In another thread, recently closed (due to acrimony, I suppose) an interesting contention was made. In short, the complaint was that treatment free beekeepers pose a risk to those who treat, because when the untreated hives collapse, they make it harder for nearby treaters to control mites and other pathogenic organisms.
The reason I don't understand this complaint is that it seems to ignore the evidence from the BeeInformed survey that indicates that treated hives collapse at similar rates to untreated. I could understand the complaint if treatment were able to prevent colony loss, but obviously, it doesn't. Even if you find the BeeInformed survey a dubious resource, just reading the news will provide plenty of examples of commercial beekeepers who treat and still lose large percentages of their colonies.
If collapsing colonies pose a threat to those with healthy hives, then logically, the risk would be far greater for those who don't treat, because they are so greatly outnumbered by those who do, and non-treaters also have to deal with a local genetic overload of less-resistant bees.
I'd like to see this discussed in a civil manner... and hope that is possible.