Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Totnes, Devon, England
    Posts
    1,019

    Default Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    It turns out that the latest 'we know what caused CCD' research was bought and paid for by the people who don't want you to think their products might be to blame.

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news...tune/index.htm
    The Barefoot Beekeeper http://www.biobees.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Millbury, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,808

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    I posted this on Bee-L and Jerry posted a concise and thorough reply. I suggest going there to read it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Garland, Bladen County, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,956

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry View Post
    Cam -

    Post a direct link to the post.
    I wonder if this will do.

    http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/w...&F=&S=&P=75585

    Herb

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dexter, Maine
    Posts
    1,037

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    Clear as MUD!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Totnes, Devon, England
    Posts
    1,019

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    Yep, impenetrable.
    The Barefoot Beekeeper http://www.biobees.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Lincolnton, NC
    Posts
    1,106

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    All the postings on Bee-L defend Jerry Bromenshenk against accusations of bias.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Millbury, MA, USA
    Posts
    1,808

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    I have read Jerry's posting for a couple of years on Bee-L. He comes across as pretty straightforward. He has a lot of knowledge about bees and their diseases. I know he was in the Almonds this spring testing hives... gave his cell phone # to several beeks so they could contact him if their bees were sick. He is well respected by many commercial beeks.

    I am satisfied by his explanations so far. He has continued to say his study was only the start... and there is a long way to go. But this does give us some ideas how to combat CCD. It also may explain why there is no CCD in Canada and it is rare among stationary beeks.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    PLOSone has certain requirements for authors publishing papers.

    Jerry, et. al., didn't identify the Bayer funding as a competing interest, and he also didn't make the data available.

    When a journalist breaks the news that you weren't forthright about your competing interests, that is bad news.

    When a honeybee research scientist, like Jay Evans, is told to call back in 2 months by the army to see if the data is approved for release, that's even worse news for the publication of Jerry's paper.

    You have to declare ALL competing interests, and you have to make data AVAILABLE to publish a paper on PLOSone.

    If PLOSone does pull Jerry's paper, and that seems likely, then both Jerry and the other authors can kiss their scientific credebility goodbye. Let's face it, PLOSone is a last resort for publishing scientific papers. If you can no longer publish there because someone broke the agreement with PLOSone, then there's no place left to publish a scientific paper.

    I've heard some good things about Jerry. If he really is a 'good guy', he should retract the paper himself until the above issues are resolved. There's no reason to drag down a dozen other investigators because of the above issues.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Glencoe, Okla USA
    Posts
    300

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    Imidacloprid effects on bee population
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Jump to: navigation, search

    This article needs additional citations for verification.
    Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)


    Imidacloprid is a systemic insecticide produced by the chemical firm Bayer AG. In France it was sold under the name Gaucho and its use is highly controversial as it is believed to be responsible for high losses in bees. According to the National Union of French Beekeepers (UNAF), the number of hives in France has plummeted to one million in 2003, from 1.45 million in 1996. Between 1995 and 2001, the average production of honey went from 75 kg/hive down to 30 kg/hive. The AFFSA (equivalent of the US FDA) indicate the national production went down from 40,000 tons to 25,000 tons per year.

    French beekeepers claim that Imidacloprid, as a seed treatment for sunflowers, has killed many bees and caused a significant drop in honey production. Some requested that systemic insecticide use be withdrawn from crops where bees might be affected, while others called for a complete ban on its

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Washington County, Maine
    Posts
    2,761

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    A similar message discrediting the Bromenshank study was posted by an officer of my state association on Facebook in which he wrote "Wow... and the truth comes out"

    My biggest gripe is the polarizing responses to the study. Titles, like the one of this thread hurt beekeepers more than help.

    We just look like fools when we repeat this garbage.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    I believe that they found IIV/IIV6 in US honeybees.

    However, it's what PLOSone and Jerry, et al., do about the above issues that matters.

    It goes to show why doing 'science by newspaper' is often a bad idea.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Worcester County, Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,572

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    It goes to show why doing 'science by newspaper' is often a bad idea.
    I'm not sure I understand what is meant by the above? Surely the work should be judged on the plos one paper, and not the NYT piece.

    WLC, as far as my reading goes, we have some accusations about Jerry and some refutations by him. I've not seen any evidence to support either side in the matter....just claims by two sides of an issue. Is there something that has convinced to believe one side over the other?

    deknow

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Garland, Bladen County, NC, USA
    Posts
    2,956

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    Quote Originally Posted by deknow View Post
    I've not seen any evidence to support either side in the matter....just claims by two sides of an issue. Is there something that has convinced to believe one side over the other?

    deknow
    I agree. Jerry states that he did not receive any funding from Bayer.... is there evidence to the contrary? I also understand that PLOSone published the article without supporting data? Am I correct about that?

    BEE-L is certainly full of "Jerry" supporters, most of the negativism seems to be coming from BEESOURCE - just trying to understand what to believe.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    deknow:

    Why is 'science by newspaper' often a bad idea?

    Do you remember cold fusion? Pons/Fleischman?

    That was another NYT exclusive.

    The NYT piece put a spotlight on Jerry's publication, and as a result, some journalist pointed out the Bayer funding issue. That created one controversy, disclosure.

    On PLOSone, Jay Evans pointed out that the army had told him to 'call back in two months' to see if the data release was approved.

    You do know who he is, right?

    What is funny here, is that a paper Evans co-authored was cited in the Introduction.

    But guess what? It appears that someone didn't read the paper! The moral of the story is, don't cite a reference in a published paper and appear as if you didn't read the whole enchilada, including the annotated image of the microarray in the supplement.

    The many flaws in the paper are one issue.

    The articles concerning Bayer funding are serious allegations. That's for PLOSone and Jerry, et al., to figure out. However, you can bet that some journalist is about to give Jerry a 'proctological demonstration'.

    After reading through it, and seeing the flaws, I got the feeling that the research findings alone didn't warrant a paper (only a short communication), but that the data was manipulated in such a way to make it appear that there was something worth publishing.

    So if you take the above into account, I would say that there is cause for review based on the paper itself and the army withholding the data.

    My opinion about Jerry hasn't changed since the publication of his research.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, OH, USA
    Posts
    475

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    If PLOSone does pull Jerry's paper, and that seems likely...
    Source?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    "Source?"

    That would be the PLoSone agreement.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, OH, USA
    Posts
    475

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    I see. I was just curious as to whether anyone from PloSone had actually said anything about the issue.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New York City, NY
    Posts
    4,317

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    I doubt that PLoSone would make an internal review public.

    I also doubt that the U.S. Army would announce the same.

    Maybe Jerry will keep us updated?

    Unfortunately for those involved, the Katherine Eban piece has gone viral on the WWW.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, OH, USA
    Posts
    475

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    Quote Originally Posted by WLC View Post
    I doubt that PLoSone would make an internal review public.
    They would make the result of an internal review public, however, yes?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lindsay Ontario
    Posts
    47

    Default Re: Bayer buys scientists: no change there, then

    >It also may explain why there is no CCD in Canada
    ??? I am in Ontario
    My poor bees seem to have ccd since mid '06
    It is quite a "Pain"
    While I dislike chemical companies quite a bit, in
    this case (ccd) I don't think they are at fault
    I wonder how many of the posters have bees
    that HAVE ccd
    And BTW there are 3 things that you can do
    if your bees have ccd
    1st VD as low as possable (always)
    2nd Nosema test and control
    3rd VC (vitamin C) (Treatment NOT cure-- forever)
    All of above required

    dave

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads