> Last sentence [in an ABJ article] says: 
>
> "Assessing all of the factors that affect bee health at the 
> correct time, and interpreting the results in relation to 
> provisional thresholds and interactions, takes the mystery 
> out of why honey bees are dying."

No, it does not take ANY mystery out of it.

The acronym "MCVAS" has been around for a while.  It has nothing
to do with the actual work of trying to find clues to what is 
causing CCD, and, like all the other preconceived notions floating
around, it is "an answer looking for a question".

I find the suggestion that MCVAS somehow "solves the mystery"
to be laughable.  What can it tell us, beyond the obvious point 
that honeybees are subjected to multiple "stresses" at the same 

time, and that they can have a cumulative impact?

Everyone and their brother seems to want to tie their wagon to CCD
in hope of getting funding, attention, or both.  This lameOrz is no
better than the wide-eyed purveyors of "Cell Phones" as a cause of CCD.
Nothing of value is added to the "knowns", nor does it provide any
testable statement to confirm or refute.

It is not science at all, it is speculation, voiced in a smug tone.

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************