I'm one of those small contributors. And I'm a small sideliner.
Any evidence of wrongdoing yet?
but sergey, randy oliver's papers are not 'research papers'. these are articles for beekeepers. i find them invaluable because he is able to review and critique the research and present it to me in a form that i can digest and use in a practical way. it is clear to me that randy does not have any agenda other than getting to the truth, and that he is not beholding to any of his many contributors. he makes his living as a beekeeper, but he is uniquely educated and qualified to be a reliable source of information for you and i when it comes to making sense out of the science.
As previously stated, it is no secret Bayer paid him for some work, been discussed all over the place. No issues there far as I'm concerned. The original post on this was an attempt to insinuate there is something wrong with his actual studies. Is there? Cos I prefer facts to insinuations when it comes to talking about a named persons integrity.
There's also a few things starting to worry me about the anti neonics people and methods. I used to think they were good honest folks, sincere in their beliefs. But I've been seeing knowingly wrong advise being dispensed and a refusal to explain it, character assassination of anyone not towing the line, and borderline lies. IE, dirty tactics, and I don't like it.
Sad, cos me anyway, I'm still very open to being shown that neonics are a major problem and will not let the behaviour of a few stop me having an open mind. But, I need evidence. As a researcher Cerezha you would be the perfect person to find it. Assuming it exists. Keen to see the flaws in Randy's study.
I already posted my review on Randy's review... it is somewhere buried in the previous posts. It was not welcomed at this forum.
It is all about interpretation and idea that all science evidence needs to be supported by "real" field observations. In another words, for Randy and EPA the observation (not fact) that bees are doing well in "corn belt" is enough to disregard research made by respected scientists and published in peer-reviewed journal... To me, such approach is not acceptable. "Real field" is tricky - it is not controllable and thus, it is practically impossible to do good science in non-controllable conditions. It is possible but a huge statistics is needed. As far as I know, the only one "anti" campaign which uses a "real field" test successfully - it is anti-tobacco campaign, the correlation between smoking and human death. That "field test" was cost of hundreds of thousand lives before acceptance of the simple idea that tobacco is bad. It was known for decades that nicotine is bad, but to prove it in the "real field" - it took decades and hundreds of thousands lives to prove the obvious thing. I remember how people used this argument: "I am smoking for 20 years and I am in perfect health - thus, smoke is harmful!" - "the real field" argument.
The toxicity of neonics will be "re-discovered" after many-many deaths and I wish to see what Randy will write than? Oops, apparently, there was a scientific evidence that neonics are irreversibly bind to the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors, it was known for decades.... but bees were doing well, Ooops
Did I satisfy your curiosity? Take care.
I don't know if the powerful corporation can be turned around. They are certainly not going to give up their power no more than a worthless congressman would. The only thing the little guy has going for him is the "demand" factor in a free economy. Large corporations offer organic foods now when they insisted there was no difference. Seems like there is, even if in their eyes it is only economics.
Jim, what is happening is not sustainable. So when the crash comes be prepared for the bail out on the backs of the middle class ... another depression. Probably it will top the great depression. The difference is the wealthy will not be jumping off the empire state building or any sizable bridge like happened in 39. It will be more like the bank and wall street bail out where the middle class will get screwed. We have a socialistic not a "free" market economy.
"Too big to fail" how dumb can we be?
All empires fall because they can not see the future. The United States of America is surely in a decline. Is it so hard to predict the future?
Re post #189
Well some fair points, I'm going to accept that Cerezha. I did read the previous post you mentioned, but didn't really consider it that valuable because it focussed on critique of basing a paper on research done by others, but Randy is entitled to do that he is collating info into a format to be read by beekeepers, but mainly, he does not just do that, he also does his own work.
Still don't think the study was deliberately skewed or anything, however again, I accept the points you raise, but it's not enough to question the mans integrity.
"but it's not enough to question the mans integrity" - I am not questioning anybody integrity. But, you need to understand that I DO have my own integrity also - my "integrity" "forced" me to be humiliated on this forum by advocating for truth and science... so weird...
Thank you so much everyone, who supported my efforts.
The Locavore and Organic movements have much potential, but I doubt they have the ability to feed the world as we seem required to do. The Locavore and Organic consumers are largely the "High End", the masses are still eating my nephews chickens...
As an independent organic farmer and beekeeper I am very suspicious of industry funded agencies.
- on that note I found this post quite thought provoking: