Christine Gray wrote:

>Keith Benson quoted me: " Keith Benson just came back 'I have yet to see
>this a standard medical therapy - in fact, it is just a fringe thing" and
>added himself: " And your point? .......I can tell you that this is, in
>fact, not a  standard medical practice".
>
>Let me explain the point again - for those with ears to hear.
>
I heard you Robin, I simply do not agree.  No need to get snippy.

>Denigration of the research (without any sign u have read it)   as a
>'fringe' practice is simply not relevant.
>
Mmmm, but denigration of an oposing opinion when you haven't a clue as
to what I have or have not read,or my level of expertise in this or
related feilds is relevant?  Do you have any mirrors in your house?

> A fact (if it is a fact ) is a
>fact whether recognised by a small group of reasearchers or by the general
>run of vetenary practitioners.
>
Read more carefully.  A) I never made any judgement as to whether honey
could be used was a fact.  B) I am not talking simply as "general run
veterinary practitioner".  It can indeed be used for wound care, it is
not used this way in mainstream medicine.  Why - there are better
alternatives.  Got nothing else?  Use honey.

Do this:  Call 10 hospitals.  Ask them when the last time was that they
slathered a burn victim in honey.  Please use standard hospitals in a
developed nation, do not weight the sample by asking shaman/faith
healers/voodoo preists.

>   Presumably if u had been around when
>Galileo first mumbled that the earth revolves around the sun, u would have
>said 'that's only a fringe view - can't see a multi-billion project to set a
>man on Mars starting from that view, as there are many better theories based
>on the earth being flat'.
>
This is a ridiculous argument and has nothing to do with this
discussion.  Do fringe theories become mainstream?  Absolutely, many
things start as fringe ideas, does that mean they were not on the finge
at the time they originated?  Nope, they clearly were, what of it?

>It remains something of a puzzle why a group on this list is so insistent on
>crushing any idea that natural honey could possibly be more than flavoured
>sugar and , by extension, that sugar is as good a feed for bees as natural
>honey.
>
One might wonder over the puzzle of why some folks insist on the need to
"spin" honey to the consumer, as if it is not simply wonderful all on
its own.

>  You claim knowledge of nutrition and medical practice - I would have
>thought that , as a professional, u would read up the scientific papers (
>over 200 references in Honey and Healing) and take up the issues with the
>scientists who did the work.
>
The scientists who did the work are not here, at least they have not
spoken up.  I am engaged in this conversation with you, Robin, and
anyone else on the list.  And I would ask you to read precisely what I
wrote.  I have said that the use of honey is not standard medical
practice, veterinary or otherwise, I have stated that such use is
fringe.  That has nothing to do with the efficacy or lack therof found
in the studies you posted.  I have also stated that there are better,
more consistant methods for dealing with wound healing.  Do you have
evidence to the contrary?  I thought not.

Re-read the studies and you will also see that most are not comparing
honey vs standard medical management of wounds, they are comparing to
hypertonic sugar solutions.  I can pound nails into my frames with a
rock.  It works, but a hammer works better and my nail gun best.

I personally doubt that [honey for wounds] will ever be more than fringe
simply because it is difficult to use properly, takes too much time,
there is too much variabilty in the product and there are more
repeatable, verifiable methods of wound care in use today.  That you
feel it might not remian on the findge does not alter the fact that it
is not a standard medical practice, or part of standard protocols, and
is, at present, a fringe therapy.

Don't extrapolate from there.  Do I think there may substances in some
honeys that could/should be harnessed for use in wound healing, sure, do
I think the standard medical community would open itself up to liability
by accessing these materials simply by slathering patients in honey?
 Nope.  They would likely, if past history were any guide - and it often
is, isolate the substances thought to be beneficial, and deliver them in
a controlled, metered, fashion.  MDs, DDSs, DMDs, DVMs, VMDs like that
sort of thing.  When they give/use a certain amount of something, they
like to know precisely what they are giving/applying.  Most patients
like that too.  Lawyers love it when they don't.

> Instead u seem only to want to restrict debate
>by deriding the concepts in principle, unread.
>
Once again Robin, you either haven't a clue as to what I have read, or
are you simply unable to beleive that someone might read what you have
read and not come to the same comclusions.  I will tell you that I have
not read that document, but I have read a few dozen articles on honey as
a topical therapy.  They were either wildly sensational or simply
claimed that the stuff is moderately efficaceous and better than a
simple super saturates sugar solution (likey because of the variable
levels peroxide that can be generated by honeys).  Haven't really seen
one vs modern medical methods though.

Quick question:  How is it that when people suggest you are incorrect,
they are restricting debate, but if you suggest they are not it is fair
game?  When people agree with you their minds are open, but when they
disagree their minds are closed.  Is it possible to disagree with you,
be open minded, and un-restrictive?  If so I would like to buy you a pint!

>  You even end your post by
>seeking to associate 'open-mindedness' with gullibility - so anyone seeking
>new knowledge is a fool?
>
Yet again my friend you have a singular ability to see what you want,
not what is written..  How does the statement I made about not confusing
"open-mindeness" and gulibility equate to the idea that anyone seeking
new knowledge is a fool?

> Stick to your own narrow views by all means but
>may I suggest, in the interests of 'informed discussion on beekeeping issues
>and bee biology' (let us remember the purpose of this list)  that u would
>help others more if u concentrated on presenting the evidence for your side
>of the argument and less on knocking other posts without providing evidence.
>Others on this list could then make up their own minds.
>
Once again, a point wanders, lonley and forlorne, having been missed
entirely.

> Lastly, I do not mind if u refer to me by my name, Robin Dartington, with
>which I sign all posts.  Christine Gray is the owner of the computer.
>
>
Super, some of us were indeed wondering as people do funny things with
their names/screen names in this medium.  Robin it is.

Cheers

Keith "wishing he were Jim F at the moment as I could use a snappy
line!!" Benson

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::