1. See this link for quotes from the news conference on the Rivers Inlet Sockeye by DFO and CFIA. Instead of negative results as claimed by DFO and the CFIA, the telephone conversation news release showed that the Moncton tests were inconclusive because of the degradation of the sample: http://blog.farmedanddangerous.org/2011/11/isa-test-results-inconclusive/. This example, and there are many more, is why most commentators no longer believe DFO. If DFO changes inconclusive to negative, where else is it saying things it knows not to be true?
On November 9th the CFIA announced that their test “found no sign of infectious salmon anemia” but that “these supplementary results must be considered inconclusive because of the poor quality of the samples.” Peter Wright, manager of the Fisheries and Oceans lab in Moncton where the test was conducted then went on to say: “…we call things inconclusive – because the degradation is so bad you cannot form an opinion from a test standpoint as to whether or not you are capable or not capable. The fact that they come up negative doesn’t really mean anything because they are so badly degraded.”
2. See this link for November 8 news stories on ISA in Pacific Salmon in BC: