Martland, then referred to an email from Ms. Gagné (page 17, line 7) that discussed a weak positive test found at the DFO Moncton lab. It included,
“I am not convinced it should be reported to our friends in Ottawa, guess why! We do not like to see a Ct like this, but this is the type of Ct that is equivalent to the finding by Nylund, i.e., can’t conclude anything from it.”

Dr. Miller elaborated that she conducted ISAV testing on wild salmon in the past using “an assay to segment 6, which does not necessarily pick up all strains of ISA,” and these results turned out negative. But after hearing of Dr. Kibenge’s positive ISAV results she was concerned that her lab “hadn’t done enough due diligence to make sure… [their] fish were negative.” Hence, Miller began retesting her sockeye samples after modifying her lab’s methods to include assays to segment 7 and 8 of the ISA virus. She reported,
“the ISA 7, P7 primer set amplifies the most positive samples...and we find quite a lot of variability in our ability to pick up positives with segment 8 with various segment 8 primers. But when we do pick them up, they sequence as being ISA. So I believe that what we have in B.C. is a somewhat divergent strain of ISA that is not universally picked up with all…the assays that are presently in use.”

Dr. Miller responded,
“…we provided a set of positive and negative blind samples on to Dr. Kyle Garver [DFO Pacific Biological Station]… he ran basically the same assay that Nellie Gagné [DFO Moncton] has run…and he also ran our ISA-7, the Plarre-7 primer sets that we use, and…he ran it under… their…protocol that is part of the validation protocol, and then also using the protocol that we use in our lab…And I should say that we have different instrumentation and a slight…variance in the protocol that we use for RT-PCR…[and] he was not able to pick up any positives using the DFO validated assay, but he did pick up a positive of ISA-7 using our assay with our pre-amplification.”

An interesting briefing note by Dr. Miller discusses these details and other pertinent information.

Dr. Kibenge responded,
“…this work, at the time it was being carried out, there was no real time RT-PCR, so the testing that was done used the conventional RT-PCR, and the primers that were used were targeting segment 8 and they are the standard primers for testing for ISA… the results, I think, as far as I recall, were that Dr. Molly Kibenge was able [to get] several samples positive for ISA virus, and some of those samples were sequenced, the products that we amplified were sequenced, and deposited to the gene bank…So this was clearly a positive amplification of ISA virus in those samples.”

Dr. Kibenge replied,
“No, they were not published, and the reason that was given was that the results…we obtained were considered to have been due to contamination, and the decision to submit the paper was denied.”

Mr. Martland: “You say the results were considered to be attributed to contamination, considered that way by whom?”
Dr. Kibenge:
“Dr. Molly Kibenge was working in the lab of Dr. Simon Jones. Dr. Simon Jones was the supervisor of this project, and it was his call as to how to proceed with the results of that work.”

Mr. Martland then questioned Ms. Gagné about her involvement in the 2004 ISAV testing (page 26, line 40). She said the DFO Moncton lab tried to reproduce Molly Kibenge’s positive results but could not.

 

[Charlie]

Continued:

An email from Dr. Gary Marty, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and a document detailing the ISAV testing methods were entered into evidence by Mr. Martland. In response to these documents, Drs. Nylund and Kibenge did not recognize the provincial staff that developed the provincial testing assay for ISAV (page 39, line 24). Later in the day, Gregory McDade referred to another email from Dr. Marty and questioned the panel further on the validity of the province’s ISAV testing protocols (line 6, page 111) and asked, “Dr. Miller, you're aware of the nature of Dr. Marty's testing for ISA over the past eight years, or so?”

Dr. Miller replied,
“I'm aware he's conducting testing and I'm aware that it's his own in-house test.”

Mr. McDade added, “Yes…I understand it's a test that was designed by his Masters student?” Dr. Miller replied,
“That's what he said.”

Mr. McDade: “And it's not the OIE standard test, is it, Ms.Gagné?” Ms. Gagne:
“It's not, no...”

Mr. McDade subsequently asked, “And it's not verified by any of the standard literature?” Ms. Gagne:
“I don't know if they have in-house validation data.”

Mr. McDade: “Right. So what we have is the 4,700 [B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands ISAV] tests that we heard so much about in the last hearing have all been under a process that is not an approved process by the OIE…Well Dr. Miller, what's your opinion about that test? Is that going to have picked up ISA? It's simply the wrong test, isn't it?” Dr. Miller:
“I don't know, I've never used this test so I really wouldn't know. I don't believe that it is published.”

Mr. McDade: “So it's a completely unverified -- to the best of any of the knowledge of the three participants here, there's no verification of that test at all?” Dr. Miller:
“I'm not aware of any.”

Mr. McDade: “Dr. Kibenge?” Dr. Kibenge:
“Yeah, I'm not familiar with this test…I would expect this [test] not to be as sensitive as segments 7 and 8.”

Mr. McDade: “We don't know today...whether this test that's been conducted in a B.C.-only version would have been picking up the ISA even if it had been there for the last seven or eight years; isn't that right, Dr. Miller?” Dr. Miller:
“I wouldn't know, no.”

Dr. Kibenge shared his opinion on the ease of culturing ISAV from wild fish (line 37, page 45) and said,
“my experience has been that if virus is from a clinically sick fish, for example, Atlantic salmon with ISA, usually you are able to culture that virus. But in the reports I have seen so far, it has been very rarely shown that you can actually culture virus from wild fish.”

Mr. Martland asked, “Are there strains of ISAV that are not culturable? (page 46, line 2) Ms. Gagné and Dr. Kibenge both said, “Yes,” and Dr. Kibenge added:
“the most famous one is what we call the ISAV virus HPR0 that is known to be non pathogenic or non-virulent. This virus in fish does not cause any clinical disease, and you can only detect it by RT-PCR.”

Mr. Martland questioned Dr. Miller (line 48, page 28) about a short report written by Dr. Brad Davis who works in Dr. Miller’s lab. The briefing includes:
“…I was able to perform a retrospective statistical analysis of the microarray to determine whether salmon were responding strongly to the presence of the [ISAV] virus;” and,
“This is a very strong signal indicating that fish positive for ISAV7 are responding to the virus similarly as mammals would respond to other influenza infections. As ISAV is an influenza virus, this result not only validates the ability of microarrays to identify strong biologically relevant signals associated with health and condition on wild-caught migrating salmon, but it suggests that the virus is causing enough damage to elicit a strong response in the salmon.”
Dr. Miller discussed her theory (page 51, line 45) about how long the virus has been in B.C.:
“We have…sequenced from these 1986 samples…the three fixed base differences that we see, today, existed in 1986 as well, which suggests that not only has this been here for at least 25 years, but it's been here probably quite considerably longer than that...”
With reference to an email and an ISAV results report, Dr. Miller discussed results of a DFO study on Creative Salmon’s farm fish that was initially prompted by concerns about a jaundice-disease syndrome their Chinook salmon had experienced (page 52, line 37). She stated, “…we did identify some positive ISA fish among their fish.”
Testimony moved to the subject of cooperation by the salmon farming industry on disease testing. Mr. Martland asked (page 53, line 17), “You've described Creative [Salmon Ltd.] as being quite willing to work with you in this testing, including for Parvovirus. Is that true of other companies?” Dr. Miller replied,
“So far, they're the only company who's been willing to provide us samples.”

Mr. Martland went further, “…if memory serves, when you testified in August you described that there was work underway to engage in testing for Parvovirus among those farming Atlantic salmon in the Pacific. Is there an update that we need to have there?”

Dr. Miller replied, “Yes, I had a meeting with the B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association after the aquaculture sessions in the Cohen [Inquiry], and we agreed, in principle…and we were writing a co-proposal for ACRDP, which is a DFO grant, and [at] the very last minute they basically took out all testing of Atlantic salmon in that proposal and they proposed that I, instead, look further back at sockeye salmon…until I had information on how long this [parvo-] virus…has been here, they did not want their samples to be tested.”

Mr. Martland continued, “…can you test fish farm audit samples?” Dr. Miller replied (page 53, line 41),
“So when this occurred, we approached the people in DFO…and the audit program is now run through DFO, but those samples are still sent to the provincial lab, the same lab that's been doing it for the province. The histology work and the PCR work is all done in the provincial lab. And we asked, we signed a material 1 transfer agreement with the provincial lab, and that transfer agreement only enabled us to test for Parvovirus and nothing else. The very unfortunate thing is that we were sent tissue homogenates in water that were not kept frozen… and anyone who knows anything about molecular biology knows you cannot send tissue samples that are not kept frozen or they degrade very, very rapidly. So by the time they got to our lab, they were quite degraded, and the DNA was of no use...we could use the RNA to test, but we had to sign an agreement to say we would not test for anything but Parvovirus. So it's useless for Parvovirus, because Parvovirus is a DNA virus, and we needed the DNA and we have completely degraded DNA.”

Dr. Miller also discussed the issue of testing farm fish further with Alan Blair, counsel for the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association on page 101, line 32.
Karen Campbell, counsel for the Conservation Coalition, broached this subject by entering an interesting email string between Dr. Miller and Mary-Ellen Walling of the B.C. Salmon Farmers Association into evidence, that highlights the disagreement between the two regarding the testing (page 121, line 35).
In reference to a summary report, Dr. Miller described the progression of her ISAV testing and various meetings she had about it with the fish health department and Stephen Stephen, DFO, Ottawa. Dr. Miller expounded on her perception of the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency’s definition of a confirmed case of ISAV (page 54, line 41). Dr. Miller said,
“…I believe it was decided that…the definition…CFIA uses…needs to be both cultured and culturable and it needs to validate with their validated primer set. If it doesn't meet those criteria…then it's not classified as ISA.”
Dr. Miller also stated (page 56, line 6),
“I don’t think that Stephen Stephen [DFO], in Ottawa, was very pleased that we were doing this testing, because we are not the validated lab.”

She raised the concern,
“…that if something is classified as being ISA that CFIA will come and basically take all the samples in the lab away…as their way to control for disease spread. I have a very large genomics program that relies on the very extensive sampling inventory that we have, and I was very concerned…that I could lose the samples that I rely on for my genomics program.” (

In response to questions later in the day from counsel for the Aquaculture Coalition, Dr. Miller elaborated on her conversations with Stephen Stephen, from DFO, Ottawa, on page 107, line 37.) In further cross examination about the consequences of positive ISAV findings and the conversation she had with her superiors (page 126, line 15), Dr. Miller stated:
“the sentiment that I got was that research should not fog policy…I look at my own program and I think I have a lot to lose here if CFIA decided to sweep in and take all my samples. I've got thousands of samples and a very big program in jeopardy, so whether Stephen Stephens (sic) meant that or not, I certainly have been very concerned about that;” and

“I think he just intimated that I, as a scientist, would not understand the complexities of these issues and that, as a scientist, I should not be undertaking research on something if I didn't understand the ramifications of what the results could do” (page 127, line 19).

 

[Charlie]

Continued:

Tara Callan, counsel for the Province of B.C., entered a report by Dr. Gary Marty, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, into evidence that acknowledges Dr. Kristi Miller had 9 positive test results for ISAV from farmed B.C. Chinook salmon.
Continued:

Dr. Miller also reported that her lab found 25% of Creative Salmon’s Chinook tested positive for ISAV (page 112, line 39) and that 25% of migrating wild sockeye also tested positive for ISAV.

Dr. Miller also mentioned that in comparison to other years, the 2007 sockeye that left the Fraser River had a high incidence of a pathogenic strain of Flavobacterium psychrophilum which can cause coldwater disease (species clarified with K. Miller, personal communication, April 10, 2012). They also had “quite a high positive rate” for the piscine reovirus and a relatively high rate for ISAV (page 113, line 35).

Dr. Miller raised concerns about the provincial ISAV testing and the manner in which test fish may be pooled together (page 120, line 47). She also raised another potential problem with the province’s audit program, they didn’t keep tissue samples archived, so it is not possible to go back and re-test samples (page 123, line 14).

FYI… I didn’t have to dig this out myself, these are excerpts taken from ‘Synopsis of Key Evidence from the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Fraser River Sockeye’ http://www.watershed-watch.org/

You two "peas in a pod" keep trying to convince people ISAv isn't in BC and... have a great day!

 

[ClayoquotKid]

Charlie,
The vast majority of Atlantic salmon eggs brought to BC for aquaculture came from Washington State.
None have come from Norway.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/aquaculture/reporting-rapports/egg-oeuf-eng.html

Also, Creative Salmon raises Chinook reared from local stock (Qualicum River originally, I think) in their hatchery near Duncan.