Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

CCD Research

53K views 244 replies 30 participants last post by  Tim Ives 
#1 ·
#4 ·
"One California beekeeper was especially strident, going to great lengths to try to discredit their study."

Now we know who it was. :)

Unfortunately, he tried to do it before the study was published since he got hold of a copy of the paper. That's a big no, no.

My opinion: mediocre paper, good hypothesis.

Since mercury was found in HFCS years back, it makes sense to check it for other contaminants from time to time.
 
#79 ·
Unfortunately, he tried to do it before the study was published since he got hold of a copy of the paper. That's a big no, no.
Errrr, Dr Lu was happy.to give presentations on the results and put out a press release as to the conclusions of the study before it was released.....and at the time the globe did a story based on the press release.

So the author and the institution can publish their results and seek press, yet fatal flaws in procedure and conclusions are off limits?

Its also a no no to present that the bt in bt corn is used, not for the bt toxin, but as a was to inject neonics into the dna of the plant.

Deknow
 
#8 ·
Not accurate:

Both Randy and Jerry were throwing 'tomatoes' at the study before it was published.

They both crossed the line into Scientific Supression, and both now have clear Bayer ties.

They're both 'BeeWashers'.

Nope, they can't get away with it.
 
#50 ·
I hate to go personal, but I just discovered that University from which beekeeper graduated with bachelor degree (UC Irvine) have no entomology Department. I was not able to find if such Department existed at the time of graduation. Nothing personal.
 
#10 ·
camero:

Both Randy and Jerry Hayes are on the circuit.

If you're a US beekeeping club, I suggest that you book them.

Both the "Spread" and club donations are covered.

It's the way the PR machine works.

No, I'm not wrong. Randy tried to suppress the Harvard study, no matter the flaws.

He's a BeeWasher through and through.
 
#12 ·
term made up by wlc, camero7 is correct and far more informed on this study than wlc, seems he wants to be on the pr machine and can't catch a ride. the study was done in his area, the inspector is in his area, if you have any doubts please go to bee-l and do some searches, all the info is there and they even have date time stamps for those that need it.
 
#14 ·
Randy did what most researchers don't... he actually went to the fields... where millions of us are dealing with the "issues" every day and have great bees..... WLC lives in a bubble... of his own makeing...... HUGE respect for Randy and His work... dealing with REALITY,, not some strange fantasy of going back to the dark ages...
 
#15 ·
Nope:

Not a chance. I know the study, I do read the 'Journal of Insectology', both in English and Italian, and quite frankly...

I understnd both the flaws and brilliance, of the paper's hypothesis.

Randy attacted a paper before it's publication.

He committed an 'unforgivable' act as a, so called, scientist.

First, he worked on a field test of a Monsanto transgenic agent. Then, he transgressed against a fellow scientist, then he committed to tests for Bayer. And then, he misrepresented facts in an article concerning neonicics.

As for the PR machine...

They should be more concerned about...
 
#18 ·
First, he worked on a field test of a Monsanto transgenic agent.
I hardly think product testing is a reason to doubt his credentials.

he transgressed against a fellow scientist
If a person calls themselves a scientist, then deviates from established scientific method and publishes those studies as sound science, the scientific community has a right to "transgress" against them.

Who would you prefer that Bayer get to test their products? If I had a pesticide company, I would absolutely be beating down the door of someone like Randy. You want people with experience in bees and scientific methodology...not some fresh biology major who just installed his first package.
 
#19 ·
WLC I have been involved in research for almost 40 years. The Harvard study is so poorly done that it is only a black eye for Harvard. Whether or not you agree with Randy Oliver or Jerry Bromenshenk ,if you accept the data from that Harvard study you really are very poorly educated on the protocols of research. I think you accept it because it tells you what you want to hear.
Dave
 
#60 ·
... I have been involved in research for almost 40 years. The Harvard study is so poorly done that it is only a black eye for Harvard. ...
Dave, could you specify, what is wrong in this study? If you are a scientist, you must know that empty words mean nothing. It would be valuable for all beesource members to see an expert view on this paper.
 
#24 ·
and some people use different tags on different lists. below is just a little of the information from bee-l about the subject after it was published in articles, decide for your self.



http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...-L&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4


>if you would like to see exactly what randy asked the authors after the paper had been published.



Since the authors of the "Harvard" study have declined to answer the
list of questions that I submitted to them, and since the Bulletin of
Insectology does not publish letters to the editor, I've decided to
put a slightly abbreviated, and annotized, list of my questions out
for discussion.

I aplologize that all formatting has been lost. I plan to post a
formatted version to my website.

Randy Oliver

THE QUESTIONS
[I have also added a few comments italicized in brackets]
Readers will likely wish to have a copy of the study at hand. It can
be freely downloaded at
http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol65-2012-099-106lu.pdf


> these discussions were after the below presentation






Parts/Attachments
text/plain (13 lines)




http://worcestercountybeekeepers.co...lication-of-honeybee-colony-collapse-disorder

...this is a March 10 presentation by Dr. Lu, the lead author of the Harvard School of Public Health study to the WCBA.

deknow


>and the first entry that I can find posted by Randy oliver about the subject


http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/...=A&I=-3&J=on&K=2&d=No+Match;Match;Matches&z=4

> much more information just do a search with Harvard as the subject

i find it unfortunate that the press, including both of our national bee
journals, gave publicity to this paper without any sort of critical
analysis. Such messages only confuse the public. Pesticides are a major
issue to the beekeeping community. What we need are well designed and
executed studies, (as well as better enforcement of pesticide law) in order
to solve these problems. Sadly, this study just confuses the issues.
--
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com
 
#27 ·
Personally, being far from "bee politics" and not really knowing anybody here, I find it hard to believe that any beekeeper would be advocating use of any insecticides. There is an obvious conflict of interests there. Insecticide are by definition designed to harm/kill insects - bee keeper again by definition is supposed to care about well being of the insects in his care. But that's just me. One thing is for sure, with the European ban being implemented in two years one of the sides is going to have much less to say on the subject. If the bees in Europe make a significant comeback, the people who beat themselves in the chest in the name of the scientific progress and so eagerly display their scholarly prowess won't be so eager to stand together with big poison manufacturers. If there is no noticeable change, the other side would have to go down the road talking to itself.
 
#28 ·
Personally, being far from "bee politics" and not really knowing anybody here, I find it hard to believe that any beekeeper would be advocating use of any insecticides. There is an obvious conflict of interests there. Insecticide are by definition designed to harm/kill insects - bee keeper again by definition is supposed to care about well being of the insects in his care.
This is what I am referring to. It's a question not of whether pesticides kill insects, because of course they do, but rather a question of which chemical is the least damaging to bees. I kept bees back in the heyday of foliar spraying in the 70's and 80's and experienced massive kills by sprays designed to kill any insect they contact. Yet those like me are being branded as being pro-pesticide for pointing out that it's quite possible that neonics may be safer than some of the alternatives. We can all dream of a beekeeping world where no pesticides exist but the reality is that will never happen. Beekeepers are just one part of a larger and more complex agricultural picture.
 
#32 ·
'BeeWashing' is a term started by an author writing about Monsanto's Honey Bee Advisory Council (or was it a board?).

It describes pretty much what the Council accomplished. "It's them Varroa!" they say, not pesticides.

As for Randy's views on the EU neonic ban, we can pretty much surmise that he's saying that there's no proof that neonics cause bee deaths.

What he's not saying is that there is evidence for translocation of pesticide contaminated talc dust, and that it's an environmental pollutant that can kill bees, among other organisms.

That's BeeWashing.

Regardless, the Harvard study was a big hit, and it's results were reported far and wide, 'Neonics cause CCD!'

I can understand why Randy was upset by the headlines.
 
#37 ·
ArtSmart,
Welcome to the beesource family,

If you see my quest for clarification and understanding as "jump[ing] on [your] case" that wasn't my intention. Not my doing. Thanks for your reply.

Do you see Randy Oliver's search for the facts as advocating the use of pesticides?
Do you grow all of your own food?
If you or anyone else can live eating food that has been grown never having any kind of pesticide, fungicide or whatever applied to it while growing that is only because or your wealth of circumstance. Only a select few in this World will find themselves in that category.
 
#45 · (Edited)
Do you see Randy Oliver's search for the facts as advocating the use of pesticides?
I don't believe I said anything to that effect. Especially considering the fact that I don't know any Randy Olivers. If he wants to search for facts - more power to him.


Do you grow all of your own food?
It is irrelevant to what I said. And I believe I already stated that. Whatever I eat or not eat, however the circumstances are difficult for farmers, whether we all going to die of starvation if farmers stop using pesticides - all that is completely irrelevant to what I said. I said that a person who have financial interest in any matter will be always biased toward protecting that interest. I believe the statement is pretty straightforward and easy to understand even for a child (not calling you a child here though)

Lastly sorry to call you an amigo. No disdain was intended (one of my favorite movies after all) neither I'm familiar with you well enough to come to the conclusion that you are an amigo material.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top