Guess what. If they are able to fix the bee genocide with some sort of pharmaceutical... that means that it was the virus/bacteria/fungus that caused the problem! This New York Times article isn't bringing the bees back.
I don't think Bayer thought it would be great to make people think this would work, for PR (?) and then to go ahead and NOT be able to fix it. We're not talking about 9/11 or something that you can sort of say "we're stopping another one of those from happening every day."
Instead, we have ONGOING deaths that we don't know the cause of. So if this particular study, and any extrapolated treatment ACTUALLY WORKS. Then yes, it wasn't pesticides. Maybe Bayer is wrong, but the article is pretty clear this is preliminary.
Comments
Guess what. If they are able to fix the bee genocide with some sort of pharmaceutical... that means that it was the virus/bacteria/fungus that caused the problem! This New York Times article isn't bringing the bees back.
I don't think Bayer thought it would be great to make people think this would work, for PR (?) and then to go ahead and NOT be able to fix it. We're not talking about 9/11 or something that you can sort of say "we're stopping another one of those from happening every day."
Instead, we have ONGOING deaths that we don't know the cause of. So if this particular study, and any extrapolated treatment ACTUALLY WORKS. Then yes, it wasn't pesticides. Maybe Bayer is wrong, but the article is pretty clear this is preliminary.