The biologists stated that in the article , but still interesting read anyway
Oh it is, and I don't fault you for posting it. And I'm sure the pathogen exists. It's just that regular journalism has become more like a tabloid journalism anymore. An article will start out with a dire news headline to get your attention, and by the time to you get to the end of the article (or before) they admit it's not that bad. Or they use faulty information.
And as far as biologists... if they aren't fish pathologists I'm not overly impressed when they talk about fish pathogens. These biologists come up with policies sometimes that make no scientific sense, but cost us fish farmers big bucks. I.E. I'm supposed to spend hundreds of dollars testing for a pathogen my fish species aren't susceptible to, it and has never been found on a fish farm, or my state. And for the state agency that also raises fish, and makes these policies, it's not a problem as the tax payer pays for the testing.
O.K. sorry I got on my soap box there.
