From: randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>

>Dean, you keep making up your own definitions for the sheer
sake of meaningless argument. 

That is NOT the case Randy.  You used the word "natural" many times without any kind of definition (except that Remebee falls within whatever that definition may be).  You used it as the key qualifier in your argument that Remebee is "not scary" (why?  because it's "natural").

Now you define "natural" as "based on the state of things in NATURE".
...and "technology" as pertaining to "TECHNICAL means".

I'll grant you the definition of "technology" (with the caveat that I maintain that 40 years ago my grandmother's chicken soup would not be considered "medical technology" of any sort, and today you could make a fair case for it....the soup remains the same).

What I can't figure out is what you would consider "unnatural"?  Seems to me that your definition is essentially "everything under the sun".

Can you please give me an example of something you would consider "unnatural", it would help clear things up in place of an actual definition, if the only one possible is circular (referring to themselves).

If, as I suspect, everything is natural (the way you are using it), I'm curious why you would use the term 5 times in one post as a way to reassure the reader that there is nothing scary about Remebee....if everything is natural, why is it at all significant or notable that Remebee is natural?  What could be unnatural?  Heck, even Imidacloprid is "based on the state of things in nature"...as is the atomic bomb and any conceivable form of biological warfare.

My goal is not to have a debate over what is natural and what isn't....that is why I posted the "Naturalish" post yesterday...I think it's a more nuanced question that "is it natural or isn't it".

But what about the "naturalness" of this should make us feel more comfortable?

> > If it was so naturally occurring and the concentration was not a factor,all of our bees would already have immunity to IAPV.

>Upon what do you base that silly argument?

Well...

>Bees have been infected with most of the bee viruses since time immemorial, yet colonies perish from those viruses every year!

Exactly.  
You are claiming that this dsRNA is developed whether or not the bees are treated with remebee...even citing one of your control colonies in the field trial as developing this resistance...just due to exposure.  Presumably IAPV and other viruses have been around "a while", and these RNA sequences have been produced by the bees.  They exist in small concentrations in the population.  Yet they haven't spread like wildfire...they need to be fed an "unnatural" concentration of a specific dsRNA (very specific) in order to achieve the level of resistance.  I note that you see value in the control queen that showed the most resistance....do you think this was something in the DNA or the RNA?  If it is in the RNA, I bet you could shake a few nurse bees from the resistant colony into one that needed to acquire it....if concentration of the specific dsRNA were not a factor.

>Since bees were all of the same stock, we should have seen innnate dsRNA in all hives if the resistance was inherited. 

Is that a fair assumption...that from stock that shows no apparant resistance to IAPV one would expect to find resistance so rarely that it isn't considered possible in a sample of this size?  I don't know.


>> In your article....what signs of resistance to IAPV do the other "few hives" show...

>Ramped up levels of dsRNA specific to IAPV.

...I'm not understanding something.  Wouldn't they show ramped up levels for a number of reasons?  If they were challenged with IAPV and had some innate resistance...wouldn't that also ramp up the levels?


> >So you chose susceptible stock, gave them a disease that you expected they had no resistance to, and now claim that it is a natural process that caused them to die.

>OMG Dean!  Of course we did!  That was the experimental design.

I don't care how you want to use the word "natural", but to say that infection vectoring via hive top feeders after treating with Apistan for 6 weeks, equalizing the hives, and treating with TM leads to any kind of "natural" result is absurd.  I absolutely agree it is the experimental design...but there is no "natural process" here.


>I can't imagine how you cannot see it as a natural process, that we tried to replicate in the trial

Here is a hint Randy.  If you are trying to replicate a natural process, try to minimize the artificial elements.  Apistan (based on "natural" pyrethroids), TM (highly concentratated but otherwise "natural" antibiotic, and feeders filled with refined sugars and high levels of pathogens probably have no place in a "natural process".

>(although we didn't expect the bees to die).

Perhaps the unexpected result was due to "over inoculation" of the IAPV?  Perhaps this is a red flag that since your control colonies did not behave as expected that there is a flaw in the experimental design somewhere?

deknow

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