Hello,

I am unable to access the full journal article, however I have some obvious
critiques of the abstract and some of the methods.

1.  The term "cost effective" and apivar should not be used in the same
sentence.  Apivar costs, roughly $3 per strip, and is one of the most
expensive treatments available.  I previously did a bit of research into
the costs of manufacturing this product, and came to the conclusion, that,
the cost of materials was in the ballpark of $0.10 per strip.  That's
roughly somewhere in the ballpark of 30X markup on the cost of materials.
 So, let's keep in mind that there's ALOT of financial incentive to make
apivar look as rosy as possible (despite the fact that it's a powerful
pesticide that probably is capable of causing cancer if consumed regularly
by humans - in my opinion).

I am not disputing the effectiveness of Apivar, but I feel as if the price
people are willing to pay is a bit higher than they "deserve" to be
paying.  In my opinion.

2.  The OAV dose.  Seriously, 1g 3X of OAV is being directly compared to a
recommended dose of apivar?  This is an interesting study design, with one
major flaw - they did not attempt to verify the dose of OAV as being
effective, which becomes a flawed premise.  They assumed that a 1g dose
recommendation is accurate, without testing if this assumption is correct.

IMO - this is an interesting study - but how could they have made the
glaring error of using 1g of OAV instead of 2-3g?  I think the excuse that
there's a 1g OA dose recommendation is lazy, and affects the conclusions of
the study.

If I was a reviewer of this study, I'd have not recommended it for
publication.

Regards,

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