Tag Archives: skepticism

Eco-lawyers get sucked into personal vendetta in nuisance lawsuit

Ecojustice is a charity which exists to file environment-related lawsuits against corporations and the government. Once again, they’ve set their sights on the topic of salmon aquaculture at the behest of Alexandra Morton.

But what the idealistic and eager team of lawyers hoping to sink their teeth into the next “Erin Brockovitch” case might not realize is that they, and everyone who donates money to them, are being sucked into one woman’s personal vendetta against someone who once made her look foolish.


The Case

Ecojustice is suing the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia for, it says, “refusing to investigate a complaint Ms. Morton made against a government aquaculture veterinarian. The lawsuit seeks to force the College to investigate the complaint.”

Ecojustice, and Morton, allege that in 2007 the provincial aquaculture veterinarian, Mark Sheppard, misled the provincial Minister Of Agriculture and Lands with incorrect information about the ISA virus and Atlantic salmon egg imports into BC. They are filing the lawsuit to  “investigate whether the veterinarian’s erroneous advice amounted to professional misconduct.”

The nut of it is that in the memo signed by Sheppard, the grammar structure of one sentence suggests he is saying BC doesn’t, didn’t, or never has (the grammar is unclear) imported Atlantic salmon eggs.

That’s it.

This lawsuit is as pedantic as they come.

But the 2007 memo isn’t even what it’s really about.

It’s personal.

The Background

In 2007, Dr. Mark Sheppard joined the provincial government as its aquatic animal health veterinarian. He served there until a court challenge by Morton resulted in aquaculture regulation responsibilities moving from the province to DFO.

Interestingly, despite the Supreme Court of BC decision, aquaculture on the East Coast of Canada still remains under provincial jurisdiction.

The Testimony

In 2010, after a poor return of Fraser River sockeye in 2009 prompted a flurry of public concern and a federal commission of inquiry, both Morton and Sheppard spoke to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa.

Morton spent her audience with the committee congratulating herself on how easy it is to study sea lice (her words) and predicting environmental doom because of salmon farms.

Two days later, Sheppard spoke to the committee, which posed many of Morton’s concerns to him as questions. He clearly explained why Morton was wrong, and why some of her statements were “misleading and quite frankly, irresponsible.”

He went on to definitively pin her to the wall.

“Some people–who are not qualified to make comments on it in my
opinion–have decided to put forth a wildly speculative conclusion… That case in itself is just a matter of someone who either doesn’t understand the science or simply prefer to move forth with a perspective to suit their agenda.”

The Vendetta

Morton was left looking like a hysterical fool by Sheppard’s factual, honest testimony. And as we’ve seen with the Character Assassination of Simon Jones, she holds grudges against anyone who exposes her scientific ignorance and her predilection to manipulate science to her own ends.

After DFO took over BC salmon farming regulation, Sheppard went to work with DFO as lead veterinarian for aquatic environmental operations. He recently left DFO to pursue a private veterinary practice in Campbell River.

And that’s when Ecojustice and Morton dredged up this smear campaign. If Sheppard gets dragged into the case, he’ll have to do it all on his own dime, since he no longer works for the government.

It’s a mean-spirited vendetta by a woman ruthless in her pursuit to be right.  It’s going to be a waste of time and money for the College of Veterinarians, and it’s a smear on the reputation of a man who was conscientious, careful, and most of all committed to protecting the environment while he served both the provincial and federal governments.

Anyone who donates to Ecojustice should be embarrassed their money is being spent on nuisance lawsuits like this.

BONUS: Why opinions in BC about salmon farming are polarized

During his testimony to the standing committee, Sheppard accurately described why salmon aquaculture in BC is perceived as a controversial issue.

“It is frustrating. There appear to be two different stories, but I think that’s largely because the silent majority, the credible scientists who bring a modicum of objectivity to this entire topic, don’t appear in the newspaper or on the Internet. They publish their articles, they’re factual, and the average Canadian citizen doesn’t read them. It’s very technical information. So communication is one problem.

I think there needs to be better communication from the industry,
better communication in lay terms from the scientific community, and from the provincial and federal governments.

Instead what we hear is the vocal minority who, quite frankly, are not aquaculture specialists. Rather, they are anti-aquaculture specialists. They’re very good at what they do. They’re very
intelligent people, very passionate people, and they’re very good at communicating to the media and to the Internet. For the majority of Canadians, that’s what they hear. Of course, that’s what
they will believe because they’re only hearing one side of the story.

…there is a tremendous amount of collaboration on the go in
British Columbia right now between the industry, fish farmers, and the ENGOs who are willing, of course, wanting things to improve, as the farmers are, and as the province is. There’s always room for improvement, but there is a tremendous amount of collaboration that is happening: joint funding, joint projects, both looking at the same things, comparing notes. There is an awful lot of transparency and communication between those groups. Again, that’s the helpful group.

There is another faction that is just quite simply anti-aquaculture, and that’s where the transparency stops. That’s where the information is not generally forthcoming because, in many
cases, the information is abused.”


Alexandra Morton jumps on the anti-vaccine crazy train with funding campaign that insults donors

Alexandra Morton has just self-shredded any last vestiges of credibility she may have had with her cynical new ad campaign, in which she tells tall tales while pandering to the lowest common denominator of stupidity.

With the two ads shown so far (below) she’s jumped on the anti-vaccine crazy train AND got a first-class ticket in the Food Woo Clown Car up front. Her ads assume that the people who will read them are stupid, gullible suckers. She is insulting the very people from whom she is soliciting donations.

Insult #1: Consequence-free fundraising

The campaign hasn’t launched yet, but she’s panhandling for money through a crowd-funding website. The kind of fundraising site that doesn’t issue tax-deductible receipts for the charitable causes it hosts.

Crowdfunding has a positive place in the charity landscape, but it is also ripe for abuse.

So guess what she’s going to do, suckers. She’s going to fool you. You’ll never know exactly how she spends all the consequence-free cash you’re giving her. She has no obligation to ever tell you. All you have is her word.

There’s no action plan attached to the campaign. The only commitment is to “make a high impact advertising purchase to run a series of ads.”

That could mean anything.

Sure, you might see a few billboards in Vancouver, or a newspaper ad in the Sun. But you’ll never know the true cost of the ad campaign. You’ll never know if she’s pocketed the leftover cash.

Here’s a tip: if you donate, ask her to publish all receipts related to the campaign on her blog. After all, if she’s so trustworthy, she’s got nothing to hide, right?

Insult #2: Anti-vaccine crazy train ad

Oooh, a scary syringe, evoking fears of needles, something unnatural, something BAD!
Oooh, a scary syringe, evoking fears of needles, something unnatural, something BAD!

First of all, look at how this ad is attributed to “Department of Wild Salmon” and the deptwildsallmon.org website. Currently that link forwards to alexandramorton.ca, Morton’s personal website and the heart of this campaign. But isn’t it interesting that if this campaign takes a turn that’s not in her favour, she could simply disconnect that link between the sites? Clever, n’est pas?

Second, the ad implies, through the use of a syringe, that farmed salmon are injected with drugs for delousing.


Sea lice treatments are provided in feed. Guess a dog food-like pellet doesn’t make for a scary image though.

The only time farmed salmon ever receive injections is when they are vaccinated at the hatchery against common ocean diseases.

Morton knows this. She knows sea lice treatments are given only in feed.

We can only conclude that by attempting to link injections, salmon and scariness, Morton is putting herself in the same camp as anti-vaccine idiots, and she’s doing it wilfully. That’s cynical, and could possibly even be seen as libelous, if anyone feels like getting litigious over these ads.

PS – Organic chickens are vaccinated, too.

Insult #3: “You are what you eat” malarkey

By implying that eating something that eats "unsavory" ingredients, Morton also rules out organic mushrooms, which derive nutrients from horse manure.
By implying that eating something that eats “unsavory” ingredients is bad, Morton also rules out organic mushrooms, which derive nutrients from horse manure.

Yes, salmon feed can contain protein from hogs. So what? Mushrooms grow in horse manure. And guess what. Organic poultry eat feed that includes fishmeal. Chickens would never eat fish in the “wild,” so if farmed salmon eating hog and chicken protein is bad, then so is organic chicken eating anything but bugs and grass.

Salmon convert pork protein into salmon protein. Mushrooms convert manure nutrients into mushrooms. It doesn’t mean that if you eat mushrooms you are eating manure (unless you don’t wash them) and it doesn’t mean that if you eat salmon you are eating pork.

You are NOT what you eat, unless you break it down to the very basic levels of proteins, vitamins and minerals.

Morton is banking on the ignorance of the general public when it comes to farming animals, nutrition and food. Ignorance is one thing, which is easily corrected. But Morton is also banking on the hopes that her audience will be too stupid and gullible to carefully consider her claims.

That’s the insult.

Insult #4: Implying negative health consequences

In the text on her crowdfunding page, Morton stops short of saying that eating farmed salmon is bad for your health, because she knows there’s no proof for that statement (but plenty to the opposite). But you can tell she really wants to when she says “Meanwhile controversy is boiling over in Norway on the health risks of eating farmed salmon echoed by the premier US business news service Bloomberg.

But that’s not true, either. The Scientific Steering Committee of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety recently published nearly 300 pages of independent, unbiased research showing that seafood, including farmed salmon, is safe to eat regularly for all ages.

There’s hardly a controversy. Unless one or two unqualified people disagreeing with hundreds of qualified people counts as “controversy.”

If you want to give money to this woman, it’s your wallet. But beware. She’s showing an alarming lack of scruples in this latest campaign.

Footnote: Just like Food Babe

Dr. Amy Tuteur, who blogs as the Skeptical OB, has posted a fascinating piece this month looking at the Food Babe and selling fear.

If you haven’t heard of the Food Babe, she’s a self-proclaimed expert who has made a name for herself, and a huge following, by examining, criticizing and condemning the ingredient lists on food packaging.

As Tuteur shows, she is also banking on a gullible, uneducated audience to promote herself and make a living.

Morton seems to be taking the same approach.

New salmon aquaculture-bashing film looks like it’s gonna be a humdinger of a crockumentary

There are a lot of films we would like to see made.

Like “Guardians of the Galaxy 2”, or “Ernest Goes to Hell” (RIP Jim Varney).

Don't know about you, but, we'd watch the HELL outta this, hur hur hur!
Don’t know about you, but, we’d watch the HELL outta this, hur hur hur!


On a more serious, latte-sipping intelligentsia-wanna-be note, there are a lot of documentaries we would like to see made.

Like a documentary about where the hell ISIS came from, or about the Vancouver Island Marmot.

Instead we got this.

Another fawning stroke for Alexandra Morton's already planetoid-sized ego.
Another fawning strokey-strokey for Alexandra Morton’s already planetoid-sized ego.

Yes , nobody asked for this but apparently Scott Renyard decided to assist our favourite activist in reliving the glory days, when she sort-of walked down Vancouver Island to hang around on the Leg lawn and wave signs and shout at The Man with a bunch of her friends one afternoon.

The role salmon farmers play in "The Pristine Coast" because the filmmaker apparently can't handle the thought of allowing different viewpoints.
The role salmon farmers play in “The Pristine Coast” because the filmmaker apparently can’t handle the thought of allowing different viewpoints.

Not surprisingly, the list of co-stars is all the usual suspects, who have made nice careers out of opposing salmon farming. No salmon farmers were invited to participate.

What do these usual suspects actually do to help wild salmon? Not much other than talk.

So expect this movie to be a bunch of talking heads, Morton walking along riverbanks while soothing music plays in the background, closeups of dead fish while alarming music plays in the background and nonsensical conspiracy theories, fading to black only after a helicopter long shot of our “Pristine Coast” masterfully timed to avoid any scenes of deforestation, log dumps, cargo barges full of cheap Chinese crap heading north to the Anchorage WalMart and giant barges of gravel and coal heading back to China.

It’s not ever going to be a “famous documentary” but it would certainly fit on this list of “Famous Documentaries That Were Shockingly Full Of Crap.”

This crockumentary will never make out it out of small-time film festival purgatory, but if you do get a chance to watch it, leave a comment here and let us know what you think.

Activist Alexandra Morton lies on national TV

CBS’ famous 60 Minutes program recently aired several segments about salmon farming, and they were actually pretty fair.

The show was a generally fair representation of salmon farming in BC. I especially liked how the segment showing the seafloor beneath a fallowed salmon farm showed the seafloor was crawling with prawns.

My only two concerns were:

  1. Letting Alexandra Morton get away with a bald-faced lie when she talks about the ISA virus and says, “There’s nobody actually looking at the wild fish carefully.”

This is COMPLETELY false and it’s a shame 60 Minutes did not challenge her on this lie.

There were thousands of wild fish tested in Alaska, BC and Washington specifically for this virus in the past four years.

ISA surveillance fact sheet

Washington ISA test results

BC test results

Maybe she doesn’t think that thousands of properly-conducted scientific tests are “careful” compared to her method of sampling sick and dying spawned-out fish off riverbanks.

The problem with this is that as soon as Pacific salmon return to freshwater to spawn, they start to die. Their bodies rot around them. Their goal is to live long enough to reproduce.

Spawning fish will be infected with all sorts of things, many of which have similar symptoms. Their ravaged bodies will also be a very poor source of tissue for testing purposes.

As well, Morton’s statements about virus and “genetic markers” show her willful ignorance as she chooses to ignore how virus testing actually works, in favour of telling the story she wants to tell.

  1. Ending with a useless interview with a lawyer who refuses to say whether or not ISA is in BC.

I mean come on. A lawyer isn’t going to say anything definitive about a scientific question. This question should have been posed to a scientist, or several scientists, who could have provided a more responsible answer.

And they have — except 60 Minutes chose not to use it.

Seafood Watch flip-flop on farmed salmon clearly based on politics, not science

The Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch guide claims to be science-based, but is actually quite shallow.

The Seafood Watch guide, holy grail of seafood guides, appears to be operating on some pretty sketchy double standards.

The newly-revised guide was published this week, and it raises some big red flags.

Why endorse certified farmed shrimp, but not certified farmed salmon?

Why does the Monterey Bay Aquarium ‘s guide consider the GAA Best Aquaculture Practices standards for farmed shrimp good enough to merit a yellow “good alternative” rating, but not the GAA BAP standards for farmed salmon?

It doesn’t make sense. Not, at least, from a science perspective.

A newly-published report by the group found shrimp farms certified as both two-star and four-star BAP met a “benchmarking equivalence” process against existing Seafood Watch-approved farmed shrimp.

This convinced the guide writers to bump farms producing 100,000 tonnes of farmed shrimp from red to yellow. This should be good news for BC BAP-certified salmon farms, right?

Wrong. Even though all farmed salmon coming from BC is now at least two-star BAP-certified that wasn’t good enough for the Seafood Watch guidemakers.

Politics, not science, driving force behind guide

It’s not surprising, really. The new guidelines have been controversial and criticized for ignoring science that the guide makers don’t like. Trade news sources Intrafish and Seafood Intelligence revealed last week that the much-vaunted Seafood Watch guide flip-flopped on farmed salmon.

A job interview at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program.
Behind the scenes at a job interview at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program.

These news sources require a subscription, so if you don’t have an account, here’s the highlights.

  1. The Monterey Bay Aquarium‘s Seafood Watch guide program recently released its updated standards, the first time farmed salmon has been reviewed in nearly a decade.
  2. The report has been in review for an unusually long time — nearly two years. And last year, a preliminary draft ranked farmed salmon as a “good alternative” (yellow).
  3. However, in the past year, something changed. The final report keeps farmed salmon in the red (“avoid”) category, and makes a number of astonishingly incorrect comments about BC farmed salmon.

How could they make these crazy claims?

The notes in the report explaining why farmed salmon from BC wasn’t good enough to get a “good alternative” ranking reek of political manipulation.

It must also be emphasized that salmon farming in BC continues to have a number of concerns; while arguably more efficient than other forms of intensive (terrestrial) livestock, it still consumes substantially more wild fish than it produces, it uses substantial quantities of antibiotics highly-important to human health in open production systems…

Wait, what? Salmon farming uses fewer antibiotics than any other farmed livestock. And in BC, the use of antibiotics has declined to only 17% of what it was the last time Seafood Watch revised its guide.

Why wasn’t this acknowledged? That’s an incredibly progressive reduction, but it doesn’t even get a footnote.

The only farmed salmon to get a “good alternative” rating in the guide, Verlasso, used almost the exact same amount of antibiotics per tonne of fish farmed as BC salmon farmers. That didn’t stop Verlasso salmon from getting yellow.

Clearly, “antibiotics” are a weak excuse from the guidemakers to reject BC salmon. Human beings will face more of a threat from antibiotics in open systems by using the public washroom at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Also, the claims about farmed salmon using “substantially” more wild fish than protein produced are just wrong. All BC salmon farming companies have been at nearly a 1:1 ratio for several years, and now, since their feed suppliers are sourcing fisheries byproducts which would otherwise have been thrown away, BC salmon farms produce more fish protein than the wild fish protein they use in feed.

Why wasn’t this acknowledged?

it continues to have escapes of a non-native species for which a (small) risk of establishment remains…

The risk is so small that not even NOAA thinks it’s worth worrying about. We also have a lot of info in our library here that upholds NOAA’s assessment.

…it continues to represent a source of sea lice infection for juvenile wild fish.

Again, NOAA doesn’t see any evidence that this poses any threat to wild fish. And we have loads of sea lice science in our library showing they pose no threat to wild fish.

At least one non native pathogen appears to have been introduced into the region for which the impacts, as yet unknown, remain a high concern.

What pathogen? What science is the basis for this claim? Does this refer to the thoroughly-discredited claims by Alexandra Morton about ISA in BC? The claims that were refuted by thousands of tests done by Alaska, BC, and Washington State?

If baseless activist claims are what Seafood Watch is using to make decisions, they cannot claim they are making decisions based on science.

Not worth the cardstock it’s printed on

Monterey Bay had a real opportunity here to show how dedicated its program is to good science, and that it can look at the incredible changes salmon farming has undergone in the past 10 years and give it a fair second look.

But they blew it.

It’s obvious that despite the reams of science showing that BC farmed salmon is AT LEAST as good as Verlasso, someone decided to hold BC farmed salmon to an even higher standard.

And that shows the process is based on politics, not science.

Someone’s lying: an infographic, and putting it to a vote

Every time someone disagrees with Alexandra Morton, she adds them to her conspiracy theory. She honestly believes that BC salmon farmers have so much political influence that they have managed to perpetrate a cover-up involving tens of thousands of people in government agencies, universities, and in foreign government bodies.

Salmon Farms are gatekeepers

Wow, it’s amazing the little BC salmon farming industry, which only produces about 75,000 tonnes of fish per year and creates far fewer economic benefits than sport fishing, can have such power. One might even conclude that it’s a ludicrous conspiracy theory.

Because it is.

Someone’s lying though. Who is it? Consider this infographic and decide for yourself.

Who is lying

Let’s put it to a poll, purely for the sake of interest. Cast your vote below.


In the ridiculous apologetics activists and their supporters use to explain why they are right in claiming ISA virus is in BC, one particularly odious claim keeps popping up.

This screed from Twyla Roscovich, Alexandra Morton’s new fiction writer and propagandist, lays out the claim:

Nearly every lab that doesn’t have direct ties with industry and the government seems to be able to find at least segments of the virus, while every lab that has a vested interest in not finding the virus can’t seem to detect it. It’s easy not to find this virus if you don’t want to.

Sorry, but this is bullshit. And like true propaganda, Twyla and Morton are banking on the hopes that you, dear readers, are not well-versed enough in science for your bullshitometers to be going off the charts whenever they talk.

We think you’re smart enough to think for yourselves, and do a little research, which shows that CFIA’s lab has found ISA virus 10 times already this year. Clearly CFIA has no problems testing for this virus, finding the virus and verifying suspected findings of the virus. If the lab can find the virus in Eastern Canada, there’s no reason why it couldn’t find it in BC.

But wait, they’ve got an explanation for that too. It’s some convoluted conspiracy theory about protecting trade. Which is stupid, because the East Coast salmon farming industry is almost as big as BC; the East Coast industry is ISA-positive; and the East Coast industry has no problems selling fish to the USA. And let’s not forget that ISA virus poses an even greater threat to wild salmon stocks on the East Coast than it ever would here, because wild Atlantic stocks on the East Coast have been so badly overfished they are endangered.

Showing their ignorance

Beyond conspiracy theories, Twyla attempts to peddle Morton’s weak scientific explanation.

In order for the CFIA to officially “confirm” ISA in B.C., it requires a high standard of proof called “virus isolation”. This means catching the virus alive and culturing it in a petri dish.


No. That’s not how it works. You cannot culture a virus. If a lab gets a positive result in the initial virus test, what they do to confirm it is put the suspected virus in a cell culture. If the virus kills the cells, then you’ve got something. Alternatively, the lab can try and see if they can detect the entire sequence of the suspected virus to see if it actually is the one they think it is.

This is the same standard every lab testing for ISA in the world follows to confirm whether or not the virus is actually present. It’s called responsible science.

Twyla continues with a false statement.

The only way this requirement of proof has ever been fulfilled is during an active disease outbreak on a farm where the fresh sample of a dying Atlantic salmon could be rushed to a lab very quickly. It has never been successful with wild fish anywhere in the world.

False, false, false. Learn to Google, Twyla. While it is difficult to find wild fish infected with ISA virus, because a fish that gets sick would likely die and disappear, it has been done. In this study, 142 sea trout and wild Atlantic salmon were collected over four years from five Norwegian rivers and one fjord, and tested for ISA. The rate of infection ranged from 13 to 100 per cent, depending on the year and collection river.

The study shows that there is very likely a natural reservoir of ISA virus in the ocean, since there were no active farms near the collection rivers during several years of sampling.

As well, the study makes a most interesting statement:

“None of the fish showed any clinical signs of ISA.”

That’s right. None of the ISA virus-positive wild fish collected were sick with the ISA disease.

That doesn’t mean wild fish don’t get sick and die from this virus. But it does mean that wild fish can carry this virus without getting sick. Which takes a lot away from the hysterical apocalypse Twyla and Morton are trying to sell us.

Virus testing basics

Twyla continues with statements showing she and Morton understand nothing about virus testing.

If you use a PCR test that only reports an exact match as a “positive”, you could easily miss the virus, since even a slight change will make it “invisible” to a probe that is looking for an exact sequence. Kibenge’s lab was using a technique that was reading the sequences of the virus, rather than just using a probe that only reports an exact match of a very specific sequence. So he was able to pick up on viral sequences that contained slight variations of the virus, as well as fragments.

No. That’s not how it works. Kibenge’s lab is not more special than other labs testing for this virus. His testing methods and techniques were pretty much the same as everyone else’s.

PCR virus testing basically works by taking a probe (an artificially-created segment of RNA or DNA), running it over a sample and trying to get related segments of virus to “stick” to it. If you can make this happen, your sample might just contain the virus you’re looking for.

Different labs may use different probes, and may search for different segments of virus. But the entire point of PCR testing is that you look for sequences of virus that are specific to the virus. RNA sequences can be shared between different viruses. Looking for segments which are not specific to the virus you are looking for is pointless. “Slight variations” and “fragments” of the virus are meaningless, if you have no idea whether or not they are common to some of the trillions of other viruses out there that no one tests for.

As well, the testing machine runs cycles, replicating the material in the original sample, creating more and more of the virus RNA to “stick” to the probe. The more cycles you have to run to get a positive hit, the weaker the result. All of the test results Twyla and Morton claim as “positive” proof of the virus came after many cycles, and could not be replicated. None of the scientists who did the tests will claim these results are proof of anything, other than that perhaps they have detected something with similarities to the ISA virus.

Twyla makes a particular ridiculous claim, which appears elsewhere in Morton’s comments, which makes no sense to anyone who actually does PCR testing for a living.

The problem is with detecting ISA virus is as soon as a fish dies, the virus begins to “shatter”. Often only segments of the viral sequence can be detected by the time a sample gets shipped to a lab. Probes that the CFIA labs are using will only detect exact matches for certain sequences.

No. In poor-quality samples (such as all of the samples Morton has submitted for testing), the virus may have degraded in quality, but it’s not like it breaks into pieces and disappears. If a fish is truly infected with ISA virus, even in low levels, it’s highly unlikely that only the segments you are looking for will be undetectable. However, if you have a poor-quality sample (as all of Morton’s samples have been), the chances of the probe picking up degraded bits of the wrong segments of virus are higher, which results in false positives.

And again, ALL PCR probes work like that: they look for a match for a certain sequence of virus. That’s the whole point.

Follow-up is essential

Neanderthal or human? You’re not likely going to know just by sequencing the DNA, since human and Neanderthal DNA is 99.7 per cent identical. Follow-up tests and contextual information are critical.

Even if you get a positive in PCR testing, unless it is exceptionally strong, more testing is required to confirm it. For example, Neanderthals and modern humans have DNA that is 99.7 per cent identical. However, they are very different species. If you found a piece of old bone and tested it, and found that it was 99.7 per cent identical to Neanderthal DNA, you could not definitively state you had found evidence of a Neanderthal until you did more research. Where was the bone found? How old is it? Could it have been contaminated? Humans and Neanderthals have different bone structure, does this show evidence of those differences? Is there any supporting evidence near where the bone was found?

Science isn’t an easy-bake oven, as Twyla and Morton seem to think. You don’t just pop in your sample, and bing, out comes your fully-cooked proof of ISA virus. That’s why the follow-up tests, which they scorn, are so important.

“So why don’t you just give good quality samples to Morton to test, if you’ve got nothing to hide?”

We’re not the BCSFA and can’t speak for them. But why would we give our fish to people who have made it their life mission to shut down our farms? They have shown no scientific integrity. They have misrepresented the truth, been caught in lies, and shown they will say anything to advance their agendas.

If you’ve got a neighbour who complains constantly about your dog, even though the bylaw officer has investigated and found no problems, would you leave your dog with that neighbour while you go on vacation?

DFO takes thousands of samples from fish which die in pens each year and tests them for ISA. This has been done since 2003. None of these samples have ever shown evidence of ISA. But that’s not good enough for Twyla and Morton. That’s why they have to concoct ridiculous conspiracy theories to explain why no one but them can “find” the virus.

Let’s apply an ancient scientific principle here: Occam’s Razor. Since Twyla and Morton and their friends are the only ones claiming they have “found” ISA virus in BC, and since they have to resort to ludicrous explanations as to why, it is highly probable that they are simply wrong, but just can’t admit it.

Their apologetics, poor-quality data, lies, manipulation of data and conspiracy theories take them out of the realm of science and integrity. Believe their claims at your own risk.