I think it’s not unreasonable to infer that.
I would dearly love to not treat, I am making some tentative prods towards that direction. In the meantime beginners MUST understand that those beekeepers that have been treatment free for some time have spent a long time getting there and I suspect losing a lot of bees on the way. A 75% loss if you have one colony and probable two is going to be 100% in reality. Then you have to start again.
Take a look at this comment from Beesource on Thomas Seeley’s newest work
Seeley does good work. His paper on Cell Size is one of the best attempts to quantify whether or not small cells actually are responsible for reduced varroa populations. He concluded no. He looked at the most hypothesized reasons - emergence time, room for the varroa larvae to feed and grow, level of brood food. Nothing checked out and the results from the test hives were pretty much the same.
That suggests to me that something else is at play when the organic small cell beeks become successful at going without treatments. Seeley set out to look for the other mechanisms. His CV says he is currently pursuing 3 hypotheses - Varroa in the wild evolved, Feral colonies evolved or the Wild Cavity had something to do with it. I assume this study is about the cavity conditions.
Interestingly, many organic beeks are strong believers in walk away splits which leaves one colony broodless. We know a break in the brood cycle interrupts varroa life cycle.
Spivak showed that hygienic behavior does exist and can be selected. Hygienic bees tear out infested brood thus destroying the varroa larvae. It is possible that organic beeks are inadvertently selecting for hygienic behaviour.
Some organic beeks have reported faster emergence time which can reduce the number of varroa larvae that successfully emerge (they have to finish pupating before the bee emerges or they die). These beeks attribute this to small cell but it is possible that once again they are inadvertently selecting for shorter emergence time by going treatment free and using survivor stock. If either of these conditions are true it would be a case of mistaking correlation for causation.