> On one hand, a great deal of rigor is demanded from Dean when he
> puts forward his views on "gut microbes". I think we should be more
> even-handed, and demand equal rigor from both sides of any
> contrasting views.

I agree.  Dean can't get no respect here sometimes it seems.

IMO, he deserves a lot of respect for digging up contrarian and minority
viewpoints and for presenting them in front of this group of skeptics.

I think that the problem in this particular case is that the common view
is/has been that medicating bees with antibiotics has no apparent
negative consequences and some very positive outcomes in cases where the
use is indicated.

On the other hand, we all are told and suspect that using antibiotics
_should_ have some negative effects beyond than the usual vague and
speculative complaints about abuse of antibiotics -- as if a few
beekeepers using commonly available drugs will change the world when the
same drugs are available widely and used with without control in many
parts of the world that are a mere intercontinental plane ride away.

If we could see an adverse effect on our bees, now that would be
interesting and motivating, so we are watching, but wary.

There has been a lot of speculation about gut bacteria, and we know that
they are crucial to ruminants in particular, and important to other
animals, including humans, but so far the proof and understanding in
regard to bees has seemed pretty thin.  As a result, bystanders hoping
for something definitive have grown jaded and skeptical.  I recall
making a point of sitting in on one of Dianna's talks at the ABF in
Galveston on the topic, thinking that at last someone would say
something definite.  I was disappointed.

So, speaking only for myself, I take a glance at anything Dean puts in
front of us and appreciate his efforts even when I don't find his
arguments convincing.  His own apparent success as a beekeeper and 
writer is instructive.
---

I held back this message for sometime, feeling that I had not quite 
finished it.  Pete's comments, followed by Christina's changed the 
context somewhat, so I'll finish it and post it.
---

P: > But the extent to which people have assigned it a role in disease 
ranging from obesity to autism is ridiculous.

C: > I would say, Pete, that many disagree with your claim that this 
issue is ridiculous.

Add me to the list.  I suspect there has to be something there and 
ridiculous is a pretty strong word.  Christina's references, I think, 
proves the plausibility of this whole line of study.

I have been watching this topic in regard to human health and I think 
there is definitely something there in regard humans.

As for the bees, well, if they are tending to autism and if unbalanced 
gut microorganisms might displace cell phones are the leading cause of 
CCD, I think we are using the wrong antibiotics.  Vancomycin may be a 
better choice.

At any rate, my feeling is that we benefit from having a wide variety of 
writers here and that discouraging any but the most disruptive 
contributions would be a mistake.

I appreciate Dean's contributions, and even if I give him a hard time 
about his assumptions and hyperbole, I hope it is apparent that I like 
him, respect him, and learn from him.

That applies to all who post here, too.

             ***********************************************
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