BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:05:34 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (86 lines)
> "... without question, IAPV has been in this 
> country since at least 2002."

But CCD?  It did not appear until years later, no 
matter which report one calls the "first sighting".

> "But it also neither rules out nor reinforces the 
> association between IAPV and CCD.."

Sez which data?

The Evans/Chen findings still cannot be explained any 
differently than how I explained them back when the 
Evans/Chen paper was buried in ABJ (rather than doing 
the honorable thing, and putting a letter in "Science"
to retract/correct the "Science" paper of Sept 2007).  

The Evans/Chen data does not merely refute the Sept 07 
"Science" paper, it utterly devastates any proximate
causal relationship between IAPV and CCD.  
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/claims_collapse.pdf

We've had since December 07 for someone to concisely
explain the September "Science" claims in light of 
the Evans/Chen paper.  This seems to be the best 
that can be done.  (Misinterpret clear data, refuse 
to acknowledge what even mere beekeepers can see 
clearly, and continue to exclaim how the emperor 
is so well-dressed.)

Its gotten so bad, at this point we need to change 
the name of the virus. Rather than Israeli Acute 
Paralysis Virus, "IAPV", we can call it:

"Ian Lipkin's Pet Virus", "ILPV"

And where did Ian go, anyway?
He certainly found the exit quickly once the 
Evans/Chen data hit the fan.

So, there's still no correlation between ILPV
and CCD. So what HAVE we got?

> "Four broad classes of potential causes are being 
> studied... pathogens; parasites; environmental 
> stresses, which include pesticides; and management 
> stresses, including nutrition problems..."

If it walks between hives like a pathogen, and
quacks like a pathogen, and we've even found 
multiple "new" pathogens in the hives that tightly
correlate to incidence of desease, then why isn't 
there an admission that the problem is a mix of 
exotic invasive pathogens?

Why are they still lingering at square one?
Its been YEARS.

> "So far, we've found higher-than expected levels 
> of miticides that beekeepers use in the wax..." 

But we know that even massive miticide overdoses
have been common since the mid-1908s, so we can
safely rule out miticides.

> "...plus traces of a wide variety of agricultural 
> chemicals in the pollen and wax, though there 
> was no consistent pattern in either the levels 
> or the types of chemicals identified..." 

So, we can also rule of the pesticides, as there
is also no correlation between and specific
pesticide or class of pesticides and CCD, just
as there is no correlation between miticides and
CCD, or between ILPV and CCD.  Why is everyone so 
reluctant to simply narrow down the suspect list 
by eliminating suspects that have solid alibis?

We are drowning out here, and they seem to want to 
analyze the water quality.

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2