After just a year of exposure to the RHDV release program I am finding it hard to take the documents provided
by the Applicant Group seriously. The Application Document and other documents are so full of half- truths,
oversights, convoluted logic, inconsistencies, ignored literature, etc. that trying to comment on all the inadequacies
is beyond anyone’s life desire. Just some examples:
a) I have been called "virophobic" [I have a Ph.D. in virology and work with viruses every day.],"ignorant of
scientific method" [I have been funded by our National Institutes of Health continuously since my first year as a
faculty member and have about 68 publications.], "out for the money" [Show me where there’s money in this
process and I’ll go for it.], and "an expert on human caliciviruses, not rabbit calicivirus" [As if my experience with
human caliciviruses is irrelevant]. After all, CSIRO’s total time of exposure to the rabbit calicivirus is half mine to
other caliciviruses. [ I am a co-owner of patent rights describing the original methods for detecting caliciviruses as
used by CSIRO.] These demeaning or marginalizing comments come from CSIRO SCIENTISTS. If I am so
discredited, why cite my work in the Application Document?
Read the entire submission by Dr David O. Matson Ph.D and virologist against the use of RHD/RCD as a biocontrol
Other opinions/letters of international scientists opposing the deliberate spread of RHD/RCD