# At the end of the day with CCD......



## BjornBee

I have heard a good deal of researchers comment on whats been found in comb samples taken from CCD hives. Seems contaminated comb is found about everywhere. At least three researchers at the Pennsylvania State Bee Association fall meeting a few weeks back made comments on fluvalinate in particular, as well as about everything else, found at very high levels in CCD comb.

I'm just throwing out an idea, but I could see this happening just the same. That at the end of the day, neonicotinoids will be found to be some nasty stuff. Something to be concerned with, something to take guard against. But its the compounding effect that this chemical has in combination with other chemicals, some illegally placed into hives, that turn this into a much deadlier concoction that made the losses possible.

Yes, some will say that there are examples of bees on new comb being effected by CCD. Seems the dots and ducks are not clear on this CCD thing no matter what we look at. Nothing connects, and nothing is lined up perfectly.

But this is one way that along with any finger pointing at the makers of neonicotinoid products, beekeepers and other chemical companies, blame will be spread out, liability lessened, and nobody wins.

There are many examples of one drug or chemical having little negative impact. But add another, or even another, and the mixture turns deadly.

Researchers are now tracking hives as they migrate across the pollination spectrum, taking samples, noting the chemicals, the sprays, and the impact of everything that could effect hives.

But why? Isolating one particular chemical should be easy enough. But it seems that besides neonicotinoids, there seems to be contributing factors or compounding contaminates that some are now focused on.

So will there be no one single source to blame? That perhaps neonicotinoids are lesser of a danger by themselves, but far deadlier when mixed with other chemicals?

I said many months ago that not one clear item will be singled out. I still thinks thats true. 

Comments...


----------



## Jim Fischer

While the testing of pollen, comb, and honey samples taken from
"CCD Hives" and "Healthy Hives" is not yet complete enough
to allow publication of results, I think that MaryAnn Fraiser of Penn
State has been very open about what they are finding, which
seems to indicate fairly clearly that neonicotinoids or any other 
"suspect chemicals" simply don't have any impact upon, or clear
connection to CCD.

In specific regard to neonicotinoids, another significant clue that
it does not seem to have anything to do with CCD was the widespread
sales and use of neonicotinoid-based insecticides long before anyone
saw any "CCD" symptoms.

What they are finding is exactly what such analysis has been
finding for years - a wide range of different pesticides and
other contaminants at parts-per-trillion and parts-per-billion levels.

Sure, it would be great to be able to blame some multi-billion dollar
company for our problems, as we could take them to court and
extract not just reimbursement, but also retribution.

As for the combinations of chemicals becoming somehow more
deadly, there was talk early on about some sort of toxic synergy 
between fungicides and pesticides, but before I could even 
ask for a detailed explanation of this highly entertaining theory,
it was hastily withdrawn by the primary proponent. 

Bottom line, we are no closer to something akin to a clue than 
we were in April 2007. The entire summer was wasted on IAPV,
but IAPV was found in about 10% of healthy hives sampled
in 2002 through 2006, so the original IAPV claims were nothing
but an artifact of testing only a very small set of 50 or so samples.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

I'm inclined to believe that there are *several* forces at play here, most of which have been discussed and debated, that have all managed to "peak" at the same point on the time line. A combination of forces coming to a head simultaneously and then *all* of them being shoved under the CCD umbrella makes it nearly impossible to determine "the cause". 

This would explain in my mind why this same kind of sudden beekeeping disaster has occurred at different times in the past, prior to chemicals and pesticides.... perhaps an inevitable natural cycle in the culling of the weak. 

But I still look at neonicotinoids with suspicion as being at least one of the "current" contributing factors. Could it be that the damage to bees attributed to neonicotinoids is being masked by the intense focus on confirmed cases of disease, mite damage, or hive chemical abuse? 

I know that it has been widely used for years, prior to this current CCD crisis. But does anyone have solid data showing the "*increase*" in product sales which incorporate neonicotinoids over the past few years. Thinking back, I don't remember seeing neonicotinoids in lawn care products, potting soil, etc. I do today. Right now, if bees are anywhere near human activity they are probably exposed to it whether its in a rural or urban region. Several of my neighbors treat their beautiful lawns for grubs and other underground pests with .... you guessed it. And when dandelions and dutch clover show up in the spring, you'll find honeybees working the blooms. I know neonicotiniods have been around for a while but if their use recently has tripled or quadrupled and expanded out further into the urban areas, we can't shove them off the table and discount it as a problem simply because they were in use prior to CCD. 

I'm not pointing any fingers, but I'll sure keep my eyes open on this. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling, if you know what I mean.


----------



## BjornBee

Jim and Mike,

My comments were not really angled at whether neonicotinoids are or not at play. My thought process was along the lines of how does the makers of neonicotinoids, the EPA, and other agencies dissolve liability issues, if or when, even a small contributing factor is found to connect neonicotinoids.

I know I have heard of some of the perpetual neonicotnoid bandwagon crowd mention lawsuits, etc. I think its a pipe dream. I'm not so sure at the end of the day there will be even enough proof or clout to even get some of this off the market.

I think noenicotinoids are bad stuff. That beekeepers need to be selective in apiary locations, etc.

I know my comments are cloudy or wishy washy. I guess what I am just suggesting, is the pattern I am seeing in that neonicotinoids may be found to be far worse off when combined with other chemicals. And many of these samples sent for testing from the very beekeepers who lost a lot of bees, show contamination of many chemicals. Some legal, and some not.

Whether neonicotinoids is found to be a contributor or not....I see the foundation of shifting liability, thats for sure. That was my point.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

BjornBee said:


> I'm not so sure at the end of the day there will be even enough proof or clout to even get some of this off the market.


I'm afraid you are probably right. The only way I see that happening is if it was proven that there is a threat to "human" health. These products are extremely effective and are now so ingrained into our markets and processes that I don't see any possibility of voluntary backing off. 

I'm convinced you are correct in suspecting that chemical synergies with neonicotinoids are enhancing the problems we are seeing, and I think there could be other deadly combinations unrelated to hive chemicals that are at play. But I see no legal means to stop or restrict the use of neonicotinoids on the horizon. Because it probably is a "combination" that has fatal consequences, there may be no way to isolate neonicotinoids and prove they alone are the reaper.


----------



## Dubhe

Questions for Jim;

As I understand it, CCD can't be diagnosed by any present lab test, so its diagnosis is made from the totality of factors leading to the die off. Who is making the determination that a hive has perished from CCD vs other dwindling? A particular research group. the state agriculture agencies, or the hive owners?

Has any seasonal pattern emerged?

Are there new cases of bonafide CCD occuring now?

In cases where bees are being forced to use Comb from CCD hives, are the new colonies succumbing CCD? If so, some, most, all? How does this compare to hives given CCD comb which has been irradiated?

Have we seen CCD in AHB?

Are there any commonalities in regions which have so far NOT seen CCD? What regions have not seen widespread CCD?

I apologize if these questions have been answered elsewhere, but I wanted to pose them all together to someone who is on top of the literature.

Thanks


----------



## naturebee

Dubhe said:


> Questions for Jim;
> 
> As I understand it, CCD can't be diagnosed by any present lab test, so its diagnosis is made from the totality of factors leading to the die off. Who is making the determination that a hive has perished from CCD vs other dwindling? A particular research group. the state agriculture agencies, or the hive owners?
> 
> Thanks


Anyone can make a diagnosis.
You need no experience,
Beekeepers with one day experience up.
We all know that from day one beekeepers are proficient at diagnosing problems. 

You can make a diagnosis and post it to the survey which at
the time given to the press a “fact“, shows CCD in 22 states,
but NO idea who made these diagnosis. 

We diagnosing something that we do not know what it is.
So it is convent to fit any colony mortality into the CCD
diagnosis.

Now we have a report that CCD is affecting inexperienced beekeepers.
Now tell me HOW on earth has CCD evolved the ability to 
discriminate the ownership of a hive? Perhaps further suggesting
that they are fitting mismanagement into the CCD diagnosis.

Hysteria seems to be playing a part in the reporting also.

Hearing also of AFB dead outs being blaimed on CCD 
to hide the real causes.

Joe


----------



## Barry

naturebee said:


> Now we have a report that CCD is affecting inexperienced beekeepers.
> Now tell me HOW on earth has CCD evolved the ability to
> discriminate the ownership of a hive? Perhaps further suggesting
> that they are fitting mismanagement into the CCD diagnosis.


[laughing] . . .oh, you got me going on this one! Too funny! I'm sure we will be told that every hive has been confirmed by the "experts".


----------



## Jim Fischer

> As I understand it, CCD can't be diagnosed by any present lab test, 
> so its diagnosis is made from the totality of factors leading to the die off.

Yes, at present, we have only symptoms, and no "marker" or "test"
with any predictive value.

> Who is making the determination that a hive has perished from CCD 
> vs other dwindling? A particular research group. the state agriculture
> agencies, or the hive owners?

There is a consensus on the symptoms, but for reasons not clear, the
USDA wants to claim that they want to publish (in a science journal)
this list of symptoms, so if you ask the USDA to provide you with an
official list of symptoms, they will tell you that the document is 
"in press". Very weird to want to "publish" something like that.

> Has any seasonal pattern emerged?

Other than the clear evidence that a good flow will cover up any
number of problems, no.

> Are there new cases of bonafide CCD occuring now?

Sure are. Samples need to be run through the mill, and the
samples keep coming.

> In cases where bees are being forced to use Comb from CCD hives, 
> are the new colonies succumbing CCD? 

This aspect is unclear. If you looked at the data published in ABJ
that was claimed to show that irradiation and/or acetic acid fumigation
had a positive effect, the results had such wide ranges that 
it wasn't clear that the data supported the claim. The Penn State/USDA
team bent over backwards to make the claim they made, so that they
could justify the even more speculative claim that the proximate
cause of CCD was "a pathogen", and thereby justify the work to
go look for a new pathogen.

Sadly, this point is still on the table for debate in my view, and in the 
view of everyone else who has no axe to grind.

> How does this compare to hives given CCD comb which 
> has been irradiated?

As I said, the whole "reuse of deadouts" issue needs to be rexamined
if we are to make sense of it. I guess one could go back and look at
Dave Hackenberg's hives. I sure hope that they know which hives
were treated and which were ot.

> Have we seen CCD in AHB?

That's a good question. The problem is, how does one differ between
the normal absconding of AHB and CCD? The way AHB is "kept" is kinda
weird, in that empty woodenware is set out in a yard, and soon, swarms
set up shop in each hive. Honey is harvested with great care, but
no attempt is made to do any "management", as hives abscond all
the time, and a new swarm will take their place. (Things are different
for bees kept at higher elevations, one assumes that the cooler nights
have about the same impact on the bees as Prozac does on humans.)

> Are there any commonalities in regions which have so far NOT seen CCD? > What regions have not seen widespread CCD?

I can't really talk much about anywhere except Long Island, NY, as I
have first-hand knowledge of that area. It would be nice to get a
count of reports by 3-digit zip code and 5-digit zip code, but I have
not asked, and there would likely be grumbling about "privacy",
as there are some 5-digit zip codes with only one beekeeper.

I can say that Long Island has dodged the CCD bullet, with zero cases
of anything that did not have a clear and compelling cause. We are
all keeping out fingers crossed.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> I'm sure we will be told that every hive has been 
> confirmed by the "experts".

I'm sure that Noah's neighbors indulged in much the same sort
of laughter when he started laying the keel of a large boat in
his backyard. Later on, I have to wonder who was laughing
and who was not in the parable as it has been passed down.

Perhaps Dick Marron will respond, as he gave up a few weeks of his
time to help with some of the field sampling down in Florida.

While I know that everyone was "trained" to assure consistent 
criteria, I was not there at that time, so I don't know the extent
of the training given.

I do now that the contrast between normal health hives and
CCD-affected hives is pretty darn obvious when you look at
them. It is almost as if you are picking out the deadouts in
a yard, because healthy hives are launching hundreds of sorties
per minute, while CCD hives look "dead". When you open the
hive, you find no dead bees, lots and lots of apparently healthy
brood, maybe a queen and a laughably small number of workers.

These symptoms are very different from a merely "weak colony".
This is a "M.C. Esher colony", you look twice, three times, as
you can't wrap your brain around what appears to be an optical
illusion. You wonder if the bees got a union, and are all out
on lunch break.

In short, you've seen nothing like it, I've seen nothing like it.
It looks like nothing else, and it is like nothing else in clear,
stark, and very compelling ways.

But go ahead and laugh - when bees are just a hobby, it is all
fun and games. One has a different view when one tends to
deal with honey "by the drum" or "by the metric ton".


----------



## Dubhe

> Now we have a report that CCD is affecting inexperienced beekeepers.
> Now tell me HOW on earth has CCD evolved the ability to
> discriminate the ownership of a hive? Perhaps further suggesting
> that they are fitting mismanagement into the CCD diagnosis.


Well that's the point. Surely CCD researchers have to be able to apply some objective criteria in determining whether a hive succumbed to CCD. Leaving it to others who may not have the knowlege (or perhaps ulterior motives) sort of undermines the scientific method.


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Dubhe said:


> Surely CCD researchers have to be able to apply some objective criteria in determining whether a hive succumbed to CCD.


How can they? The "researchers" and "experts" still don't really know what CCD is. They can see the aftermath and examine evidence, but they have yet to say they know WHAT caused it. Other ailments and pests could also leave behind similar evidence. "CCD" is nothing more than "Can't Confirm Diddly".


----------



## Barry

Jim Fischer said:


> I'm sure that Noah's neighbors indulged in much the same sort
> of laughter when he started laying the keel of a large boat in
> his backyard. Later on, I have to wonder who was laughing
> and who was not in the parable as it has been passed down.


Ah come on Jim, it was just a parable from eons ago. Besides, as it turns out, it was all about politics as the ark came to rest in the Capital.

- Barry


----------



## naturebee

Barry said:


> [laughing] . . .oh, you got me going on this one! Too funny! I'm sure we will be told that every hive has been confirmed by the "experts".



Here it is Barry,
Last paragraph. 

From Diana Cox-Foster herself!

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/bees/update.html

“However, Diana Cox-Foster of Penn State University and a lead researcher on the team that discovered IAPV in U.S. bees says there are some reports now of CCD making a reappearance, though mainly in the colonies of less experienced beekeepers.”

Joe ~ Derry, PA 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles


----------



## naturebee

--Perhaps Dick Marron will respond, as he gave up a few weeks of his
time to help with some of the field sampling down in Florida.(Quote)

I thought CCD was everywhere. 
CCD is so wide spread, but they need to travel across the 
country to get a sample.


----------



## naturebee

Dubhe said:


> Well that's the point. Surely CCD researchers have to be able to apply some objective criteria in determining whether a hive succumbed to CCD. Leaving it to others who may not have the knowlege (or perhaps ulterior motives) sort of undermines the scientific method.


IMO, No they can not.
I was encouraged by Jerry Boemnshank that my description of symptoms in my colonies in 
2006 was CCD, and to make a report out on his “internet CCD survey“. My inspector stopped by that season and stated that it was “positively drought related“, and most colonies in SW PA were exhibiting these same symptoms, but beekeepers keep reporting as CCD. So CCD symptoms are so ambiguous that many things can be determined to be CCD. 

Boy, I sure do miss all the new bee questions about queenless colonies, mismanagement, foulbrood ect, seemingly now under one category; CCD. 


Joe ~ Derry, PA 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles


----------



## Dubhe

Once again Jim, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.


----------



## Joel

I don't think researchers will solve this in aime sensitive relationship any more than any of the previous afflictions we as an industry have been fighting for years. My experiance with Dyce has shown me there is a huge difference between those in the study world who study other folks bees and those who are actually beekeepers and have a vested interest in eating and living inside via beekeeping. The science is only part (an important part yes) of the resolution as we find out time and again. 

My questions focus more on who specifically is and is not having problems (not name but practice), where are the bees coming from(spring loss replacement, increasese etc), where are they yarded, what management practices are in place, type of operation (pollination, honey production, migratory, stationary?, any chronic or acute disease pest problems in prior years.

I see the ABJ talk article -25% of beekeepers suffered CCD, reference to previous losses documented in 1979, 4 distinct clusters supported with Bootstrap statisical data (???) California, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Israel. IAPV found (as a genetic indicator only) in 83% of CCD colonies! Articles citing nutrition, Stress, Cell Phone towers (my favorite!!) We've all read the articles, listen to the radio and TV interviews watched the pundits offer theories. I've spent the summer with customer after customer bringing me all kinds of CCD- CD's, article printouts and a billion questions about CCD.

I can't offer any stunning analysis, theories or solutions, I don't have CCD(yet), haven't seen CCD (yet) and can't talk to anyone who has. I'd really like to hear from those 25% of Beeks who've actually had a problem so I can get input from someone who can respond and give any of the above! Someone not talking about just the science but someone who actually owns bees and talks bees. Maybe this has happend over my summer abscence?

I think as a group we could examine this type of information, tie it in with the little science we have and start finding a real methodolgy to survive a trajedy or perhaps identify a travesty.

Who here has suffered confirmed CCD? Anyone? Is there not one among us willing to share?
Give us some front line background on your operation before, during and after! Let us ask some specific questions. 
Who knows someone 1st. hand who has CCD and can share non-personal information related to the experiance. That seems to be the meat of the issue to me at this point. Other than good beekeeping what do we need to do?

Where's the CCD Map?

In the infamous words of Pink "Is there anybody out there?"


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Joel said:


> Who here has suffered confirmed CCD? Anyone?


Joel, I'm still not clear on what "*confirmed*" CCD actually means. I'm not trying to be ****y here, but what exactly does it take for a collapsed colony to be certified as a CCD loss?

*** Just to add a bit more information behind my question.

Last year I had 7 colonies set up at one of my yards on farm property here in Ohio. In late October, after the goldenrod flow, I inspected them and found that they had put up some stores during the flow but I wanted to feed more before winter set in. All of these colonies were loaded with bees and each had frames of brood in all stages.

I noticed after a couple weeks of feeding that the bees stopped taking syrup. Then about the third week in November I opened them up on a warm day and was absolutely shocked to find all the bees were gone… except for a dead queen and a handful of dead worker bees in each hive. I opened up some capped brood left behind and saw no evidence of brood disease. Also each hive had pollen and honey stores, but there was no robbing of any kind. 

Sound like CCD? Yep, that was my reaction. I contacted Jerry B. and he was kind enough to spend some time talking to me on the phone about this, and he suggested that I add my info to the CCD survey. But at this point he certainly had bigger fish to fry in Florida. 

So I had one yard where *all* the colonies fell apart within three weeks, and 3 miles away my other colonies are just fine. Same daughter queens. I had been treating all of them for mites with OA. All the equipment was the same age and type… all 3 year old or less comb. Never treated with any chemicals. 

So now a year later I still have unanswered questions … was this CCD? Could it have been Nosema C. ? Did they get into Neonicotinoids from the farm activity? Was it T-Mites? Did they find bad pollen? Am I just a lousy beekeeper? 

I wonder how many hundreds of other small hobbyist or sideliner beekeepers this has happened to? And how are we to know if it was CCD or not?


----------



## naturebee

Joel said:


> IAPV found (as a genetic indicator only) in 83% of CCD colonies!


IMO, this “indicator” could mean absolutely nothing.
That could be like saying “83% of dead colonies were found to have dead bees”. 

Also, I see, that this “indicator” been upped to 96.1 %

“One organism was significantly correlated with CCD: finding IAPV in a bee sample correctly distinguished CCD from non-CCD status 96.1 percent of the time.”

Anyhow, we need to know more specifics here. So far, seems like unfinished or poor science. If the group did not include looking for IAPV in colonies with AFB and other stress factors, how do you know IAPV is not simply infecting ’all weakened colonies’ and not specific to CCD colonies?,,, and therefore naturally would found in stressed colonies such as CCD colonies. ,,,Just as dead bees are many times found in dead outs 

IMO, the high incidence of IAPV in CCD colonies suggest that IAPV is NOT as virulent 
as the percentages might “suggest”, or even that it suggests a cause for CCD. 

If you look at the elderly population and those with weakened immune systems, you might see a much higher degree of those folks dying from complications due to the common cold. 

That the common cold virus may be detected in a very high number of these deaths, this by no means indicates that the virus was the cause of death, but may be suggestive of a weakened host

Joe ~ Derry, PA 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles


----------



## dickm

>>>>>Perhaps Dick Marron will respond, as he gave up a few weeks of his
time to help with some of the field sampling down in Florida.<<<<<

Thanks Jim for mentioning my name. Though I worked on my article for many weeks I claim no expertise. I can vouch for the experience of the sampling team that worked with Dennis vanEnglesdorp. There were 2 veteran FL bee inspectors. (You have read their articles at some point)There were 3 serious beekeepers with over 1,000 hives And Dave Hackenberg (40 yrs experience)and I. Samples of comb, honey, bees and brood were organized according to a map made of the bee-yard. Some were frozen some in alcohol and some in vials. One yard had bees in 4 categories. Dead, Dying, Recovering and healthy. Weeks before they had been all healthy. The yard had 250 colonies. 100 dead and the rest equally divided. Samples noted these categories too. At the same time, Jerry Bromenschenk, having just left FL was in CA with a team of 5 of his regular employees doing the same thing. 
I have a picture I will post some day of the dead hives, standing on end, like tombstones. I lost my temper once on this list because people were going round and round about whether CCD exists or not. Go tell the owners (at least 5) of the thousands of hives we checked. These guys know what a sick hive looks like. They didn't get where they are by being dumb.

When I started writing, I examined a concept found in nature, known as a die-off. That was the title (Apr. or May 07 of ABJ). I admit it's a goofy idea but what if the bees have a larger than a yearly cycle where they "die-off" every so often as a way to eliminate pests and disease. We of course maintain the use of old comb to undermine this "purification."
Crazy, no?

Joe,
I think it was you who posted a list of die-offs on another list that I admired. Could you re-post it here?

Dick Marron


----------



## Jim Fischer

Naturebee (Joe) quoted thusly:

"_One organism was significantly correlated with CCD: finding IAPV in a 
bee sample correctly distinguished CCD from non-CCD status 96.1 
percent of the time._"

Wow, where have you been?

Have you read the Evans/Chen paper?
http://www.dadant.com/documents/ChenandEvansarticlefromDec07ABJ.pdf
It has been on the web for over a month, and will appear in mailboxes
in genuine print within the next few days.

If you'd like it translated into English, you can read this:
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/claims_collapse.pdf
Which has also been on the web for a while, and will also appear in
mailboxes (and even on newsstands!) just about now.

Bottom line, IAPV was found in so many historical archive samples,
that the number of "false positives" render IAPV useless as a
"marker" for CCD, and prove very clearly that IAPV may well have
nothing to do with CCD.


----------



## naturebee

dickm said:


> I lost my temper once on this list because people were going round and round about whether CCD exists or not. Go tell the owners (at least 5) of the thousands of hives we checked.


Hi Dick,
I hope your not mad at me.
I believe it exists!
But, I am also of the opinion that it CCD as vastly misdiagnosed and often falsely reported.
Too many reports out there of CCD without any verification process.
PA, manages to verify every case of AFB by inspector diagnosis, and lab tests,
and yet we rely on inexperienced beekeepers to diagnosis many of the reported CCD
cases.



dickm said:


> Joe,
> I think it was you who posted a list of die-offs on another list that I admired. Could you re-post it here?
> Dick Marron


I am not able to do that.
I tried posting it here once, but a gave up trying as Barry has a limit to the length of letter
that one is able to submit, so it was rejected.

I don’t recall where the heck I posted it, maybe on the Historical Honeybee Article site.


Incidentally, you mention Dennis, and I will tell you that we are blessed here in PA to have Dennis vanEnglesdorp as our State Apiarist. During inspections, he has had a way of giving advice in a tactful manner. He has swayed my
opinion on several matters of importance concerning the direction of selection of breeding stock. 

Best Wishes,
Joe ~ Derry, PA 
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles
FeralBeeProject.com


----------



## Jim Fischer

> a list of die-offs on another list that I admired. Could you re-post it here?

Perhaps it was taken from this _Bee Culture_ article:

http://www.beeculture.com/content/ColonyCollapseDisorderPDFs/7%20Colony%20Collapse%20Disorder%20Have%20We%20Seen%20This%20Before%20-%20Robyn%20M.%20Underwood%20and%20Dennis%20vanEngelsdorp.pdf

It certainly has a fairly complete list, but it is a terrible piece,
misleading in the extreme. The annoying things about this article are:

a) It lists many incidents that are well-known to have specific causes
(such as the tracheal mite impact, the initial varroa mite impact,
several very bad droughts, and so on) without listing the causes,
thus giving the impression that some mystery exists about the 
causes of these prior widespread losses.

b) The article is titled "_Colony Collapse Disorder: Have We Seen
This Before?_" yet the article makes no attempt to answer the
question.

Data collected since this article was written has made it crystal
clear that CCD is completely unlike these prior "dwindlings" and
widespread losses. So, the answer to the question posed in the
title of the article is "No".


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Guess I'll try one more time. I must be pretty dense.

How exactly does one "diagnose" CCD? What will tell someone, without a doubt, this was CCD.. and not something else?


----------



## dickm

There is viable brood in the hive that the bees have mostly abandoned. There are a small # of bees and a queen left but not enough to cover brood. There are no dead or dying bees in the grass or on the landing board. Althought the colony is weak or abandoned entirely, robbing seems not to occur until later. Some hives made a comeback. It takes down whole yards and in a short time.

dickm


----------



## Mike Gillmore

Thanks dickm. One more question, are there diseases, pests, or dietary issues that could give you similar "symptoms"? If yes, how do you know which one it is?


----------



## Aspera

With all due respect to Dr. Cox-Foster, Mrs. Frazier and the rest of the PSU crew, I won't be 100% confident in the findings until they are replicated in CA or FL colonies and vetted by the good folks at ARS. I have seen much biological research. It a difficult and iterative process. Wait for for the replications before jumping to any conclusions.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> are there diseases, pests, or dietary issues that could 
> give you similar "symptoms"?

Nope.

While different problems could cause one (or maybe even a few)
of the symptoms seen in CCD, the combination of the basic items 
Dick listed are unique to CCD.

I'm not trying to split hairs, but the whole "lack of robbing" issue
is a tad shaky as an objective criteria in my view. The assumption
that robbing would be a certainty if the subject colony had weakened 
due to a more mundane reason, such as a failing queen is more than
just a bit speculative.

But once you've seen a yard hit by CCD, you'll do what I did, which
is to start whistling the "X-Files" theme song, or if you are hardcore
old-skool, the "Twighlight Zone" theme song.

Oh yeah, and you get angry.
Cause there's nothing you can do to stop it.
To paraphrase "Saving Private Ryan", 
"_All we can do here is watch hives die_."

So cut people some slack on this issue, and just accept that it is real,
it is a serious problem, and it has hit too many very different operations
to be something that you can blame on "management", "being migratory",
"miticide misuse", "pesticides in/on forage", or any of the other excuses.

And please don't blame the victims. They'd do anything to save their 
bees, but no one can tell them what to do.


----------



## BjornBee

JF,
I agree with your shaky "robbing" criteria. I had been questioning that since April.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209349&highlight=robbing (fourth post down)

I had a deadout hive sit for the better part of all summer untouched. I was hoping for a swarm. But not only did I not get a swarm, but not one bee was interested. Not till July did the bees go after it.


----------



## CSbees

I too while recognizing the tragedy of the CCD epidemic believe that many beekeepers are using this 3-lettered acronym for the cause of their deadouts. PPM is what Robin Mountain calls his alternative to CCD. Ask him sometime about this theory. It is amazingly simple yet true.


----------



## naturebee

Jim Fischer said:


> > a list of die-offs on another list that I admired. Could you re-post it here?
> 
> It certainly has a fairly complete list, but it is a terrible piece,
> misleading in the extreme. The annoying things about this article are:
> 
> a) It lists many incidents that are well-known to have specific causes
> (such as the tracheal mite impact, the initial varroa mite impact,
> several very bad droughts, and so on) without listing the causes,
> thus giving the impression that some mystery exists about the
> causes of these prior widespread losses.
> 
> b) The article is titled "_Colony Collapse Disorder: Have We Seen
> This Before?_" yet the article makes no attempt to answer the
> question.
> 
> Data collected since this article was written has made it crystal
> clear that CCD is completely unlike these prior "dwindlings" and
> widespread losses. So, the answer to the question posed in the
> title of the article is "No".


I say what’s the difference?
Bee dieoffs are bee dieoffs,,,
lots a bees dieoff.

And also, we know that we do not know what CCD is,
but the experts suspect that stresses play a part.
So I really do not see how we can categorically 
eliminate past die offs which are all categorized as stresses, 
just because they happen have a specific or known cause.

Remember, Isle of Wight disease.
The CCD of 1904.
There was no specific cause known 
for some 17 years. 


Joe


----------



## Aspera

naturebee said:


> I say what’s the difference?
> Bee dieoffs are bee dieoffs,,,
> lots a bees dieoff.
> 
> And also, we know that we do not know what CCD is,
> but the experts suspect that stresses play a part.
> So I really do not see how we can categorically
> eliminate past die offs which are all categorized as stresses,
> just because they happen have a specific or known cause.
> 
> Remember, Isle of Wight disease.
> The CCD of 1904.
> There was no specific cause known
> for some 17 years.
> 
> 
> Joe


Yes, I love how we don't really know the cause and some people are already proposing the purposeful introduction of AHB as a solution. Its amazing how vocal the idiotic and self-serving can be....


----------



## Jim Fischer

> I say what’s the difference?
> Bee dieoffs are bee dieoffs,,,
> lots a bees dieoff.

Well, you were the one complaining that many of the
reports were "misdiagnosis" without even a single 
specific example to back up your claim, here:

http://beesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=276922&postcount=7

so it is puzzling that you now claim to not care 
about the difference. 

I agree that there is very likely to be a certain 
percentage of misdiagnosed reports, as would 
any reasonable person, but this cannot be the 
case for anything even close to the majority, 
given the consistency of the symptoms being 
reported in the bulk of the cases.

> And also, we know that we do not know what CCD is,
> but the experts suspect that stresses play a part.

No, they don't, not any more than they suspect that
it is purely a pathogen. I've said over and over
"_What else but a virus spreads so quickly through
a population of bees? A pesticide kill!_"

One of the confusing things about the whole issue
of "stresses" and CCD is that bees are not being 
subjected to any stresses that they were not
subjected to 5 years ago, yet there were no 
symptoms that looked anything like CCD until
recently. This is a powerful refutation of the claims
that "stress could be the trigger", or other such
nonsense. This is something new and specific,
and it simply has not been found.

> So I really do not see how we can categorically 
> eliminate past die offs which are all categorized as stresses, 
> just because they happen have a specific or known cause.

We certainly CAN "_categorically eliminate past die offs_"
because we can see *different symptoms*, and these 
symptoms are nowhere even close to the symptoms of 
the causes of these past die offs.

> Remember, Isle of Wight disease. The CCD of 1904.

No, it was not "the CCD of 1904". It was something that
killed bees, but that's about all it had in common.

> There was no specific cause known for some 17 years.

Back then, Science as applied to beekeeping was very
primitive. The ease with which even 4-H students can
detect "Isle of Wright Disease" today should make that
clear.

Yes, I know you want it not to be true, to be simply "hype",
to be exaggerated, for it all to be a bad dream. Sorry,
wishing that it will all go away if you just deny it all will
not help. It is simply a way of doing nothing about the
problem. Classic denial.


----------



## noelb

*Nutrition related? Maybe.*

IMHO I believe that the bees first line of defence against disease or chemicals is a Healthy Immune System. We still do not know all the functions of the immune system. 

Bear with me while I lay some foundation...

In studying human health and the deterioration of our immune sytems of the last twenty or more years - 3% per year deterioration approx - and the latest advances in nutrition I believe that nutrition of the bees may play a major part in CCD.

It has been scentifically documented that WE need certain nutrients to be healthy and that defficient of these our immune sytems suffer.
Also that Certain KEY nutrients can positively affect the immune sytem in the Human body. These Key nutrients are obtained from Carbohydrates of varied sources. In the bees case they get this carbohydrate from nectar.

_All living matter has these Key nutrients on their cell surfaces even bacteria and Viruses._ These Key nutrients enable the correct functioning of the body be it human or insect.

Void of enough of these nutrients our bodies are unable to cope and disease is able to prosper.

Stress will also deplete the body of nutrients more quickly.

In regards to CCD in beehives.

I believe that the immune system of the bees has to be afffected in much the same way our own immune systems have been affected - how are we doing... Not too good. Cancer was no. 10 on the list twenty or so years ago now it is number one.

So... the bees immune system is suffering.

Most of the bees are pollinating only few types of crop and are not getting the nutrients from multiple sources. This will limit the nutrition of the hive and it may even be void of Key nutrients. In some cases there may be very little carbohydrate.

This may therefore further affect the bees immune system.

The crops are sprayed with various chemicals and if that is the bees main source of nutrition, the chemicals will build up in the hive. Chemicals have a known affect on our immune systems, and I would suggest bees are no different. 

Immune sytems again affected.

The stress of continually moving hives between crops would no doubt have an effect on the bees and possibly lower immune system.

I doubt that any of the research being done is focusing on this aspect of nutrition and ways to improve the bees immune system. Even mainstream medicine poo poo's the idea and focuses instead on Pharmaceuticals. If you want to know anything about nutrition speak to a veterinarian. 

Obviously you can do what you can to vary the bees diet and restrict chemicals as much as possible.

I have considered feeding the bees some of these Key nutrients mixed with pollen etc. in a feeder. 

I believe that even healthy bees could benefit... It just might even increase the honey production of a hive.

*Remember:-* The chemical and pharaceutical companies control the government so you can take the results of any of their research with a pinch of salt.

Anyone remember the true story of Lorenzo's oil. If we are to solve this problem I believe a change in focus may be necessary and that we may even need to do our own research and find our own solution. 

Who has the apiarists best interests at heart?

Food for thought!

Regards from downunder

Noel


----------



## sierrabees

I remember a lecture by the head of the Internal medicine Dept. at UC Davis Vet School where he difined death as "the sum total result of all the insults a body suffers during a lifetime." The CCD thing reminds me of the story of the straw that broke the camel's back. We submit our bees to so many things that they have not evolved to handle that it can be likened to that load of straw. If the hives are struggling with stresses A through Z, and one hive is handling stresses A,D,F,L,M,and T, but addition of stress V pushes it over the edge, while another hive handles stresses D,P,and M but succums when stress A is added, who can say which of these factors is lethal. Considering that any one of these factors could represent the straw that breaks the back, and that the number of combinations that could be tolerated until one more is added is incredably large, I think we may never find a single cause, or even a single combination of causes for CCD. I have a healthy respect for science but I think we may never have an answer. I expect that beekeeping will have to evolve the same way organisms evolve. The managemt programs that don't lead to large scale losses will produce beekeepers that stay in beekeeping. The management programs that cause CCD will die out as those of us who use them drop out of beekeeping or change what we do. We may never know exactly what is going wrong, but new beekeepers will learn from those who are successful and will limit what they do to their bees to what continues to work for them.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Doug, well said


----------



## Jim Fischer

> I have a healthy respect for science but I think we may 
> never have an answer.

Why would anyone think that?

Eloquent exposition aside, we have something pathogenic here, 
and it is causing a very specific disease with specific symptoms.

Yes, it likely is not one single thing, but the latest Apiary Inspectors
of America "report" lists a combination of:

1) Nosema apis
2) Nosema ceranae
3) Kashmir and/or Deformed Wing Virus
5) IAPV (even though this is clearly optional)

Found at high correlation rates in colonies with CCD.

But make no mistake, CCD is something that can spread from one
hive to another, and this spreading has been watched multiple times
amongst large number of hives, so this is not "stress" or "immune system"
or any of the other alternative explanations offered. This is an
exotic invasive disease pathogen or multiple pathogens, and they
all come from across the oceans on all that World Trade that has
turned our once-great nation into a pauper state.


----------



## sqkcrk

Bjornbee,

Do you know of any commercial beekeepers who have been put out of business because of CCD? It seems to me that the guys who groused the most are still at it, somehow. I don't know of any growers who haven't gotten the bees that they needed. Do you?

On another note. Do you know the NY Apiary Inspector from PA? Apparently the way to get around the rule about NYS Apiary Inspectors not owning bees is to live in and keep bees in another state.


----------



## florida pollinator

Sqkcrk,
I know of one maybe two myself whom are no longer in business, one is from Pa.The way myself and a couple of friends I know closely ,some from your hood, have stayed in business speaking for myself was buy a semi load of bees ,equipment and tanker load + of feed and sign on the line for about $85,000 .00 more dollars to pay farm credit back in addition to original purchases of bees and equipment.Does that sound like a smoke and mirrors made up story?
And for growers getting bees ,they still for the most part can find a lo balling bee renter most of the time,as for local growers.Almonds and blueberries are a little more of a sure thing.


----------



## sqkcrk

florida pollinator said:


> Sqkcrk,
> .Does that sound like a smoke and mirrors made up story?
> QUOTE]
> 
> I don't doubt the reality of CCD, but life goes on somehow. And changes occur whether we like them or not. Somehow you saw the investment of $85,000.00 into a somewhat unsure future worth the risk. I'm sure you could have used that capital for something else if you didn't have to replace bees. I wish you and all of us a better future.


----------



## noelb

Jim Fischer said:


> > this is not "stress" or "immune system"
> or any of the other alternative explanations offered. This is an
> exotic invasive disease pathogen or multiple pathogens.


How is the status of the Bee's Health, eg immune system - not related to it's ability to fight off exotic diseases/pathogens???

Noel


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

I've had two different encounters with CCD. 

The first was in 1976. Lost 400 hives per week first seen halfway through the dandelion bloom. It's the exact same symptoms as seen today. Hives weren't migratory. No mites then. And no chemicals were used in the hives. Hives went from boomers to empties in less than 3 days. Only a couple of hives would be unaffected in a yard. Splits were made the same season and comb reused without any problems.

The second incident was in 2001 with a couple of hives established from southwestern small cell stock. This stock was probably africanized as determined by behavior and origin. They were on clean small cell sized comb without any treatments. And weren't migratory.

This second batch experienced exactly the same symptoms as the first batch. It occurred at the same time of year. And over the same time frame. The hives were boomers with lots of sealed brood.

I immediately placed the beeless brood on unaffected adjacent hives. That brood hatched without infecting their new hives.

I haven't experienced any CCD since then. It is real. Any beekeeper with more than a season's experience can instantly spot it. It's not a type of dwindling, starving, swarming or absconding. It's exactly opposite that. The bees are in the best of health with solid, abundant brood. They build up rapidly with abundant honey, pollen, bees, brood.

One day, they appear to be the best hives with strong motivation. The next day they are hives full of sealed brood, eggs and larva, pollen and honey. But without any bees dead or alive, except for an occasional queen and a cup full of newly hatched out unorganized young bees. No nurse bees. No field bees. Almost no queens. No bee clusters/swarms.

The thought that such a profoundly different experience is just a misdiagnoses of a typical bee problem is just the same old 'ignorant beekeeper' cry that has accompanied previous outbreaks of CCD. 

Regards
Dennis


----------



## Jim Fischer

The specific symptoms mentioned by BWrangler:



"Hives went from boomers to empties in less than 3 days"
"Only a couple of hives would be unaffected in a yard."
"Splits were made the same season and comb reused without any problems."
Are not at all symptomatic of CCD:



The timeframe is too short for CCD
The lack of spread within yards is contradictory with CCD
The re-use of comb contradicts the experience of those with actual CCD.
The 2nd incident is explained as a simple absconding of AHB, so it would
not be CCD either.

So, I don't see either of these incidents as having anything at all to do
with CCD. This is not at all surprising, as these incidents happened long
before the specific pathogens associated with CCD (two kinds of nosema
and two different viruses) had come to our shores in all that World Trade 
that everyone thought was such a good idea at the time.


----------



## peggjam

"World Trade that everyone thought was such a good idea at the time."

Yup, we just get a handle on one new pest, then get hit with another new one. Makes keeping bees a real challange.


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Guys,

>This is not at all surprising, as these incidents happened long
before the specific pathogens associated with CCD (two kinds of nosema
and two different viruses) 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And my opinion is that Jim has misdiagnosed my experience. Those symptoms are much the same as CCD today. A different disease may cause the same symptoms.

But, if not, I'm glad to hear that CCD is now so clearly defined and so definitely associated with such specific pathogens! Maybe someone ought to tell those researchers and the funding agencies. :>)))

Regards
Dennis


----------



## sierrabees

<I admit it's a goofy idea but what if the bees have a larger than a yearly cycle where they "die-off" every so often as a way to eliminate pests and disease. We of course maintain the use of old comb to undermine this "purification."
Crazy, no?>

No.


----------



## sierrabees

<I admit it's a goofy idea but what if the bees have a larger than a yearly cycle where they "die-off" every so often as a way to eliminate pests and disease. We of course maintain the use of old comb to undermine this "purification."
Crazy, no?>

No.

<Jim Fisher Says: Why would anyone think that?

Once you believe that science has all the answers, science becomes a religion. Of course all religions are right all of the time no matter how many other religions have conflicting views. I have as much training in science as most academics although I chose to use it differantly. I don't believe in science. I believe it is one of the finest tools man has invented as long as it is used correctly, but that there is as much that science will never discover as there is that has or will be discovered.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Doug, Well said


----------



## noelb

So if it is about disease and pathogens... Well managed bees with healthy immune system should fare better... Is this what we are seeing?

However if it is a poison, then no amount of good health will help.

Noel


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Everyone is entitled to their opinion. 

But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.

> And my opinion is that Jim has misdiagnosed my experience. 

Then please explain in more detail. What you've explained simply
does not match the symptoms well-known to be associated with
CCD.

> Those symptoms are much the same as CCD today. 

I indicated where your experience varied from what we are seeing
with CCD, why are you still insisting that they are "much the same"?

> A different disease may cause the same symptoms.

But you didn't have the "same symptoms", did you?


----------



## Jim Fischer

> Once you believe that science has all the 
> answers, science becomes a religion.

What, that old argument? Again?


Science is based upon *verified evidence*.

Religious faith not only lacks evidence,* its 
lack of evidence is its pride and joy*, loudly
shouted from the rooftops. 

Why else would Christians speak of "Doubting Thomas"? 
The other apostles were held up to us as examples of 
virtue because faith alone was enough for them. 
Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. 

Maybe he should be the "Patron Saint of Scientists". 
(This would raise the interesting question of who 
might pray to such a saint!)

Another ooold story:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, 
"Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "Your creation itself is a dead 
giveaway isn't it? 
It proves you exist, and thereby denies faith. 
Therefore, you don't exist, do you?"

"Oh my," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," 
and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.


----------



## BWrangler

Greetings,

...But everyone is not entitled to their own facts.

Oh yes they are. And you are living proof of that!

>...we are seeing with CCD

Who is "we"? Do you have some personal experience with CCD. Or are you just repeating someone else's opinion? As I understand it, when pressed for facts, the researchers aren't ready to commit to much of anything.

BWrangler


----------



## Jim Fischer

>>...what we are seeing with CCD...

> Who is "we"? Do you have some personal experience with CCD. 

I've been lucky myself, but I've gone and looked at lots of it
in other operations, both alone, and in the company of people
taking samples for analysis.

> As I understand it, when pressed for facts, the researchers 
> aren't ready to commit to much of anything.

Here's some news briefs that will correct the misconception(s) 
you were fed:

http://home.ezezine.com/1636/1636-2008.04.16.11.53.archive.html
http://home.ezezine.com/1636/1636-2008.04.25.11.04.archive.html

You can also read these articles, which have more detail than you
will find anywhere else:

http://bee-quick.com/reprints/

And no, you are not entitled to your own facts. 
I'll respect your opinion, but you have to base your opinions upon,
and mesh them with, the facts.


----------



## Jim Fischer

For anyone needing diagrams, here is a comparison of science and faith
in very clear graphics:

http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/232/religionkv0.png


----------



## BWrangler

Hi Jim and Everyone,

Thanks for the list. It's always good to get more facts, even if some of them are contradictory.Then I can form some new opinions. Half the fun is lining them up so they make some sense.

I'll be off the computer for the rest of the summer. It will be interesting to see what has transpired when I return this fall. 

Hope you guys can get it figured out without me :>)))))

Regards
Dennis


----------



## hankdog1

I read somewhere that only commerical beekeepers were the ones that were effected. Assuming that is true here's a theory for you taking bees around the country be it for pollination or to catch a honey flow the bees are comming increasingly exposed to fumes from biofuels. I don't know if it's the problem but it is something people may want to look at.


----------



## Jim Fischer

> read somewhere that only commerical beekeepers were the 
> ones that were effected.

Nope, there has been no pattern at all to "who has been affected",
except for the obvious situation of adjacent and nearby yards having 
the problem spread between them often, which only confirms again
that the basic problem is a pathogen, rather than anything else.

Is is a disease, a sickness, and no known set of management practices
can help one avoid it.


----------



## tecumseh

bwrangler writes:
A different disease may cause the same symptoms.

tecmseh replies: perhaps??? just a small point but I would suggest that a clearer statement would have been... similar symptoms can point to different diseases.

and thank ya' jim fischer for keeping us on the straight and narrow here... perhaps this is a quality only old tecumseh can appreciate.


----------



## dthompson

> Is is a disease, a sickness, and no known set of management practices
>can help one avoid it.

Formic acid. Its not a wonderful treatment
but it sorta works
I still don't like it at all, fortunatly the bees
don't seem to mind
If you are sure that ccd is there, more than 1 treatment

dave


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> perhaps this is a quality only old tecumseh can appreciate.


Of course. The rest of us double digit IQ folks can only look on in envy.


----------



## hankdog1

Jim Fischer said:


> > read somewhere that only commerical beekeepers were the
> > ones that were effected.
> 
> Nope, there has been no pattern at all to "who has been affected",
> except for the obvious situation of adjacent and nearby yards having
> the problem spread between them often, which only confirms again
> that the basic problem is a pathogen, rather than anything else.
> 
> Is is a disease, a sickness, and no known set of management practices
> can help one avoid it.


I'm just curious if what your saying when you quote my is if CCD being a pathogen as you say and you may be right what if this pathogen is maybe like the flu virus in humans some years it is more potent then others. That being the cause CCD may actually be short term but may be more like something observed back in the 1800's with dwindleing. I just figured i'd throw the idea out there. Whatever it is i hope it eigther ends or we figure out how to fix it soon.


----------



## tecumseh

hankdog writes:
I'm just curious if what your saying when you quote my is if CCD being a pathogen as you say and you may be right what if this pathogen is maybe like the flu virus in humans some years it is more potent then others. 

tecumseh suggest: quite reasonable natural conditions, like rainfall and bloom, will have some intermediate effect on a hives condition and it's health.

then beemandan writes:
Of course. The rest of us double digit IQ folks can only look on in envy.

tecumseh replies: well truthfully dan I had always profiled you as being a bit smarter that that, althought it is always good to recall what eisenhower said... 'half the world is less than average'.

I suspect beemandan that my comment had more to do with experience in popping lids than in some highly questionable measure of intelligence.


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> well truthfully dan I had always profiled you as being a bit smarter that that


One of the many hazards of profiling. I’m far from being the sharpest knife in the drawer.



tecumseh said:


> I *suspect* beemandan that my comment had more to do with experience in popping lids than in some highly questionable measure of intelligence.


It seems like you’d know for sure.


----------



## tecumseh

beemandan writes:
One of the many hazards of profiling.

tecumseh thinking out loud adds: I thought reasonable that there could only be two possible outcomes. perhaps you could elaborate on the many???

then beemandan writes:
It seems like you’d know for sure.

tecumseh replies: most modern day thinking folk minds operate based upon a probability statement of some form or another. absolute certainty is, most often times, a mirage (or when created by man, smoke and mirrows).

I suspect that I can appreciate some of Jim's comments simply because we have both withnessed a number of similar problems come and go before (in regards to the bees) and often times with exactly the same 'conversation' attached.


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> and thank ya' jim fischer for keeping us on the straight and narrow here... perhaps this is a quality only old tecumseh can appreciate.





tecumseh said:


> I *suspect* that I can appreciate some of Jim's comments simply because we have both withnessed a number of similar problems come and go before (in regards to the bees) and often times with exactly the same 'conversation' attached.


I understand now. My mistake. I thought you were stating that only you could appreciate JF ‘keeping us on the straight and narrow’. When in reality it was that only you and he ‘have witnessed a number of problems come and go’.
How could I have gotten it so mixed up?



tecumseh said:


> tecumseh replies: most modern day thinking folk minds operate based upon a probability statement of some form or another. absolute certainty is, most often times, a mirage (or when created by man, smoke and mirrows).


When I make a statement about my own beliefs, I make it as an absolute. I accept that I may be wrong but I don’t *suspect* that they are my opinions, I am certain that they are. Since you clearly are the only ‘modern day thinking’ person between the two of us, I must be wrong.
Frankly, I *suspect* that only one of us is attempting to employ ‘smoke and mirrors’ but then that appears to be the domain of modern day thinking folks.


----------



## tecumseh

beemandan writes:
I understand now.

tecumseh> I suspect not... but go ahead and prove to me exactly how small your double digit IQ really is...

then beemandan writes:
How could I have gotten it so mixed up?

tecumseh replies:

perhaps you should start out by learning to discriminate between something said of substance and a simple rhetorical phrase.


----------



## beemandan

tecumseh said:


> perhaps you should start out by learning to discriminate between something said of substance and a simple rhetorical phrase.


Clears it all up for me.


----------

