Here is WDFWs rebuttal on WFC publication. Its long. I wanted everyone to see what the follow up was from WDFW

WDFW review of Wild Fish Conservancy’s Feb. 15 news release on presence of virus in escaped Atlantic salmon
February 16, 2018
Summary of key points
The following points are fully elaborated in the material below, prepared by Dr. Kenneth Warheit, fish health and genetic specialist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
• The Wild Fish Conservancy’s news release confuses the virus (PRV) with the disease (HSMI), misuses the scientific literature to exaggerate risks to native salmon, and fails to find a single study to support the claim that PRV from open-water pens will harm wild fish.
• The Conservancy asserts – without evidence – that HSMI will harm wild salmon. However, HSMI has never been detected in our native salmon or any other fish except farmed Atlantic salmon.
• PRV occurs naturally and was first confirmed in the Salish Sea from fish samples taken in 1987. The Conservancy provides no data or scientific research to support its claim that the PRV found in escaped fish originated in Norway.
• WDFW methodically and objectively investigates PRV and other fish health issues. We are increasing surveillance for the virus in both Atlantic salmon and in our hatcheries. At present, PRV is not recognized as a pathogen of concern by the World Organization for Animal Health.
Review of Wild Fish Conservancy news release
The press release is dated February 15, 2015. The following are general comments about the document (bullets), followed by specific responses to statements made in the press release. The numbered comments below correspond to annotations made in a copy of the press release included with this document.
• Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) appears to be confused by the difference between the virus PRV (Piscine Orthoreovirus) and the associated disease HSMI. WFC exaggerates the risk associated with the presence of PRV, based on current scientific knowledge; and WFC fails to recognize that the presence of PRV does not equal the presence of disease, that most fish with PRV do not exhibit clinical or microscopic signs of disease, and that both farmed Atlantic salmon and free-swimming native Pacific salmon have PRV but only farmed Atlantic salmon get clinical signs of HSMI.
• WFC repeatedly makes statements that appear to be based on science by citing published scientific papers in defense of their statements; but in many, perhaps most cases the published papers do not support their statements. These published papers either do not address their statements, or provide information that is counter to their statements. Where the published papers are consistent with WFC’s statements, the statements generally overstate the conclusions in the published papers.
• Without evidence, WFC states that PRV itself originated in Norway, and they imply, also without evidence, that the strain of PRV detected in the 19 fish they tested was brought to Washington from Norway.
• WFC misuses the scientific literature to exaggerate the risk that the August 2017 Cypress #2 accident will harm native salmon with a disease (HSMI) that has never been detected in our native Pacific salmon or any fish other than farmed Atlantic salmon.
1. WDFW never claimed that PRV was not present in escaped Atlantic salmon. In fact, in the State’s report investigating the Cypress #2 accident, WDFW was the first to report the presence of PRV in the escaped Atlantic salmon. Ms. Amy Windrope’s quote that appeared in WFC’s press release was accurate and subsequent statements at the press briefing specifically dealt with the presence of PRV and stated that WDFW found PRV in the escaped Atlantic salmon. None of the escaped Atlantic salmon with PRV examined by WDFW had HSMI.
2. PRV is a virus that is present in both captive Atlantic salmon and free-swimming native Pacific salmon. In most cases, fish with PRV are healthy, and show no signs of disease. The syndrome HSMI has been associated with PRV in Atlantic salmon aquaculture only. HSMI affects only a small subset of captive Atlantic salmon with PRV and in most cases HSMI is not fatal. See attached White Paper.
3. WFC claims that PRV is “highly contagious and debilitating,” and cites the scientific publication Wessel et al. as the source for their statement. But, the results from Wessel et al. do not support WFC’s claim; however, Wessel et al. do state “PRV is ubiquitous in farmed Atlantic salmon and thus present also in apparently healthy individuals.” The published paper indicates that in the laboratory, PRV produced microscopic signs that are consistent with HSMI, but in this study none of the fish developed a debilitating disease, and none of the fish died as a result of infection.
4. Neither the Wessel et al. nor the DiCicco et al. papers state that there are “significant mortalities from HSMI,” as WFC claims. Wessel et al. state that “[h]istopathological lesions in the heart can be found in most fish in an affected sea cage while the cumulative mortality [in Norway] ranges from insignificant to 20%.” DiCicco et al. state “[t]he disease [HSMI] has been reported also in Scotland . . . and Chile.” The data presented by DiCicco et al. for the BC farm indicates that about 0.2% of the affected fish died from HSMI.
5. WFC states that the “spread of PRV from farmed Atlantic to wild salmon has been well documented,” and cites Garver et al. as that documentation. Garver et al. describes a laboratory study where through injections and forced cohabitation the investigators demonstrate that PRV can be highly infectious. Therefore, this research does not state that PRV spreads from farmed Atlantic to wild salmon. However, it is likely that wild salmon can be infected with PRV from farmed salmon, and likewise, farmed salmon can be infected by wild salmon. Furthermore, in addition to WFC’s misuse of the Garver et al. research, they omitted another finding of Garver et al.: even with the high infectivity of PRV, none of the test fish showed any clinical or microscopic signs of disease.
6. This paragraph is entirely speculative and not based on any “peer-reviewed science,” as claimed by WFC. WFC states that “the virus may reduce the amount of oxygen cells can transport to the fish’s muscles,” and cites another paper published by Wessel et al. However, the cited paper does not support WFC’s statement: “[a]lthough the present study suggests salmon RBC [red blood cells] can tolerate high amounts of PRV, it is not known how it affects other important erythrocyte functions, such as oxygen transport.”
7. The quote attributed to Amy Windrope was based on clinical examination, by a licensed veterinarian, of escaped Atlantic salmon re-captured soon after the spill. The veterinarian determined that these fish were indeed healthy, that is, free from disease. These fish were tested for regulated pathogens, not for PRV, which is not a regulated pathogen nor is it recognized by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) as a pathogen of concern. The quote attributed to Amy Windrope is accurate. WFC continues to inaccurately state the difference between a virus (PRV) and a disease (HSMI).
8. WFC is disingenuous when they label PRV as a “Norwegian virus” and WFC is implying that the PRV detected in the 19 fish they tested was brought here from Norway. PRV has been present in Salish Sea waters since at least 1987. There is a scientific debate in the peer-reviewed literature as to the origin of the PRV (eastern Pacific v Atlantic). This debate centers on viral genetics since there is little direct epidemiological evidence as to the origin of PRV. An objective evaluation, based on current information and analyses, would indicate that the origin of PRV is not known. Nevertheless and more importantly, it is unknown as to where the escaped Atlantic salmon contracted PRV. It is conceivable that the fish contracted the virus in Cooke Aquaculture’s Rochester hatchery, which if true would suggest that all the Atlantic salmon in the net pens have PRV. This would be consistent with what is known about the prevalence of PRV in Atlantic salmon net pens in British Columbia, and not a surprising result here in Washington. Alternatively, it is also conceivable that the fish entered the net pens free of PRV and contracted the virus from wild fish—a scenario that is also common in British Columbia.
9. WFC provided no data or citations that support their claim that the PRV present in the escaped fish are of Norwegian origin. See comment #8 above. In addition, although PRV genetic sequences from eastern Pacific closely resemble that from Norway, there are differences between these sets of sequences, and it would have been more informative if WFC provided information about the sequences, rather than speculating about the origin of the PRV found in the escaped Atlantic salmon.
10. Despite WFC’s claim that there is a “multitude of scientific studies,” they failed to cite a single scientific study “that demonstrate[s] PRV from open-water pens will likely spread to and harm wild fish.” WFC also failed to state that PRV is present in native Pacific salmonids from Alaska to at least Washington, and in all cases these native fish showed no clinical or microscopic signs of HSMI or any other disease related to being infected with PRV. WDFW is methodical and objective in our evaluation of PRV, and we plan to increase surveillance for the virus in both Atlantic salmon and within our hatcheries. WDFW has been truthful with WFC and with anyone who asks us about PRV. The Pacific Northwest Fish Health Protection Committee made up of virologists, pathologists, geneticists, and veterinarians have produced a White Paper on PRV and HSMI. WDFW’s current management associated with PRV is consistent with that White Paper.