Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:49:11 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi All,
Re: the Cox-Foster paper.
Jim eloquently points out several of the problems with this paper, and I'm
in agreement with him.
Despite the disengenuous caveat that "We have not proven a causal
relationship between any infectious agent and CCD," the authors should have
forseen the brouhaha that it would cause in the industry. Far better that
it had been circulated as a preliminary report within the Working Group.
Unfortunately, it was released (prematurely, IMHO), raising a great number
of questions, and now beekeepers want answers.
Any answers will require far more data collection to confirm or deny the
implications of the paper. The type of data needed can be obtained slowly
by PCR amplification used by the authors, or far more quickly with the IVDS
machine that Dr Bromenshenk and the Army used. The bee industry should be
pounding on Dr Bromenshenk's door right now, with money in hand, asking how
soon he can resume testing.
Randy Oliver
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
|
|