>
>
> For most cancers available treatments do little besides buy time in most
> cases.  So should we stop all use of such anticancer treatments?
>

I don't think it's appropriate to make connections between treatments of an
agricultural creature and the human race, or even a family pet. I had a
beloved family retriever that got cancer, and I elected to undergo surgery
in an attempt to remove it (it was ultimately unsuccessful). The cost of
the surgery was greater than the "value" of the dog, but prolonging the
life of the dog gave me personal joy, which was worth the cost of the
treatment, even if the animal wasn't going to survive much longer than 5
years after that anyway.

So you have to take emotional, and "humanitarian" aspects out of this. It's
a view of a colony that will produce a return.


> Resistance is a matter of time.
>

For Amitraz, yes. For OA and Formic, there has been no show of resistance.
So why choose to use a product that you KNOW will fail eventually, as
opposed to a treatment that it's POSSIBLE it could continue to work
indefinitely? Which one is more likely to leave residues in the wax, making
the next treatment round more difficult when a new product arrives that
could have a compounding effect with the residues left by the last
treatment type?

It seems very short sighted, in that you are creating a larger problem
tomorrow for an easy return today. If that's the only option, that makes
sense. But if there are other choices (and they appear to exist) why not
use them exclusively?

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html