Feds silence scientist over study discovering salmon leukemia

By Margaret Munro
Postmedia News
Federal fisheries biologist Kristi Miller.………………………………….. Federal fisheries biologist Kristi Miller

VANCOUVER — Top bureaucrats in Ottawa have muzzled a leading fisheries scientist whose discovery could help explain why salmon stocks have been crashing off Canada’s West Coast, according to documents obtained by Postmedia News.

The documents show the Privy Council Office, which supports the Prime Minister’s Office, stopped Kristi Miller from talking about one of the most significant discoveries to come out of a federal fisheries lab in years.

Science, one of the world’s top research journals, published Miller’s findings in January. The journal considered the work so significant it notified “over 7,400” journalists worldwide about Miller’s “Suffering Salmon” study.

Science told Miller to “please feel free to speak with journalists.” It advised reporters to contact Diane Lake, a media officer with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Vancouver, “to set up interviews with Dr. Miller.”

Miller heads a $6-million salmon-genetics project at the federal Pacific Biological Station on Vancouver Island.

The documents show major media outlets were soon lining up to speak with Miller, but the Privy Council Office said no to the interviews.

The Privy Council Office also nixed a Fisheries Department news release about Miller’s study, saying the release “was not very good, focused on salmon dying and not on the new science aspect,” according to documents obtained by Postmedia News under the Access to Information Act.

Miller is still not allowed to speak publicly about her discovery, and the Privy Council Office and Fisheries Department defend the way she has been silenced.

But observers say it is indefensible and more evidence of the way the government is undermining its scientists.

“There is no question in my mind it’s muzzling,” said Jeffrey Hutchings, a senior fisheries scientist at Halifax’s Dalhousie University.

“When the lead author of a paper in Science is not permitted to speak about her work, that is suppression,” he said. “There is simply no ifs, ands or buts about that.”

The Harper government has tightened the leash on federal scientists, whose work is financed by taxpayers and is often of significant public interest — be it about fish stocks, air pollution or food safety.

Read more at Postmedia News

####

Alexandra Morton is spearheading a campaign to end fish farms:

10 responses to “Feds silence scientist over study discovering salmon leukemia

  1. solution… global non-compliance. it takes a planet.

    some of you may not know what we are up against… i have been aware for years now, but i figured out something new today…

    a very brave man… i hope you will get something from it… i know i did. seems credible and highly likely to me… best that you figure out what’s going on for yourself… you might think it is not related, but, i am fairly certain it is… having a closed off mind is not what we need in this world right now.

  2. There can be no possible “public interest” in such suppression of research, especially as oceans reach critical conditions which might threaten all life on the planet. No one, especially fearful bureaucrats, should be allowed to muzzle science.

  3. From the above article:
    “Miller’s team has not yet identified a culprit, but her Science study said one possibility was a virus associated with leukemia, which can be transmitted from fish to fish.”

    A strong immune system can fight off any virus or germ. When viruses attack any animal and succeed it is because that animal is weak. So in a way viruses and germs are like flies zeroing in on something that is in a state of decay.

    Doc Blake

    • I believe this… and supposedly, even Darwin admitted the germ was nothing; that the terrain was everything.

      • I did not know about Darwin being involved in this but when you talk about the subject it is usually Antoine Bechamp vs Louis Pasteur. But the problem all along is we have been spoon fed the germ theory of disease and no one understands that the terrain is where the problem starts. That is why you can gather a room full of people and expose them in every way to the most deadly virus or germ in the world and no matter how exposed some people will get infected and some will not.

  4. Hi Wanda,
    You only have to look at the numbers to realize that the possibility that we are alone in this universe is ridiculous. In our medium sized galaxy there are 400 billion stars give or take a few billion. In the universe our scientists roughly estimate there are 125 billion galaxies. Just the number of stars that would add up to is hard to wrap your mind around let alone the number of possible planets like the ones that circle our sun. Why would it be a problem for our government to release information about alien contact? Think about it, for one thing it would put a heck of a strain on the Christian religion and the literal translation of the Bible. Paul

  5. I believe you can view the photograph of the boring machine mentioned by Schnieder. It is called the ‘Subterrene’. Its photo was also on the cover of Omni Magazine in 1984 or ’86. The drill head is a lithium ion nuclear reactor which melts rock at 2000 degrees F. There are no tailings, and it creates a ceramic lining in the tunnels. The damn thing can burrow at a fast walking pace @ 6 MPH.
    The link still works:
    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_underground01.htm
    awl

    • Thanks for your reply… but at first you were knocking what i posted when you wrote “the boring machine”… i read it as the machine was boring, as in not too exciting. Funny.

  6. Have reporters and / or elected representatives, who demonstrate both honesty and integrity, gone the same way as our $1.00 and $2.00 bills?

    The following provides a very brief history of the travesties in justice which only one veteran has had to sustain over the past 17 years, but is presented as a resonable example of what too many other veterans have had to sustain from successive Canadian governments.  The critical and unanswered question remains: “If this is the manner in which successive Canadian governments (including the present one) have treated men and women who have placed their lives on the line for these same Canadian governments, to what extent are these same travesties in justice being forced on all Canadian citizens without their knowledege of these same unlawful transgressions?”

    Please allow me to introduce a Canadian veteran who has unfortunately encountered far too many delayed obligations in attempting to maintain survival in this country.
    
This individual completed his army reserve basic training, graduating not much more than 2 and a half years prior to the late Rt. Hon. P.E. Trudeau invoking the War Measures Act.  This same graduation occured some 23 years prior to successfully completing his army reserve officer training, which was followed by just less than 5 years of service in the Canadian Navy where he trained as a Combat Systems Engineer (CSE or 044A).  The third and final sessions of this veteran’s military training included basic officer training at Chilliwack, B.C., second language training at St. Jean, Que. and a year in Esquimalt, followed by just less than 3 years service at the Canadian naval base in Halifax, NS.!

    While training in Esquimalt, B.C., this veteran was billeted to the HMCS Qu’Appelle where he injured his spinal cord at three levels subsequent to a fall in the showers onboard that same warship. As this accident occurred while away from that warship’s homeport, this veteran was confined to his rack and provided with pain killers until returning to Esquimalt some 5 days later where he was rushed by ambulance to the base hospital in Esquimalt.  Other than being supplied with additional pain killers and 3 or 4 brief sessions of physiotherapy, this veteran’s real injuries were not treated at that base hospital, nor at the base hospital in Halifax, where he was shipped to as part of his next phase of training some 2 months later.  Upon release from the Canadian Navy in 1993, this veteran was assessed by a qualified medical general practioner (GP), in Lower Sackville, NS, who immediately identified a C5/C6 radiculopathy (upper spinal cord condition) which had resulted from the accidental fall onboard the HMCS Qu’Appelle.  This same GP referred this veteran for assessment initially to a diagnostic service in Halifax (i.e., spinal cord MRI), an orthopedic surgeon, and an internal medicine specialist.  All of these graduates and post-graduates in medicine agreed that the three levels of spinal cord injuries (i.e., C5/C6; T11/T12 & L2/L3) most likely were the result of this veteran’s accidental fall when serving onboard the HMCS Qu’Appelle.

    Subsequently, in March 1996 this veteran applied for a disability pension with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (note: initially this pension was applied for in 1994 but, after identifying at least one blatant example where the Veterans Review and Appeal Board [VRAB] deliberately misled authorities, the actual application through the Bureau of Pensioners’ Advocates in Halifax, NS, was delayed until March 1996). The VRAB ruled on three separate occasions against this veteran’s application for a disability pension within the first year of application (refer to Table A in this document).  This veteran was subsequently forced to bring the VRAB into the Trial Division of the Federal Court (Fed. Ct.) which ruled that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB  board (Fed. Ct. case T-157-98). 

    The allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel ruled twice more within the next year against this veteran’s claim and were brought again before the Trial Division which ruled that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel, while awarding costs to this veteran (Fed. Ct. case T-2137-99).  This next allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel failed to provide a decision within the next year, forcing this veteran to file a motion with the Trial Division of “contempt of court”.
     
    While the Trial Division would not award this motion by citing the VRAB in contempt, it did award costs to this veteran, even though none were requested, and supplied a step-by-step procedure to obtain justice in this case.  With both no legal training, nor the necessary funds to engage the services of a legal professional to represent this veteran’s case, this veteran attempted to bring the VRAB before the Trial Division again, after being denied a disability pension with the VRAB’s next (and sixth) decision, this veteran consequently lost in this fourth decision of the Federal Court Trial Division, in spite of providing professional testimony from a neurosurgeon, an orthopedic surgeon and a general practitioner with more than 35 years of experience. 

    Note that none of these submissions by professional graduates of medicine were contradicted by testimonies from similar medical professionals on the part of the VRAB, yet the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. ruled against this veteran’s claims.  This veteran was encouraged to re-approach the Trial Division based upon a lady who won her case in the Appeal Division in Ontario after using this veteran’s first two cases (i.e., T-157-98 & T-2137-99) as precedents.  To render such a re-approach at such a late stage in the events, this veteran was encouraged to concentrate on his lower back injuries …. thereby, allegedly attesting to settlement for the upper back injuries …. even though such a settlement had never occured to that date.

    The Trial Division, not more than 4 years ago, ruled again in the veteran’s favor (Fed. Ct. case #T-401-05) and referred the matter back again to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB  board.  That same board ruled on 4 more separate occasions against this veteran’s application for a disability pension, forcing the matter back to the Trial Division for ultimate resolution (Fed. Ct. case #T-617-09).  The VRAB fully exhausted the total legislated number of decisions to which they were entitled in this veteran’s application, recognizing that an award of a disability pension to this veteran would mean financial ruin and subsequent political suicide for the government ‘in charge’ at the time of such a decision, given the tens of thousands of other veterans, their spouses and family members who remained deprived of such benefits.

    The Hon. Mr. Justice Phelan (Fed. Ct. case #T-617-09) decided: “THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is granted and the Appeal Board’s decision is quashed.”  Unfortunately, such a ruling did nothing more than refer the same matter back to the Respondent (e.g., Veterans’ Affairs), thus prolonging the history of this veteran’s claims and thereby moving them from the ridiculous to the sublime, as far as the actual service of justice to this veteran is concerned.

    While Canadian governments over the past 80+ years have continued to disregard their legislated obligations to veterans of the CF and Mounted Police, how do you think these same governments are treating(?) the remainder of Canadian citizens?

    On top of all of this, this veteran has had to represent himself in the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. on no less than 6 separate occasions with all of these occassions applying to his claims with the VRAB [refer to case numbers: T-157-98, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 1999 CanLII 7476 (F.C.) or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1999/1999canlii7476/1999canlii7476.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCT 793 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2001/2001fct793/2001fct793.html; T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 12 (CanLII) or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fct12/2003fct12.html; T-67-03, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 996 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc996/2004fc996.html; T-401-05, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 1470 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc1470/2005fc1470.html; and T-617-09, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 309 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc309/2011fc309.html].
 
In all of these decisions except one (i.e., Fed. Ct. case #T-67-03), the Hon. Justices supported this applicant’s claims and rejected the VRAB’s decisions.  As the greater burden of factual evidence from both graduates and post-graduates of the fields of medicine applicable to this veteran’s spinal cord injuries, supported his claims, along with the greater majority of the above-listed decisions, who but a politician who allegedly represents his electorate but didn’t see ‘adequate electoral returns’ in seriously supporting this applicant’s claims, would ignore these facts and not attempt to ensure this veteran receive something resembling the actual service of justice …. not to mention the adherence to legislated laws by a Fed. gov’t dept. (i.e., VRAB)?

    The Bureau of Pensioners’ Advocates presented this veteran’s case to the VRAB on July 6, 2011 and the VRAB provided a decision applicable to this same latest presentation of this applicant’s case dated July 5, 2011.  Such pre-emptive decisions and complete lack of fair and due process, has been the ‘ear mark’ of the VRAB’s alleged handling of this veteran’s claims over the past 17 years.

    History has been written, how more often do we have to ignore these blatant travesties in the service of justice before learning lessons which apply to all Canadian citizens?

    Yours truly,

Brian C. Bradley, Calgary, AB, Phone: (403) 455 – 9353

    Table A: Applicant’s Claims History with VRAB

    Date Description
    13-Jul-90     Applicant was an active member in the Canadian Forces when the accident occurred onboard the HMCS Qu’Appelle
    22-Mar-96    Applicant submitted Application for Disability Pensions including Declarations
    1-Jan-99     Justice Blais: Reasons for Order (refer to Docket T-157-98)
    18-Aug-99    Dr. Coady/VRAB letter dated August 18, 1999
    13-Jul-01        Justice MacKay: ‘Reasons for Order’ (refer to Docket T-2137-99)
    22-Mar-02     Dr. Killeen/VRAB letter dated March 22, 2000
    6-Jan-02        Bradley / Federal Court of Canada Correspondence
    9-Jan-03        Order from the Hon. Mr. Justice Martineau 
    28-Jul-04         Applicant submitted Application for Disability Pension including Declaration; Note: BOARD’s and the Minister’s latest decisions of this date and March 13, 2006, as well as their previously noted decisions on this matter, ignore the medical evidence before them as it has erroneously done in other cases (e.g., Rivard v. Canada, 2001; Schott  v. Canada, 2001; and Smith v. Canada, 2001)
    Jan. 06/06     MRI Spinal Cord Report
    04 Feb. 06         Bradley/Federal Court of Canada letter
    20 Feb. 06         Bradley/Federal Court of Canada letter
    22 Feb. 06         Bradley/Federal Court of Canada letter
    01 Mar. 06         Bradley/Federal Court of Canada letter
    03 Mar. 06         Bradley/Federal Court of Canada letter
    13 Mar. 06         BOARD finally decided to comply with the Hon. Mr. Justice O’Keefe’s Order of October 28, 2005
    13 Mar. 06         Bradley/Federal Court of Canada / Appeals Division letter dated March 13, 2006
    13 Mar. 06         Minister of Veterans Affairs decision
    24-Jan-07         Prothonotary’s Order (Roger R. Lafrenière)
    14-Jun-07         VRAB/Bradley letter excusing their next delay
    29-Jun-07         Judge’s Direction (Michel MJ Shore)
    5-Aug-08         VRAB denies applicant’s disability pension
    15-Mar-11         Order from the Hon. Mr. Justice Phelan
    5-Jul-11         VRAB denies applicant’s disability pension
    6-Jul-11         Bureau of Pensioners’ Advocates presents applicant’s case to the VRAB

    Note: VRAB’s blatant lack of both any and even all ideas of fair and due process, are exemplfied by their last decision (i.e., 5-Jul-11) dated a day before the Bureau of Pensioners’ Advocates were given the opportunity to present this veteran’s case to the VRAB (i.e., 6-Jul-11).  Thus exemplifiying both the VRAB’s intent and spirit when deciding upon this applicant’s claims.

What do YOU think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s