SARF098 Emails Received from SAMS

8th June 2016
Dear Richard
In my previous email Kenny and I expressed concerns regards four aspects of the Wrapper
document. Anton and I had an extended discussion about the Wrapper last week and, I understand, he
has sent you the final copy.
Following our discussion, Anton agreed to make some factual-type changes (particularly in relation to
Section 5.8) and address some of the concerns we had regards the general tone. It should be noted,
however, that we still have differences of opinion in relation, for example, to fundamental concepts
regard the relationship between ‘noise’ and ‘statistical inference’ which probably reflect our different
scientific backgrounds. We also remain concerned that non-acknowledgment of MERCK in the review
process might reflect negatively on the Wrapper if/when this information becomes public. We also
believe that the ‘pathway to impact’ of EMB is well proven and that our findings (SARF098 final report)
should be assessed within this context in the Wrapper. In relation to the above comments, we believe
that an introductory paragraph (in the Wrapper) outlining its purpose would help readers put the two
documents into better perspective.
These comments are written from our perspective, we fully acknowledge the sensitivity of the subject
and the challenges that may occur following publication of the SARF098 report. With this in mind, are
SARF proposing a joint-press release or collaborative engagement with the media in any way? We
would be happy to engage in this process.
Best regards
Tom and Kenny.

30th May 2016
Dear Richard
Kenny and I have read Anton’s ‘SARF098 Wrapper’ with considerable interest. Anton has indicated that
the contents and style of the Wrapper cannot be changed at this stage. Kenny and I have some
concerns about the Wrapper which we would like the SARF Board to consider when discussing this
matter.
These concerns relate to:
1. Transparency - if the SARF098 report attracts media attention, then it seems likely that
questions will be asked about the independence (as stated in the document-pre-amble below)
of the review process. We feel this should be pre-empted (i.e. acknowledging MERCK in the
review process).
2. Lack of an opportunity to comment - Section 5.8 of the Wrapper includes considerable detail
about grab sampling deficiencies (lines 304 –). These may be from Mike Kendall, but Kenny and

 I have not been given the opportunity to comment on these and so they stand as ‘facts’, and
appear to seriously undermine the whole premise of the research. In actual fact, these
comments do not indicate a previously unrecognised issue with the analysis so do not add to
this discussion.
3. Linking correlation with causation – this issue is raised, both in our Report and by the reviewers
and is core to the interpretation of the report. Contrary to the MERCK Reviewers’ comments,
there is both a known pathway of EMB entering the environment and concentrating on the
seabed and a documented case where EMB has been found at very high concentrations, at
considerable distances from the source-farm, 18 months after treatment (Loch Shuna study,
available, from SEPA, under FOI). Given the above, and the fact that we found strong evidence
of a correlation between EMB use and crustacean decline, we re-iterate that a very plausible
explanation for the association is the use of EMB. This is not an unreasonable suggestion, as is
indicated in the Wrapper 7. Conclusions (penultimate paragraph, lines 637 – 639, which appears
to undermine the SARF098 report). Given the above, our concern is that the Wrapper might not
be perceived as an impartial overview of the research/review process (this links to Point 1,
above, and point 4 below).
4. General tone – the Wrapper’s general tone is to question the SARF098 conclusions. We are not
sure if this tone is based on a review of the review process or the additional reviews or Anton’s
interpretation of the reviews or the SARF098 report. We feel the Wrapper’s message is
confusing and that the purpose and basis of the Wrapper should be made much clearer.
We are extremely grateful to have been given the opportunity to undertake the SARF098 (A, B, C
(ongoing)) research and are very keen to see the report published and disseminated. We wish to
expedite this process in any way we can, please let us know if /how we can help.
Best regards
Tom Wilding and Kenny Black.