You do know that peer reviewers traditionally let authors run wilder in the abstract and conclusion than they do in methods and results, right? That’s why the speedy way to read a paper is to read the methods and results and look at the graphs; that’s where the bull quotient is lowest.
The showstopper remains: dead queens and dead brood is not colony collapse disorder. I don’t know why Lu et alia are throwing the words “colony collapse” around with the gleeful abandon they are; you’d have to ask them.
The Harvard researchers are already well aware of what is and isn’t CCD.
Can’t prove it by that paper. Look at the list of symptoms. Look at what Lu et alia observed. They don’t match. This is not rocket science. You Can Try This At Home.
That’s why Dove is rolling his eyes so hard-- why, indeed, he’s justified in saying "What Lu et al. are doing here is equivalent to looking at a heart attack and calling it cancer. "
