>> this would require everyone else who 
>> has looked at CCD colonies to have
>> also missed the "twitching".

> Only if they only looked next to the hive.

Sorry, but the press release from PSU said:
"...guard bees were observed removing pralytic 
bees from colonies and flying across the room. 
The majority of these 'twitcher' bees were 
found to have IAPV."  There was no need to 
look anywhere outside the hives at all.

So, let's extract what we can from that
carefully-crafted statement from PSU:

1) Clearly "twitcher" bees were found IN hives.

2) The majority (NOT ALL) of these bees were
   found to be infected with IAPV.

3) The hives were in a greenhouse.

4) Nothing is said about what was found in 
   control colonies, or if there even were 
   any control colonies. 

What can a reasonable person conclude from
the above? 

1) That IAPV is not even the sole cause of 
   the "twitching", as it was only found in
   THE MAJORITY (rather than all) of the 
   "twitcher" bees.

2) That if "twitcher" bees were a symptom
   of CCD, such bees would have been easily
   found IN THE HIVE by now.

3) That the attempt to infect hives with IAPV
   was a clear attempt to satisfy Koch's 
   postulates, and it utterly failed to result 
   in the disease symptoms we would call "CCD".

4) That honey bees in greenhouses are STILL
   a very bad idea.  :)

So, I'll say it again - this data clearly 
tends to show yet again that IAPV does not 
correlate well with CCD, or even with the 
well-known CCD symptoms.

> To date I have only seen IAPV tried in a 
> single kangaroo court with only one 
> prosecutor, and no defense.  I'll wait 
> until it gets a fair scientific trial 
> with actual data involved before I 
> absolve it of all blame.

That's funny, the claim that IAPV is 
"associated with" (and the unstated
claim that IAPV is the proximate cause 
of) CCD was made by a long list of 
people with funding, equipment, sole
access to all the samples collected, 
and months with which to prepare their 
case.  I've been one of the few people
consistently pointing out that the 
rush to judgement has been to "convict"
IAPV rather than "absolve", even though
the actual data does tend to "absolve".

These claims were published in "Science".  
See:
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/dapaper.pdf

Before the ink was even dry on that paper,
analysis of more samples led to the 
Evans/Chen paper in ABJ, which completely
and utterly refuted each and every claim
made about IAPV in the first paper.
See:
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/claims_collapse.pdf
http://www.dadant.com/documents/ChenandEvansarticlefromDec07ABJ.pdf

Now we have yet even more data that, if 
examined closely with a level gaze, tends
to verify yet again that IAPV symptoms 
just don't match CCD symptoms.
See:
http://aginfo.psu.edu/news/2008/5/beeresearch.html


It would seem that the claim has gotten a
very high-profile hearing, and been refuted
by not just Evans and Chen of USDA, but now
also by the PSU team itself, to a limited
extent.

I don't see how this process, where researchers
are refuting and contradicting the claims made 
by members of their own team, and even those
who made the claims are contradicting their own
prior claims could be called a "Kanagroo Court". 

Yes, I understand that that the results are being
framed in a manner that tends to give the impression
that progress is being made, but one must always
read Science with a critcal eye, and audit the
data with a sharp pencil. (The capital "S" in
Science stands for "Skeptic".)

This team has refused to release any sequence data 
and sample metadata from the "Science" paper, and 
now has produced two sets of results that are 
massively inconsistent with the claims made last 
September.

It is time to admit that IAPV has been a minor 
player in the drama, and that other pathogens 
are better suspects when viewed in combination.  
The AIA has already realized this, so I am no
longer "alone" in my view on this.

That's the neat thing about science - it is
neither a democratic process, nor a popularity
contest.  Small amounts of data speak loudly,
and can refute even the grandest claims.
The data here speaks loudly.

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************