>
> > Neither analysis revealed any evidence to suggest the presence of an
> Iridovirus in healthy or CCD colonies.


Well duh!  If they didn't find it the first time, why would anyone expect
them to find it by looking essentially the same way a second time?

I don't know or really care if the Army found iridovirus or not, but these
critical papers are getting ridiculous.  None of them include a positive
control--that is, a sample known to contain ANY iridovirus of any sort, in
order to validate that their methods would actually pick up an iridovirus in
a sample handled in that manner should it actually be there.

No CCD researcher prior to DeRisi had identified spiroplasms, Lake Sinai
virus, nor the phorid fly, yet DeRisi found them in abundance in his
samples!  So simply not "finding" something obviously doesn't necessarily
mean that it's not there.

This sort of "scientific" sniping is disingenuous and uncalled for.  It is
not difficult to practice looking for iridoviruses in known infected samples
with one's equipment.  Until other researchers perfect that technique, IMHO
they should not waste ink in publishing critical (and often erroneous)
analyses of the Army's findings.

I blind copied this post to most of the researchers involved in criticism of
the Army findings.  I welcome them to respond either directly to the List,
or off list to me personally.

Randy Oliver

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm