> If there is truth there, then it is not a slander.

I'd say if there is falsehood there, there is slander.

> Point was that use of antibiotics as a preventative can result in 
> resistance and antibiotics should be used only as a treatment.

There is a growing consensus on that side, and it is easy to agree until one 
realises that there is a huge grey area.

In many cases there is demonstrable AFB presence in hives and some larval 
mortality without reaching the point where entire areas of brood are broken 
down to the extent that the bees are unable to control the outbreak.  This 
is not easy to diagnose, especially in a large commercial migratory 
operation.

In such cases, one could wait for the breakdown and hope to spot it in time 
to prevent spreading the disease further, but if that occurs, the background 
spore level increases dramatically.  Moreover, if background, sub clinical 
disease is present and distributed throughout the equipment, ordinary 
manipulations will ensure that this is spread invisibly.

In Alberta, there was a study where spore levels in honey were compared to 
spore counts on bees and to reported actual breakdown in each of a number of 
outfits.  There was a relationship, but it was not direct and there were 
also also anomalies where spores were apparent, but outbreaks were not.

This whole question is not simple and not black and white.

Add to this that we are hopefully on the cusp of new technologies which may 
make the world less dependant on current conventional antibiotics and the 
question of the need to conserve their efficacy in perpetuity (obviously 
impossible) may be drawn into question and the matter of current expediency 
may trump that consideration in specific instances.

I hope some, if not most understand this.  Someday antibiotics may be the 
buggy whips of medicine.

> Also is the first time I have seen the term "slander" used on this list.

I think it has been seen here before.  If not, maybe it should have been. 
After all, it is just a word, and good one, too.

> My point is that it is an argument that is not possible to prove from 
> either side. You were the one who opinioned that the other side was wrong. 
> I gave mine.

Yes.  I appreciate and respect that.  My only problem with that it pretty 
much stock is not very helpful in understanding the many subtleties behind 
the question.

> I have used them and used them properly.

OK, and did you develop resistance?  Did you achieve control?

> First time I have seen "lynching" used on this list. Can Nazi be far 
> behind?

Apparently it wasn't.  Good thing this is not USENET.

> You could convincingly argue that it was not Apistan when used in 
> accordance with directions that caused resistance but its misuse.  Same 
> here. Does not really matter.

Actually, I would never argue that, but many do.  When fluvalinate was 
brought in, those in the know said it's demise was predictable and gave time 
estimates which were born out.

Similarly, my argument is that it was not any specific application method 
which led to resistance, but rather the nature of the problem, the nature of 
the chemical itself, and the lack of legal alternatives.   My point is that 
one of the best application methods was widely misunderstood, misapplied and 
then blamed for the development of resistance.  Resistance was inevitable 
anyhow, and difficulties in achieving efficacy with it were the reason for 
developing extender patties in the first place.

> We used OTC for 40 years or so as a treatment more than a preventative but 
> extender patties were used more as a preventative than a treatment. That 
> seems to be a recipe for the development of resistance. It certainly is 
> with all other uses of antibiotics as a preventative rather than a 
> treatment.

Again a wide, sweeping generalization which is easy to repeat, but hard to 
prove -- or dispute.>

Bath, Maine home of the lynched Nazi slandering salamanders (good name for a 
rock group)

What do salamanders have to do with this?  Are they resistant, too?

Anyhow, I hope these posts cause a bit of ROTFL, and maybe a little Deep 
Thought.

I know Bill doesn't mind a little arm wrestling from time to time.

These questions are very complex.

> Allen, you are arguing that it was not necessarily a cause, and rather 
> well I must say. I admire you as a devil's advocate, but I'll have to 
> disagree this time.

I think Kirk has my number.

Drat!  Busted again. 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm