Hi Bob -

>  I have watched
> several of my fellow beekeepers go bankrupt using treatments on faith only.
> Barry you and I go back quite a ways and you know I am always  willing to
> give a new idea the benefit of the doubt but still I can't *come on board*
> without reasonable proof, tests which others can duplicate and tests with
> proper controls. I find Dr. R's statement that all his untreated controls
> died as very creditable. Two years is about the limit untreated hives with
> varroa have lived in my own experiments.

What do you mean, "on faith only"? One has to assume personal responsibility
in the choices they make. Anyone who blindly goes about making decisions in
a business will fail. If these beekeepers went bankrupt from using
treatments on faith only, are they not the ones to blame? Faith is belief
that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. I practice faith
in my personal life when I'm dealing with God. I certainly wouldn't approach
my treatment methods on faith alone. Never have. Like the often quoted
passage in Tom's signature file, "Test everything. Hold on to the good." (1
Thessalonians 5:21)

Test doesn't mean criticize or attack.

Bob, as long as I've known you, you have always been supportive of
alternative ideas and methods. I can understand a certain amount of caution,
and even skepticism when it comes to new or different ideas (ie FGMO,
natural cell size, vinegar misting, essential oils, etc).

Isn't it interesting though, that these very critics who can point out all
the potential pitfalls of a treatment like FGMO or small cell and make the
point that it is 'poor/bad science' and lacking 'peer review', won't think
twice about putting things like Apistan and coumaphos in their hives (that I
guess is considered 'good science' for it's approved by our government),
even when there are published papers on the known dangerous aftermath of
using these chemicals? Do they really think alternative methods in general
are really worse? They are ready to pounce on the alternative methods that
are being tested and developed by independent beekeepers at their own
personal cost, while their own bees are having to deal with increasing
levels of chemical residues which are creating a host of problems in their
hives. Look at how many beekeepers, following the 'approved' method, are
going under. This is a better scenario? Something seems way out of balance
here. I think people better look at the log in their own hive before
pointing out the stick in someone else's.

> Sadly those Argentine beekeepers are in my and Bill Truesdells opinion
> risking quite a bit by following on faith only.  According to Junes ABJ (pg
> 402)all are not happy with the results they are getting.

All are not happy with the results they are getting with 'approved' methods
either! I'll assume Argentine beekeepers are taking a risk based on all the
study and testing done to date.

> This is great! The more people involved the better the conclusions. There
> were however as many people involved in essential oils which later were
> proved to be wothless in the 90's in the U.S.. I want to see a cheap,non
> chemical cure for varroa as much as the next beekeeper and applaud those
> researchers and beekeepers looking for the answer.

Applaud should be all our responses to people who are trying to give us a
cheap, non chemical cure for varroa. Because it isn't, we end up alienating
those people who end up going else where to do their work. We, on the other
hand, succeed at displaying our masterful ability to pick apart and find the
'flaws.' When the period of 'testing' is finished, that is when it will
either be proven worthless or useful. Until that time, why don't people do
some testing themselves if they are serious about alternatives.

Regards,
Barry