> My observations suggest that chilling
> events have something to do with the 
> virulence of the combined pathogens.

But weren't many of the "CCD Samples" taken from colonies in Florida?  My
memory is foggy on this.
I suppose that they could have been chilled and infected before moving to
Florida, but one then has a timing problem.

> When Beeologics inoculated healthy 
> colonies with... [a] specific strain of IAPV,
> bees suddenly began dying en masse.

There's always been variation in virulence among strains of any pathogen, so
it becomes important to nail down the specific strains of concern as a
biosecurity issue.  I've yet to hear anyone name a specific "more virulent"
strain of either IAPV or Nosema ceranae.  Are there at least strain numbers
assigned?  

And if Beelogics has anything even close to a viable anti-viral, why would
they focus the technology on bees, when one might focus on more serious and
far more profitable problems than IAPV, such as HIV-AIDS, H1N1, Hepatitis-C,
Hepatitis-B, West Nile, Rotavirus, HPV, Rift valley fever, Measles,
Hantavirus, Rabies, Yellow fever, and Dengue?    I can see bees as a good
testbed for very early stages of a semi-working technology, as IRBs will
prohibit human testing and painstakingly review animal testing, but approve
insect testing with only a cursory review.   But no one has put the tangible
status of the anti-viral technology into perspective for us.

Coming from a corporate background, I'd think the question would be "Bees
won't even be a million-dollar-a-year market, so why not focus on a
billion-dollar-a-year-market, where we might even get a free Nobel in
medicine thrown in?"

             ***********************************************
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