# Super-infection exclusion, redux



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Very interesting. Thanks for participating in the test and then sharing the results.
gww


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

It is important to note that another research group found that the supposed "white knight" Type B is actually more virulent and lethal than the original variant "Type A". In the triumphalist postings about "Superinfection exclusion" and how TF will accelerate Darwinian evolution you never find any reference to the later study that threw a huge barrel of cold water on the research that contradicts the original "story line". It is this selective filtering of evidence that I find endemic in the TF partisans world.

Until you read the contradictory finding, a free download, avoid getting on your high horse about magical TF miracles. 
Cite: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/283/1833/20160811


----------



## gww (Feb 14, 2015)

Jw
I could never get too high on a high horse cause if I remember correctly in the first study in England, They were artificially inseminating their bees. I myself am more a reader of what others do and a hick. My bees will be mutts until they die. 
Cheers
gww


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

All in all to understand correctly:

-Mordecai et. al. say TypeB virus is protecting bees because they find it happening in England in a treatment free apiary

-Randy Olliver is testing this hypothesis with Stephen Martin in US (publishing something later?)

- McMahon finds that TypeB virus more virulent (harmfull) because they find it happening in varroa free island Colonsay in Scotland

Where is the beef? Isn't it quite common in science to get contradicting results?


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Juhani, McMahon sampled all over England. Given the the frequency of exclusive Type B infection, Varroa should be a fading non-issue in Merry Old Englande. Clearly not the case. The original paper was fundamentally flawed by the "TF" hype. Type B had nothing to do with "survival", in fact we know nothing about the actual health of the Swindon apiary.


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

I remember the TV document of the Swindon bees (what is the name of the beekeeper? cannot remember) . It was kind of funny end to that document when the host said something like this " I´m kind of sad because of him because it seems that all the breeding work has not succeeded, it has been the less virulent viruses which have been the secret"

Maybe he did succeed in breeding.

How is he and his bees? anyone who knows?


----------



## Juhani Lunden (Oct 3, 2013)

JWChesnut said:


> Juhani, McMahon sampled all over England.


My mistake, I only read the first sentence of methods chapter ...


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

> Type B had nothing to do with "survival", in fact we know nothing about the actual health of the Swindon apiary.


 This statement in and of itself is an unproven assumption. I'm not arguing either pro or con of this A vs B vs C. If you insist on facts from others, insist on facts from yourself. Back it up with proven research.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

Ron Hoskins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUFDXl8VGvs

He was kind of surprised he had the b-type virus in his bee yards , but in his case it does not matter much because he selected for grooming.
Bet he would have the same results with type a or his bees selected for themselves, recognizing the more lethal virus in the behavior of the co-workers and expelled them.

This means to fight the cause and not the symptoms like selecting for hygienic bees. I understand that Dar did that to to develop his tf stock, shifting queens if he saw one mite sitting on a bee.


----------



## lharder (Mar 21, 2015)

I look forward to seeing the full study.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

Fusion_power said:


> This statement in and of itself is an unproven assumption. I'm not arguing either pro or con of this A vs B vs C. If you insist on facts from others, insist on facts from yourself. Back it up with proven research.


I'm going to save this quote for later. I think I'll title it....'pot, meet kettle'


----------



## squarepeg (Jul 9, 2010)

JWChesnut said:


> I know Square Peg participated in this effort, will he also share his per apiary result? His relatively resilient TF apiary is on the opposite end of the spectrum than mine which is a "death trap" for colonies.


life is finding me behind updating my thread with this news as well as sharing the news of auburn's professor geoff williams' visit to my apiary last weekend. more to follow this upcoming weekend but here are the dwv results for now:

"Apiary result

Type A = 99.83%, Type B = 0.07%, Type C = 0.10%

Total infection = 1.31 x 10[SUP]11[/SUP]"

(that last number is supposed to be 10 to the eleventh power)

so my viral load is 'high' and predominantly type a.

i had a 13.6% loss rate for the year the samples were taken.

it appears that super-infection exclusion is not at work insofar and jwchesnut's and my bees are concerned.

.


----------



## 1102009 (Jul 31, 2015)

> Type A = 99.83%, Type B = 0.07%, Type C = 0.10%
> 
> Total infection = 1.31 x 1011"


Wow.
It still works so what´s going on?
Some people say it´s just that keeping bees treatment free boosts the immune system so much they can stand a high viral load.

This would confirm my experience with the much higher threshold my bees have compared with local treated colonies until they crash.


----------

