# Credibility of Scientific Papers.



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

Over the last year or two I've noticed that some people on this forum have a view of scientists and scientific papers which borders almost on reverence - and so I thought it important that someone should mention the 'other side of the coin', so to speak.

One of the key features of the Scientific Method is the concept of 'Reproducible Results': that anyone who performs the same experiment, or conducts the same observational study should expect to see the same, or very similar results.

Two days ago, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist retracted her own paper due to a lack of 'Reproducible Results' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50989423), and is - quite rightly - being applauded for doing so. There was a reference in that article to the journal Nature expressing a concern over the steep rise in retracted peer-reviewed articles. From the 1990's onwards there have been a growing number each year, with 2019 seeing over 1400 retractions.

Many of these retractions result from honest mistakes, but some are due to outright fraud. When scientific prestige and promotion are allied to publication and theories such fraudulent conduct is understandable, and perhaps inevitable. There was even one case of a Chinese Professor who gave a lecture on the need for integrity within science, who was later found to have fabricated data to support his own theory.

For news of a newly-created database of retracted papers: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...eals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty

I'm not suggesting that fraud or sloppy science necessarily applies to any known bee-related research - but it's always a possibility to be taken into account if that work has not been independently reproduced by others.
LJ


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

I have noticed over many years that many people have shown an inclination to spurn information that identifies with the scientific method. This disdain often seems to morph into a generalized anti-intellectualism and openess to conspiracy theories.

I would like to see much harsher treatment of the obvious abuses that LJ points out. They do exist and they spread disillusionment out of all proportion to their actual percentage compared to the overall scientific input: For their own credibility the scientific body should police themselves tightly.

The mass media certainly should too since they have acquired the power to be more deceptive than informative. There is nothing like a juicy lie to sell copy.
I would like to see the data on what is the percentage of peer reviewed scientific literature that is either questionably truthful or slanted by agenda. We are overwhelmed by information overload: How do we truth test it; or do we just ignore it all as 'orth thit!


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Interesting. One of the problems I have is that these “studies” are usually legit to the degree that the public needs to understand that they are quite often funded by a group looking for a particular result and run by a scientist quite interested in the accompanying publicity that comes with his “discovery”. The phrase “publish or parish” may well accurately describe the pressure a researcher may be feeling. Amazingly they always seem to find the result they are looking for but one always needs to look carefully at the numbers to determine how significant the conclusion really is and are all variables truly factored in? I guess I’ve gotten so jaded by this whole process that when I read the headline trumpeting the results of “a new study” I either ignore it or read it with a great deal of suspicion.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

I would say in beekeeping the far more serious problem is the hucksters that sell completly undocumented claims, such as, "I changed to small cell and my mites ceased to be a concern". 

No actual data to support these claims have ever been presented. The hucksters evade and procrastinate when confronted with a demand to back up their nostrums.


----------



## Saltybee (Feb 9, 2012)

jim lyon said:


> when I read the headline trumpeting the results of “a new study” I either ignore it or read it with a great deal of suspicion.


How long before a large percentage of the population does not even know the origin of " headline".


----------



## msl (Sep 6, 2016)

Follow the trends, not a single paper or study, and pay attention to the number of replicates by the researcher and more importantly others.
the OAG shop towels are a great example.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

If it is bee related and has some indication of substance I watch its discussion on that other bee forum that seems to expect a bit higher level of support for a position. They do a fair job of blowing off most of the chaff for me!

In many cases an article can be statistically correct under specific conditions but it is spun to create an impression that is far from representative of would be real life experience. The special conditions or lack of controls are often conveniently not mentioned. If the article does not include method controls and expects acceptance at face value, I immediately figure it is intended for the feather brained.


----------



## Robert Holcombe (Oct 10, 2019)

Experiments can be reproduced, methods and conclusions argued, agreed upon or disproven thus providing an excellent filter. A tough issue to be sure when someone really believes in something but is wrong for various reasons. One has to start somewhere or reinvent everything. 

Control is making a problem "go away, return and go away", black and white. Biology, with so many independent variables repeatability and control issues makes it really difficult. Is "statistically significant" really "significant" or can it be used to influence results and sell an idea? 

What I have noticed is the "hard path" is often avoided and the "easy way" glorified, in pure science, applied engineering and beekeeping. When the easy way fails, the promoters seem to disappear when the hard work needs to be done. It is very seductive to be well received, unrewarding to be the contrarian. 

Not sure I make sense but tried.


----------



## Beepah (Apr 13, 2018)

little_john said:


> ...but some are due to outright fraud.LJ


Perhaps one of the best examples is the reported but non-existent link between autism and vaccinations. Look where that has put us.




little_john said:


> ... anyone who performs the same experiment, or conducts the same observational study should expect to see the same, or very similar results. LJ





crofter said:


> ...In many cases an article can be statistically correct under specific conditions


This to me is one of the reasons beekeeping and bee research is so interesting! Even my limited bee-wrangling experience provides insight as to how difficult it is to manage a control group in bee experiments, and how many variables need to be considered/addressed.


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Beepah said:


> Perhaps one of the best examples is the reported but non-existent link between autism and vaccinations. Look where that has put us.
> 
> This to me is one of the reasons beekeeping and bee research is so interesting! Even my limited bee-wrangling experience provides insight as to how difficult it is to manage a control group in bee experiments, and how many variables need to be considered/addressed.


Yes very difficult to encompass all the variables but if even a quick lookover shows obvious lack of even attempting it, should make a person question their objectivity and confirmation bias. Often there is at least the appearance of emotional or monetary investment skewing the conclusions. When I see a piece is full of emotional grabs and analogies my antenna starts to quiver.

Look at all the skill that went into the sales pitch for the flow hive concept. That was not science at work!


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

I’ve been thinking on this also; being beekeepers some of us want to sell everything from the hive, including “bee pollen” and making propolis tinctures, and selling royal jelly. The science available for the aforementioned list is for the benefit of honey bees. But is there any science on how beneficial it would be to human beings? All we have is our own experience, or those experiences of others, to go on. Is there any papers or science behind these claims that I can pass on to customers who ask about these products? I’m not trying to judge anyone who does sell these products.


----------



## roberto487 (Sep 22, 2012)

Cloverdale said:


> I’ve been thinking on this also; being beekeepers some of us want to sell everything from the hive, including “bee pollen” and making propolis tinctures, and selling royal jelly. The science available for the aforementioned list is for the benefit of honey bees. But is there any science on how beneficial it would be to human beings? All we have is our own experience, or those experiences of others, to go on. Is there any papers or science behind these claims that I can pass on to customers who ask about these products? I’m not trying to judge anyone who does sell these products.


I think honey is the only thing that has been thoroughly researched to provide some medical benefits. My wife was taking a bunch of tests on line to get her Medical Assistance certificate from the American Medical Assistance Association and one module was designated entirely to the benefits of honey. We were like wow, what people say about honey is not old wive tales, there are scientific proofs.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

50 % of all scientific studies are proofed wrong in the future. That's much better than the usual gossip though. :ws:


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

Cloverdale said:


> I’ve been thinking on this also; being beekeepers some of us want to sell everything from the hive, including “bee pollen” and making propolis tinctures, and selling royal jelly. The science available for the aforementioned list is for the benefit of honey bees. But is there any science on how beneficial it would be to human beings? All we have is our own experience, or those experiences of others, to go on. Is there any papers or science behind these claims that I can pass on to customers who ask about these products? I’m not trying to judge anyone who does sell these products.


In the cases of bee products consistency and repeatability is impossible.
With this in mind, consistency and repeatability of the results is impossible.
With this in mind, consistency and repeatability of the conclusions is impossible.

This being said, how did the "scientists" ever get consistent "scientific" conclusions about even the honey (since there is not standard, consistent, repeatable honey in the nature)?

I don't care though. 
Conventional scientific methods will never be able to explain everything anytime soon.
I just made my first batch of propolis tincture for personal use and mean to use it.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

GregV said:


> how did the "scientists" ever get consistent "scientific" conclusions about even the honey


By using the brain. 

It is astonishing what proper science can unveil. The only sad thing is, that there is no interface that translates the results into practice. So most of the knowledge is lost in thick books.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

I’d be interested to hear about how this works for you. Maybe the Forum could have a new topic concerning propolis to hear how it works for those using it. I’m at the point that I’d try it too.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

Cloverdale said:


> I’d be interested to hear about how this works for you. Maybe the Forum could have a new topic concerning propolis to hear how it works for those using it. I’m at the point that I’d try it too.


Deb, with Ruth swearing by it, I am planning to put propolis screens on two of my hives. If there is any arthritic benefit at all, I am game. The hip hurts so bad at the end of the day I can hardly stand upright. If the bees can help, I'll let them. Being caucasians, I expect they will have the first screen ready for me up in no time.


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

I thought this had all been resolved with the advent of youtube. There’s no longer any need for conventional science when one can find a youtube source that will ‘prove’ anything you choose to believe. And the best part…..no need for basic literacy!


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

beemandan said:


> I thought this had all been resolved with the advent of youtube. There’s no longer any need for conventional science when one can find a youtube source that will ‘prove’ anything you choose to believe. And the best part…..no need for basic literacy!


If you are savvy with the use of tags and conditions, you can do searches that only return the conclusion you are looking for. It looks impressive in a discussion to trot out what looks like overwhelming support for your position.

And "science" gets a black eye for it!


----------



## beemandan (Dec 5, 2005)

crofter said:


> you can do searches that only return the conclusion you are looking for. It looks impressive in a discussion to trot out what looks like overwhelming support for your position.


Totally awesome, isn’t it?! Who needs peer review? Formal materials and methods? Controls? 
One has to wonder how ‘science’ ever progressed without the internet and youtube.


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

I'm a card-carrying scientist (I'm browsing beesource as a way to avoiding working on editing a study), and I have to say, threads like this are hard for me to read. The degree to which the general public misunderstands how science works and how scientists operates is aggravating to say the least. A few points, in response to some of what was written in this thread.



jim lyon said:


> Interesting. One of the problems I have is that these “studies” are usually legit to the degree that the public needs to understand that they are quite often funded by a group looking for a particular result and run by a scientist quite interested in the accompanying publicity that comes with his “discovery”. The phrase “publish or parish” may well accurately describe the pressure a researcher may be feeling. Amazingly they always seem to find the result they are looking for but one always needs to look carefully at the numbers to determine how significant the conclusion really is and are all variables truly factored in? I guess I’ve gotten so jaded by this whole process that when I read the headline trumpeting the results of “a new study” I either ignore it or read it with a great deal of suspicion.


This is a classical example of several common misconceptions of how scientists work, how science itself works, and science funded. There is a lot to unpack here.

Firstly, the vast majority (internationally, ~80%) of published research is performed by independent scientists (e.g. in university, research centre, or government labs) and is funded via governmental grants or funds from charities/NPO's. And when we are funded by a company or organisation that may create the appearance of a conflict, it is openly declared. The very reason you know that some science is funded by industry or other sources of conflict is because of the formal ethical framework we work under that requires us to disclose. Failing to disclose a conflict can be a career-ending event, as is faking results to make them match a desired outcome. To put that into context, those are two of the few things that can get a tenured prof like myself fired, and it (quite publicly) ends a number of careers each year.

Secondly, we rarely find the result we are "looking for", but when you author a study there is a degree of "storytelling" involved that can make it appear that way. As a general rule, less than one in ten tested hypothesis are found to be "correct" (meaning the data aligns with the hypothesis - it can still subsequently be found to be false). But failed hypotheses are rarely the focus of studies, and in many cases do not even get discussed. So when you read the literature you tend to see the 1-in-10 things that worked, while the 9-in-10 that didn't are either given minimal coverage or are simply unmentioned.

Thirdly, science is an iterative process. What that means is that any one study, on its own and in isolation, has nearly zero scientific value. Confidence in scientific conclusions comes not from single studies, but rather from consistent results between studies, results that build upon previous results, and replication. 

Lastly, looking to the media for scientific information is guaranteed to lead you astray. Media isn't interested in accurately reflecting the science or what a particular study/advancement really means. What they are interested in is sexy headlines which drives revenue. As one example, back in 2003 I led a study that discovered a treatment that provided a modest improvement in one secondary clinical aspect experienced by HIV patients (we found that a very old and commonly used cancer drug could help reduce some of the susceptibility to infection HIV patients have, even when their infection is effectively controlled by antiretroviral drugs). And the drug had pretty horrible side-effects, so it would never actually be used in patients. According to a story carried by Reuters, we had discovered a new drug that cured HIV. A lot of Reuters affiliates bought the story - so Reuters got their $$$ - but they didn't even manage to spell my name right.

Also, 50-60% of scientists are women, so our discoveries are not "his discovery"



Robert Holcombe said:


> Control is making a problem "go away, return and go away", black and white. Biology, with so many independent variables repeatability and control issues makes it really difficult. Is "statistically significant" really "significant" or can it be used to influence results and sell an idea?


Controlling things in biology is not as hard as this - in a lab setting we can usually keep everything constant but for the one variable we manipulate. In the field (clinic, etc) we cannot control things to that extent, but there are very well established and successful methods for quantifying and accounting for confounding factors that cannot be controlled. The real issue tends to be one of money - addressing confounds usually requires a larger study population and more measurements; both of which are costly. Which is why smaller studies are often treated as unreliable until repeated or replaced with a larger study population.

As for the question "is statistically significant also biologically significant"...that is actually an easy question to answer. Most fields use some sort of effect size measurement as part of their routine statistical analyses (e.g. odds ratios in clinical studies). These remove the question of how significant a significant result is, as it explicitly measures the size of the impact your experimental manipulation actually had.



GregV said:


> In the cases of bee products consistency and repeatability is impossible.
> With this in mind, consistency and repeatability of the results is impossible.
> With this in mind, consistency and repeatability of the conclusions is impossible.


Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. The entirety of statistics (and thus science) is predicated on the assumption that everything we measure will be subject to variation - e.g. different honey compositions, differences in biology between individuals, etc. The whole entire point of the science of statistics is to provide tools that allow us to accurately quantify and understand that variation, and to be able to compare between groups in the presence of that variation. Which is why, despite literally everything in this universe being subject to variation, science has been able to make the advances that it has made, and continues to make.



Cloverdale said:


> I’ve been thinking on this also; being beekeepers some of us want to sell everything from the hive, including “bee pollen” and making propolis tinctures, and selling royal jelly. The science available for the aforementioned list is for the benefit of honey bees. But is there any science on how beneficial it would be to human beings? All we have is our own experience, or those experiences of others, to go on. Is there any papers or science behind these claims that I can pass on to customers who ask about these products? I’m not trying to judge anyone who does sell these products.


While somewhat OT of the thread, the evidence for any sort of clinical benefit of any hive product is pretty slim (with, in some cases, data explicitly showing some claims to be wrong) . Most of the claims are either unevidenced nonsense (i.e. people just made it up...probably because they had something to sell and needed a pitch), or radical and unsupported extension of a minor observation into claims of medical efficacy.

One quick example - honey is often touted as a a treatment for a variety of infectious diseases (flu, infected cuts, etc). This idea is based on the well supported fact that, in its undiluted form, honey has a modest antimicrobial activity. The mechanism of that effect is known and well established (a combination of microbriostatic sugar concentrations + enzymes that create peroxides). But as a clinical intervention...it doesn't really work. Pure honey if placed on a wound is mildly antimicrobrial (about as effective as an OTC agent like neosporin), and is far inferior to conventional clinical treatments (e.g. sutures + medical-grade antiseptics). So it is not wrong to say honey is antimicrobial...but how we often see honey advertised to be used as an antimicrobial (e.g. consumed, in teas, in tinctures, etc) involves doing things that would eliminate that effect. For example, anything that dilutes the honey - even only slightly - dramatically curtails its antimicrobial effect. And that lost effect is completely predictable. The suppressible effect on microbial growth created by the sugar in honey is right on the verge of where suppression ends. As little as a 2% dilution (e.g. going from 18% to 20% moisture) eliminates that effect for many microorgnaisms, including many pathogens. Likewise, the peroxides in honey are created by an enzyme called glucose oxidase, which is instantly inactivated in even modestly hot water (65C/150F), in our digestive tract, and its activity slows quickly as honey is diluted.

Essentially, people who market in this way are taking a small truth and stretching it beyond both reason and into territory where studies have directly shown those effects to be eliminated.

Bryan


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

Bryan, thank you for this post! Deb


----------



## little_john (Aug 4, 2014)

SuiGeneris said:


> Sorry, but this is utter nonsense.


Nonsense ? It's most certainly not - and it's got sod-all to do with statistics.

For example, there is no such substance as 'pure honey' - it cannot be defined in anything other than the vaguest terms. Within the last few years, the EU mandarins (who are obsessed with defining as many aspects of everyday life as they possibly can) tried to define honey precisely - and failed. One of the problems they couldn't surmount was that of the presence of pollen. They'd already provisionally 'defined' honey as being a natural substance to which nothing must either have been added or removed. But pollen - being a frequent constituent of honey - then gave them a headache. It clearly isn't a sweet sugary liquid as is the bulk of honey, and so perhaps ought to be removed to generate a more 'pure' product - but that would entail contravening their own prior working definition. 
They even considered imposing a condition that honey must never be extracted from any comb which had previously held brood - until it was pointed out to them that this contravened the basic concept of a 'natural' product, and would thus impose some degree of artificiality. So they had to come up with a mealy-mouthed compromise which, afaik, remains to this day along with the nonsensical legal requirement to provide a 'Best Before' date on jars of honey.

Keeping this critique rather more science-oriented - how do guys running NMR scans determine whether their test sample is adulterated or not ? Well they can't - precisely because there's no such substance as a 'standard' honey against which to compare it with. So - the best they have come up with is to take samples from a region over a period of time which are then considered to be representative, against which the suspect sample is compared. But a good lawyer can have a field day with such an approach, precisely because (in Greg's words) "In the case of bee products consistency and repeatability is impossible."

Some of us do not have a very high regard for statistics - let's kick off by examining the choice of alpha (p-value) which is invariably set at 0.05 - which corresponds to a 5% chance that results have occurred at random. Why choose 5% ? Statisticians are loathe to admit that a p-value of 0.05 is completely arbitrary. R.A. Fischer, the father of modern statistics, plucked 0.05 out of fresh air, and it has simply stuck.

The value of alpha needs to be chosen *before* an experiment is conducted, because if chosen afterwards, a number could be selected to indicate that the data is significant no matter what it consisted of - and so by manipulating the value of alpha (and thus altering the significance threshold) it becomes possible to even 'prove' the opposite conclusion of what the data actually shows.

Hence the well-known expression that, "There are lies, ****ed lies, and statistics", a phrase which describes perfectly the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. 

'Significance' itself has two completely different meanings - one being that the data is unlikely to have occurred by chance - the other being that the data differs from the control to such a degree that the results themselves have some meaningful interpretation. So that it would be entirely possible to have data which is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance, and yet the experiment itself be so badly formulated as to provided worthless conclusions: significant, yet not significant. (I have one or two of these in mind as I write this).

Personally I wouldn't describe statistics as being a science - I'd say it's one method which can be employed to avoid having to admit that you've discovered nothing of value, either that or have got something hopelessly wrong.
LJ


----------



## BernhardHeuvel (Mar 13, 2013)

little_john said:


> Keeping this critique rather more science-oriented - how do guys running NMR scans determine whether their test sample is adulterated or not ? Well they can't - precisely because there's no such substance as a 'standard' honey against which to compare it with.



https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...nge-Detecting-Fraudulent-Honey-using-NMR.aspx


Also fits nicely here: https://entomologytoday.org/2019/02/21/inside-look-how-varroa-mite-diet-discovered/


----------



## Fivej (Apr 4, 2016)

Thank you Bryan for taking the time to make a thoughtful response. I MIGHT take issue on the practical value of honey as a anti-microbial. Our local hospital has been using Medihoney which is labeled 100% Manuka honey for a wound dressing. This is an external use and I am unsure if it has been used if the wound is seriously infected, but it commonly used here for open wounds and bedsores with good results. I have no idea what studies have been performed on it, but they no longer use neosporin. Thanks again. J


----------



## crofter (May 5, 2011)

Fivej said:


> Thank you Bryan for taking the time to make a thoughtful response. I MIGHT take issue on the practical value of honey as a anti-microbial. Our local hospital has been using Medihoney which is labeled 100% Manuka honey for a wound dressing. This is an external use and I am unsure if it has been used if the wound is seriously infected, but it commonly used here for open wounds and bedsores with good results. I have no idea what studies have been performed on it, but they no longer use neosporin. Thanks again. J


Isn't the honey used for wound dressing sterilized by radiation or UV light or some such process. Natural honey has _some_ anti microbial properties but it is not sterile.
Plain old white sugar poultice makes a good emergency wound dressing.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

SuiGeneris said:


> Also, 50-60% of scientists are women, so our discoveries are not "his discovery"
> 
> 
> Bryan


You got me there Bryan but given the fact that the English language lacks a singular unisex pronoun I suppose I should have referred to said scientist as “his/her” or maybe “her/his”.


----------



## Airwreck (Feb 9, 2013)

Normally I keep quiet, but two things need to comment.

First with research: one must remember got have a problem to get grant money.
No problem with bees no grants.
Take all research with a skeptical eye.

Second: about small cell and mites.
I live in a closed environment. A island, we only have small cell bees.
We have no real problem with mites.
So if you need proof, try it.. you just might like the results.😁



JWChesnut said:


> I would say in beekeeping the far more serious problem is the hucksters that sell completly undocumented claims, such as, "I changed to small cell and my mites ceased to be a concern".
> 
> No actual data to support these claims have ever been presented. The hucksters evade and procrastinate when confronted with a demand to back up their nostrums.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

Airwreck said:


> I live in a closed environment.
> We have no real problem with mites.


The perfect location for TF beekeeping, small cell or otherwise.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

LJ 
+1 agree, a study is those bees, that year, in that location, with the weather from that year. Very little is repeatable.
GG


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Cloverdale said:


> I’ve been thinking on this also; being beekeepers some of us want to sell everything from the hive, including “bee pollen” and making propolis tinctures, and selling royal jelly. The science available for the aforementioned list is for the benefit of honey bees. But is there any science on how beneficial it would be to human beings? All we have is our own experience, or those experiences of others, to go on. Is there any papers or science behind these claims that I can pass on to customers who ask about these products? I’m not trying to judge anyone who does sell these products.


The issue with "papers" on pollen , propolis and Jelly is the "funding" In general funds are made available to a study of some "compound" that the funding party owns the patent on. so make a unique product spend 10 K on studies to then make millions. Basically the business plan for most drug companies. Also pollen and jelly and propolis are not "patentable" and, every one in this forum would sell and compete in a market if one was created. So the effort is to po po the evidence of health claims made by bee product proponents, as not proven , no studies, etc to allow them to sell their products. to add insult to injury, IF you claim health effects and give/sell the hive product, that is "prescribing with out a Doctors license" and you get to go to jail or be fined. One can offer the product, and I would not make any claims. with the internet information is out there if they seek they will find. There is a reason most of the Russian athletes take bee pollen. they also have reason to not give away the methods, we are in an odd times. You may be better off to look for a natural type Doctor and offer the products to them, to offer to their clients. they CAN prescribe and do understand the need. Or offer your card as a source.
GG


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JWPalmer said:


> Deb, with Ruth swearing by it, I am planning to put propolis screens on two of my hives. If there is any arthritic benefit at all, I am game. The hip hurts so bad at the end of the day I can hardly stand upright. If the bees can help, I'll let them. Being caucasians, I expect they will have the first screen ready for me up in no time.


JWP Pantothenic acid is in Royal Jelly it helps with Arthritic conditions. My Grand Dad would sting his hand every week to get relief from Arthritic finger joints. A couple things to perhaps try. Do you notice a difference in your hip when stung a few times?
GG


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Thank you Bryan for the reply from the "research side"

However I disagree with this statement:
Firstly, the vast majority (internationally, ~80%) of published research is performed by independent scientists

Seriously you believe 80 percent of the studies we see in mags, news paper, TV etc is unbiased in any way? 

Just look at Man made global warming, that should help iron this out. 

I cannot accept 80% unbiased as fact, Sorry if I sound like a Skeptic.
GG


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

Gray Goose said:


> Do you notice a difference in your hip when stung a few times?


No, but then again, I have not ever been stung in the hip. I am just a bit skeptical of apitherapy, but I understand the body producing it's own cortisone in response to a bee sting. Propolis is entirely different, a plant material (tree sap for the most part) that the bees use to seal cracks. Who would have thought? But, now we have glucosamine on store shelves and we all know where that comes from.


----------



## Fivej (Apr 4, 2016)

crofter said:


> Isn't the honey used for wound dressing sterilized by radiation or UV light or some such process. Natural honey has _some_ anti microbial properties but it is not sterile.
> Plain old white sugar poultice makes a good emergency wound dressing.


Yes, it is irradiated with Gama rays


----------



## A Novice (Sep 15, 2019)

Hi Greg,

While exact reproducibility of bee products is impossible, it is quite possible that the active chemicals which produce some effect are common to all or at least a substantial majority of a particular bee product. For example, bees collecting propolis may be looking for a particular aromatic compound or compounds present in many plant resins, and only taking resins which have a significant proportion of those chemicals. The rest of it could be anything not toxic. It is noteworthy that propolis always smells the same (at least to me). It is a delightful smell, and in the summer you can tell you are near a bee tree when you smell it in the woods. 

Of course, that isn't good enough for the FDA, so there is no strong motivation to test bee products, as it would be difficult to make commercial pharmaceuticals from them. That is why all of the studies are small and preliminary.

That said, my own observation is propolis is a more potent topical antibiotic, and broader spectrum, than any commercial products. (It has cured infections that resisted all other antibiotics, and appears effective against bacterial, fungal, and viral infections). I make an ointment, and share it with relatives, who share it with friends... It is hard to find enough propolis in my hives. I only collect about 100g per year.


----------



## A Novice (Sep 15, 2019)

The problem with honey as a wound dressing is the possible presence of clostridium botulinum spores. These spores are common in nature, and can be in nectar. The botulinum bacterium is an obligate anaerobe - it can't survive in an oxidizing environment. Since honey is slightly acidic, the spores stay dormant. However in a wound, with poor blood supply, the spores can germinate, and cause an infection. (Wound botulism) In order to kill the spores, it is necessary to either heat the honey to something like 270F (118C) or irradiate it with gamma radiation, which kills everything. Since heating it that hot will ruin it, they use gamma radiation I suppose.

The actual risk is low, I suspect.

The possible presence of these spores is also the reason not to give honey to infants. Since infants - particularly breastfed infants - have a very low acid digestive tract, the spores in honey could germinate and cause an infection. (Infant Botulism).

While I certainly wouldn't recommend feeding honey to infants, it is not an uncommon thing. Muslims in particular include feeding a small amount of honey to an infant as a religious ritual of some sort, based I think on something in the hadiths. A large study by Kaiser Permanente in California looked into the causes of infant botulism, and both living in a rural area and being exclusively breast fed had higher odds ratios for infant botulism than feeding honey to infants. So we are back to the credibility of scientific papers...


----------



## rinkevichjm (Feb 14, 2018)

Perhaps one of the best examples is the reported but non-existent link between autism and vaccinations. Look where that has put us.
Unfortunately that claim has been debunked as if you are African-American and male and an infant under 3 there is a link. I suspect acetaminophen is the actual link as African-Americans have processing issues with that more often and there are other studies indicating it probably is a culprit. More study is needed.


----------



## A Novice (Sep 15, 2019)

Gray Goose said:


> Thank you Bryan for the reply from the "research side"
> 
> However I disagree with this statement:
> Firstly, the vast majority (internationally, ~80%) of published research is performed by independent scientists
> ...


Bias is a tricky thing. There is intentional bias, and unintentional bias. I suspect unintentional bias is present in every study, but is most times not strong enough to substantially affect the results, although it might somewhat affect how they are presented. We all have our biases, and the most difficult ones to deal with are the ones we don't know about. The most common bias is the bias toward a successful outcome. Intentional bias - putting your thumb on the scale, not recording all of your data (outliers), is basically fraud. It is more rare, but probably happens about half of the time (personal estimate- just my biased opinion. 

I did a bit of research when I was younger. I found the temptation to censor my data to show the expected outcome more clearly was very strong. If I recall correctly, I didn't entirely resist it. This is part of the reason I decided on applied science for my working career. Research science frightened me, because it exposed my tendency to cheat a little. This is just basic human wickedness. We all have it. It is why we need a savior.

One thing I appreciate about Randy Oliver is that he shows all of his raw data, and discusses how he wasn't able to execute all of his plans as initially conceived. It is a good practice.

So my opinion is that bias is quite common. This doesn't always affect the outcome. It looks like Gregor Mendel, who didn't understand statistics, modified his data a bit to show the proportions of peas of different sorts would match his theory of inheritance more accurately than you might expect. That doesn't change the fact that he was right, and that he was the first to propose a theory of genetic inheritance. His bias (or maybe he was just very lucky) didn't affect the outcome.

Perhaps a bigger problem is the "p" value of 0.05. in a world where 90% of the time a hypothesis is false, a "p" value of 0.05 represents closer to a 50/50 chance the result is repeatable. I can try and explain that, but it might not make sense. If you see a "p" value of 0.005, there is a good chance the result is repeatable.

Statistical inference is the weakest form of evidence in the scientific world. However, it is often the only kind we can find, because we do not understand the underlying cause and effect well enough test variables directly.


----------



## TehachapiGal (Mar 5, 2015)

Peer reviewed studies are the only documents to take seriously. 

My 2 cents. I don't see any deception of this shop towel method work in process. Randy Oliver appears to be transparent and honest.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/oxalic-shop-towel-updates/


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

Gray Goose said:


> The issue with "papers" on pollen , propolis and Jelly is the "funding" In general funds are made available to a study of some "compound" that the funding party owns the patent on. so make a unique product spend 10 K on studies to then make millions. Basically the business plan for most drug companies. Also pollen and jelly and propolis are not "patentable" and, every one in this forum would sell and compete in a market if one was created. So the effort is to po po the evidence of health claims made by bee product proponents, as not proven , no studies, etc to allow them to sell their products. to add insult to injury, IF you claim health effects and give/sell the hive product, that is "prescribing with out a Doctors license" and you get to go to jail or be fined. One can offer the product, and I would not make any claims. with the internet information is out there if they seek they will find. There is a reason most of the Russian athletes take bee pollen. they also have reason to not give away the methods, we are in an odd times. You may be better off to look for a natural type Doctor and offer the products to them, to offer to their clients. they CAN prescribe and do understand the need. Or offer your card as a source.
> GG


So GG, you mention “bee pollen”; from what I have read bees do nothing to the pollen when they collect it from the flower; all the goodness and added honey bee value happens in the hive, not during the collection of pollen. Deb


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Cloverdale said:


> So GG, you mention “bee pollen”; from what I have read bees do nothing to the pollen when they collect it from the flower; all the goodness and added honey bee value happens in the hive, not during the collection of pollen. Deb


Bee pollen has almost every know long and short chain amino Acid. The hull typically has a hard outer shell, that stomach acid needs to penetrate, but our gastrit juice is capable of doing it. For many bee pollen is a "super food" Most pollen sold is for "food" Again Pollen is not patentable so I am not aware of extensive studies to prove or dis prove its value to humans. Pollen in the hive is eventually converted to bee bread or stored pollen to give it more "shelf life" as plain raw pollen,, does have much of a shelf life. Pollen would typically be dried/dehydrated and frozen to keep for any period of time for human consumption.

I think the bees add a bit of moisture to make the ball on their leg stick together, not sure if that is nectar, or stuff from the fore- gut. So do nothing is close but not 100% accurate. For several years when I was training, I would sprinkle a spoon full on a slice of honey toast. Has a "distinct" taste. I was healthy in my youth but we all were 
GG


----------



## SuiGeneris (Feb 13, 2018)

Few more replies



Fivej said:


> Thank you Bryan for taking the time to make a thoughtful response. I MIGHT take issue on the practical value of honey as a anti-microbial. Our local hospital has been using Medihoney which is labeled 100% Manuka honey for a wound dressing. This is an external use and I am unsure if it has been used if the wound is seriously infected, but it commonly used here for open wounds and bedsores with good results. I have no idea what studies have been performed on it, but they no longer use neosporin. Thanks again. J


Medihoney is just manuka honey, and is as antimicrobrial as any other pure honey. Its efficacy is no better than the stuff normally used for treatment of minor wounds (like neosporan). One example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29279804

Its also been shown to be harmful in some patients: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24119840



jim lyon said:


> You got me there Bryan but given the fact that the English language lacks a singular unisex pronoun I suppose I should have referred to said scientist as “his/her” or maybe “her/his”.


"They" has been in use as a unisex pronoun since the 1500's.



Gray Goose said:


> The issue with "papers" on pollen , propolis and Jelly is the "funding" In general funds are made available to a study of some "compound" that the funding party owns the patent on. so make a unique product spend 10 K on studies to then make millions. Basically the business plan for most drug companies. Also pollen and jelly and propolis are not "patentable" and, every one in this forum would sell and compete in a market if one was created. So the effort is to po po the evidence of health claims made by bee product proponents, as not proven , no studies, etc to allow them to sell their products. to add insult to injury, IF you claim health effects and give/sell the hive product, that is "prescribing with out a Doctors license" and you get to go to jail or be fined. One can offer the product, and I would not make any claims. with the internet information is out there if they seek they will find. There is a reason most of the Russian athletes take bee pollen. they also have reason to not give away the methods, we are in an odd times. You may be better off to look for a natural type Doctor and offer the products to them, to offer to their clients. they CAN prescribe and do understand the need. Or offer your card as a source.
> GG


None of this is true. You cannot patent a naturally existing compound (you can patent an isolation method or synthesis method though). Moreover, as a researcher I can investigate patented materials without licensure or liability, and companies have no recourse to prevent me from doing so. In fact, a major aspect of my labs work is investigating existing (both on- and off-patent) medications as well as orphan drugs for the treatment of cardiovascular disease and pneumonia. And if a product is legitimate (e.g. the company is confident that it will work), they are usually estatic to work with someone like me as, if things pan out, they end up with a larger market. Only people knowingly running a scam would not want to work with a scientist to see if there is a new potential market for their product.

And while it is true that you cannot (legally) make unsubstantiated claims that a product has health benefits without a clinical trial & certification demonstrating efficacy, enforcement of that law is piss-poor. The entire basis of the "alternative medicine" industry is the fact that the FDA (& their equivalent in other countries) is too understaffed to actually enforce the law.

As for "natural" doctors, they kill people: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/110/1/121/4064136



Gray Goose said:


> Thank you Bryan for the reply from the "research side"
> 
> However I disagree with this statement:
> Firstly, the vast majority (internationally, ~80%) of published research is performed by independent scientists
> ...


I am a scientist, and these people are my coworkers, peers and friends. And yes, they are independent - independence is the foundation of scientific "culture", and one of the most common grounds of conflict between us and our employers.

But we don't write the stuff that appears in mags, papers and on TV. We write scientific studies that appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As I pointed out in my first post, the media does a horrendously bad job of reporting on science and frequently are found outright misrepresent what the studies actually show in order to create click bait. Keep in mind that according to Reuters I cured HIV back in the early 2000's...something I never did, nor ever claimed to have done.



little_john said:


> Some of us do not have a very high regard for statistics - let's kick off by examining the choice of alpha (p-value) which is invariably set at 0.05 - which corresponds to a 5% chance that results have occurred at random. Why choose 5% ? Statisticians are loathe to admit that a p-value of 0.05 is completely arbitrary. R.A. Fischer, the father of modern statistics, plucked 0.05 out of fresh air, and it has simply stuck.


Others have already pointed out your flaws in terms of being unable to define honey (although pointing out that honey is variable in composition as somehow being proof that my statement that science is built around describing, quantifying and analysing variation was somehow wrong was...entertaining).

But lets talk stats, which you clearly do not understand. Firstly, p-values are not the end-all and be-all of statistics, and scientists are far more aware than you of their limitations. There is a reason why additional statistical measures are nearly always added in addition to p values (e.g. effect size, bootstrap values, odds ratios, etc) - they address the limitations of the p value. And there are whole other fields of stats that are very commonly used in the sciences that don't even use p-values; Baysian statistics being the most common.



little_john said:


> Hence the well-known expression that, "There are lies, ****ed lies, and statistics", a phrase which describes perfectly the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.


Nice plagiarising of the wikipedia article. Too bad your saying is a logical fallacy; an excuse to dismiss evidence you find inconvenient because you don't understand what statistics are or how to interpret them.

EDIT: also, your definition of what a p values means was completely wrong.

Bryan


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

JWPalmer said:


> No, but then again, I have not ever been stung in the hip. I am just a bit skeptical of apitherapy, but I understand the body producing it's own cortisone in response to a bee sting. Propolis is entirely different, a plant material (tree sap for the most part) that the bees use to seal cracks. Who would have thought? But, now we have glucosamine on store shelves and we all know where that comes from.


JWP I get the being a skeptic part, but I also have dealt with pain. So you are in a unique position to "try" Apitherapy. So take an old bee suit and cut a softball size hole to expose your hip in the area of the pain  ya I know the neighbors may think you have spun a little out of control. Surround the hole with 1 part of Velcro, make a patch with the other part of Velcro, When you have your "dose" put the patch on. Seems you would soon know if there would be relief. If it helps then work on a go forward plan, perhaps catch 3 or 4 bees and press them to the area in the comfort of your rocking chair. Certainly running around in your Apiary which part of your back side hanging out may not be a go forward plan, it may be enlightening to see if it works. As an option one could track down an Apitherapist and proceed with a trained professional, once you get a couple treatments you will know the spot and dose and could self administer. My guess as a untrained non professional Apitherapist would be 3 stings to start. For me I look forward to the first sting of spring, the fire feeling running up my vein.....I may be biased in that I enjoy the first 6-8 sting of the day. good luck, fear not
GG


----------



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

bee-l had a very good discussion on this back in 2015, but with new changes I can find the post being logged in, but the link won't work for you because it has my Id in the link. so if you use bee- enter the string following


> Time to Fix Science's Pollution Problem


 in a nut shell most of what everyone says above is true, what bee-l brings out is the influence of Money and the fact that all kinds of publications are cropping up and most of them don't have very high standards, and as one person says we the consumer don't really know which ones are creditable or not. that's why I stick with Randy O, and the others on Bee-l to let me know which ones are accurate and which one's are bull droppings. the first entry is at the bottom I think there are 8 entries.


----------



## Robert Holcombe (Oct 10, 2019)

SuiGeneris - I feel as if I have been misquoted or taken out-of-context. I am not the greatest communicator via writing but learning. What I love about beekeeping is it connects my old world of hardware/physics to biology, a portal so to speak. I loved biology as a kid but went the hardware path for money.

My statement: "Is "statistically significant" really "significant" or *can* it be used to influence results and sell an idea?" Maybe I should change "can" to "is". You interpreted it as "is statistically significant also biologically significant". I admit to not having a enough knowledge to judge biological significance nor studied statistics much beyond "standard deviations". I have not applied available statistical data except in system reliability - availability matters. I don't feel I can comment on the usefulness in biological research but often accept the judgement of peer reviewers. I likely incorporated statistical issues in my hardware world as tolerances and time affects thus accounted for them in the design. I have encountered the multiple variable issues and handled them via non-dimensional groups as used in fluidic analysis for example. Or I found an alternate solution.

My point was, I think, all new ideas, hypothesizes or hardware designs, have to be sold. Meaning accepted by a wide audience to be of value. Many things, especially hardware, are sold based on solid test performance with acceptance parameters - mostly pass/fail testing. In Research efforts I see an extraordinary number of various statistical packages or "names" used to sell an idea as statistically significant without explanation. ( Maybe I need to study the paper more.) But I made this claim without having investigated the composition and modeling used in the statistical packages. It is math and it has definitions (if not hidden in proprietary information). But I do note the various packages being used to sell ideas in a paper with little to no explanation in the paper. I guess it is assumed I will investigate each statistical model to understand the applicability of each method. I also have to judege how it applies to a yearly cycle or specific event of beekeeping. It reminds me of the rapid development of digital modeling of dynamic fluid flow, use of "supplied" coefficients - until my retirement I never saw one that did not have an Achilles heel. I hope they keep testing real airplanes versus computer model testing only. Single point of failure should not be allowed. 

If the availability of money or budget limitations has a statistically significant effect on the test plan maybe the plan should be changed. If adequate sensors are not available, humidity for example, it should be stated or explained why it is not important and so on. 

Maybe someday I will understand the statistical justification for using sugar or alcohol wash data for my IPM plan but for now I'll stick with post treatment dead-drop counts. I guess I use historical statistics imprinted in my brain as to when to treat-test-treat-stop.

BTW, I thought a lot of comments on this subject were quite good, including yours. Thanks for the effort.


----------



## Planethill (Jun 8, 2015)

SuiGeneris said:


> Lies, ****ed lies, and statistics


There is a quote that is often passed around at my day job (non-bee related). 

"You can prove anything with statistics... except the truth" - Unknown .


----------



## GregB (Dec 26, 2017)

A Novice said:


> Hi Greg,
> 
> While exact reproducibility of bee products is impossible, it is quite possible that the active chemicals which produce some effect are common to all or at least a substantial majority of a particular bee product. ........


Since you mentioned propolis, here is a cut from one of the documents I have on propolis:








What it shows is any propolis sample (AND any bee product for that matter) is unique to its geographic source (down to the micro-source, in fact).
Technically, this is a snapshot of the bee forage source flora in that exact time and place.

While there are some commonalities between samples - exactly reproducible sample is impossible. 
Now, this boils down to concentration ranges/measurement tolerances/significance of concentrations/volatility for each and every chemical compound present (out of possibly thousands). Only very broad generalizations are possible - often sufficient enough.

Add to this the humans with their desire for convenience and "purity".
Did anyone ever thought of spinned honey being just a "honey product", NOT true honey.
In fact, spinned honey is a honey product, NOT true honey - the process of centrifuging honey already adulterates it.
Before anyone even tests a sample of honey, they should think HOW to collect the honey sample (most "scientists" never have a clue) - one should collect the honey samples DIRECTLY from the capped cells, while following some proper averaging technique (since the honey samples even across a single comb will not be consistent).

Mainly why I started my own bee program - to have access to true, UN-adoluterated, UN-polluted bee products in the best fashion possible - regardless of the science/pseudo-science.



> I only collect about 100g per year.



Run more hives.
I already harvested 300g this fall/winter - there is much, much more to harvest.


----------



## A Novice (Sep 15, 2019)

TehachapiGal said:


> Peer reviewed studies are the only documents to take seriously.
> 
> My 2 cents. I don't see any deception of this shop towel method work in process. Randy Oliver appears to be transparent and honest.
> http://scientificbeekeeping.com/oxalic-shop-towel-updates/


Peer reviewed studies suffer from poor reproducibility. Partly this is due to bias on the part of researchers, partly it is due to unidentified confounding variables which differ, and partly it is because the results of the previous study were due to chance.

Generally, peer reviewed studies are better than online articles. (both are better than anonymous rants like this one). However, I don't think Randy's work is peer reviewed, and I agree it is well presented.

I agree with you that Randy Oliver's warts and all approach to presenting his experiments and results is useful. It helps keep him honest, and helps us understand the limitations of his methods. 

His biggest problems are sample size, confounding variables, and diversity. Sample size is a problem because to have good confidence in the results, you need large samples if individual variation is large (which it is whenever you are experimenting with bees), Confounding variables are problems because (and this is especially true when sample size is small) things like having a successful hive robbing out a mite bomb is beyond our control, and it can significantly affect outcomes. Diversity of samples is a problem, because what works in California may not work in Wisconsin for reasons we may not understand.

So it is worthwhile to understand what he is doing, and maybe try it yourself. But your results may differ. 

If you want to verify Randy's results, you should have at least 30 hives in the study group and the control group, and they should be separated enough from each other as not to interact, and they should be in sufficiently identical locations (based on having kept bees in both locations previously using the same methods and getting statistically identical results) so that comparisons are valid. 

Using statistical inference really stinks. It is so weak.

If the effect is really strong (group A produces 100 LBS of honey each, with 100% survival, Group B all die) then it is easier. 

You still need a good sized sample, however. I had one hive produce 60 lbs. of honey and go in to winter strong, starting from bare wood last year. The hive next to it just barely survived. Same management. Obviously, a sample of 2 isn't big enough.

This is why beekeepers are so superstitious.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

Gray Goose said:


> Bee pollen has almost every know long and short chain amino Acid. The hull typically has a hard outer shell, that stomach acid needs to penetrate, but our gastrit juice is capable of doing it. For many bee pollen is a "super food" Most pollen sold is for "food" Again Pollen is not patentable so I am not aware of extensive studies to prove or dis prove its value to humans. Pollen in the hive is eventually converted to bee bread or stored pollen to give it more "shelf life" as plain raw pollen,, does have much of a shelf life. Pollen would typically be dried/dehydrated and frozen to keep for any period of time for human consumption.
> 
> I think the bees add a bit of moisture to make the ball on their leg stick together, not sure if that is nectar, or stuff from the fore- gut. So do nothing is close but not 100% accurate. For several years when I was training, I would sprinkle a spoon full on a slice of honey toast. Has a "distinct" taste. I was healthy in my youth but we all were
> GG


https://www.facebook.com/NPR/videos/2792551914118970/
Do you all think this video is accurate?

Answering GG, Yes, the ? (I can’t remember the part of the leg that is used to push the pollen in) is a little sticky so the pollen doesn’t fall easily, and a minute amount helps it to stick, BUT, my question still isn’t answered. Why call it bee pollen when it is really flower pollen collected by a bee? There is no difference in the pollen composition just because a bee packed it in her pollen baskets. A honey bee did nothing to that pollen to warrant the selling of “bee pollen” being better for you. I understand the beneficial composition of pollen, and of bee bread. I get disgruntled with the fact that people sell regular flower pollen as bee pollen that claims to be more beneficial for your health.


----------



## A Novice (Sep 15, 2019)

Hi Greg,

I looked at your data on propolis, and it agrees with what I said (maybe).

While the type of tree may differ significantly, the active chemical(s) may be present in all of those tree species. After all, all of those tree species need to defend themselves against fungi, viruses, and bacteria. So it is possible they all produce similar chemicals to do that. I suggested this as a possibility in my earlier post. It is also plausible that bees would be able to detect these chemicals, because they need them. 

For example, the antimicrobial property of honey apparently derives from it being a very concentrated sugar-water solution. This is true of all honey. so all honey is about equally effective as an antimicrobial agent (topical). It doesn't make much difference if it is from clover or from buckwheat. As long as it is glucose/fructose with a little water, it will work, and it can be studied on that basis. Since how it is extracted does not materially affect water concentration, it is not relevant to its antimicrobial properties.

A key part of the foregoing is that the researcher brings some understanding of the effect and how it might be caused to the experiment. If we have no idea why honey is rumored to have antimicrobial properties, then we would need not only to study the effect, but to study the variation in that effect between honeys of different provenance.

For the beneficial effects of propolis, since the specific chemicals which cause the noted effects are not well known, and their relative concentrations in propolis collected from different species are not well known, any meaningful study of its benefits (antimicrobial and anti inflammatory) would need eventually to study the effects of variation. This would be a very large study, and quite expensive.

It would be much better to identify the biochemical mechanisms involved, possibly by theoretical or in vitro methods, so that the specific chemical mechanisms could be identified. This of course would require smart people with lots of education and expensive equipment. Since there is no reasonable scheme by which the costs of doing this could be recovered, it seems unlikely that will happen.

So we are left with small studies, and mostly with testimonials of people who have tried it.

Since most products of the hive are harmless to most people, this is pretty safe. Your results may vary, because your hive may produce products which differ in relevant ways from mine. Or they may vary due to random chance. Or they may vary due to differences in processing, or because the experiments are not the same. Your athlete's foot may be different from mine. 

I would have more hives, but I am geographically constrained. I probably have another 100 g or so to collect, but right now I an busy making a no lifting hive for my sister.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Cloverdale said:


> https://www.facebook.com/NPR/videos/2792551914118970/
> Do you all think this video is accurate?
> 
> Answering GG, Yes, the ? (I can’t remember the part of the leg that is used to push the pollen in) is a little sticky so the pollen doesn’t fall easily, and a minute amount helps it to stick, BUT, my question still isn’t answered. Why call it bee pollen when it is really flower pollen collected by a bee? There is no difference in the pollen composition just because a bee packed it in her pollen baskets. A honey bee did nothing to that pollen to warrant the selling of “bee pollen” being better for you. I understand the beneficial composition of pollen, and of bee bread. I get disgruntled with the fact that people sell regular flower pollen as bee pollen that claims to be more beneficial for your health.


Watched the NPR video, seems ok I guess "bee pollen" would be pollen collected by bees. Can you buy pollen collected by Man or machine? I do not know just wondering. If there is machine collected pollen then if should be stated on the package. The only pollen I have seen is stores is bee collected.


----------



## Tom T (May 27, 2016)

I have a few theories with no data except anecdotal and personal experience for the theories in some of these threads. Full disclosure, my wife has a doctorate degree and teaches statistics. I took enough statistics classes to know how the statistics work and enough experience to see certain truths to know that statistics is just a mathematical tool. Just as with any tool, the way you use it is very important. I can do a lot with a hive tool that an inexperienced hand just doesn't know. I use my hive tool a lot in construction for various tasks for example. 

Now onto the theories. I believe honey has antiseptic properties known and published but there may be other factors here. I had a honey client that wanted honey for a skin cancer wound. Honey will provide moisture and much of a wound healing has to do with the scab and edges. Keeping the skin from drying out too much around the scab, which honey would do if applied correctly and consistently, does help in keeping the wound/scab/skin interface from drying out too much while the wound is healing which might help in recovery. Neosporin or other topicals could do the same thing but the honey seems to bring more moisture where the wound needs it. 

My wife is allergic to pollen. She can not eat broccoli (I wish I knew that excuse when I was younger), nor can she eat honey. I can have no bees at or around the house because any sting immediately sends her into a reaction. I would never suggest that she put honey (my raw honey) on a wound. Different wounds will heal differently depending how deep they are and if the skin has to replace itself from the bottom skin cells or if the wound has no bottom layers. So many variables here.

My other theory is that bee stings can help people with arthritis and maybe partly due to the kind they have. Bee stings definitely help my hands. Arthritis refers to around 200 rheumatic diseases and conditions that affect joints, including lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. (taken from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7621.php#types ). Bee stings may give the body something different to attack than itself as in the case of rheumatoid arthritis. (that is my theory). It might help in a lot of other ways like putting the body's response mechanisms to work. I don't really know. Apitherapy works on me but it would be deadly to my wife (yes the gets allergy shots regularly). 

In any therapy or medicine one needs to listen to their own body. One of my daughters is allergic to sulpha drugs where they work on the vast majority of people. 

I like to hear of other people thinking outside the box and I love scientific studies as an idea that might work but they need to be tested. The whole thing of litium salts as a treatment for varroa is an example. I am appreciative of the statistics Randy Oliver goes through to quantify results in a more scientific manner than pure anecdotal evidence. The rigors of math do give credence (if the tool is used right) to the study. It is true that it is almost if not impossible to get all the variables the same in bee studies but some studies do it better than others. A scientific study with statistics and variables controlled (at least getting all the variables that make a difference) is much better than anecdotal evidence alone. All of the variables make beekeeping an art as much as it is a science. I personally like anecdotal information but I also like scientific information too in order to help me with my art of beekeeping. 

It would be nice if we had some of these scientific studies in their own archive for this site.


----------



## JWChesnut (Jul 31, 2013)

Airwreck said:


> Normally I keep quiet, but two things need to comment.
> 
> First with research: one must remember got have a problem to get grant money.
> No problem with bees no grants.
> ...


This 2018 paper argues that VSH behavior selected out of a nearly complete extermination is responsible in Barbados. 

https://beecare.bayer.com/media-center/beenow/detail/barbados-honey-bees-know-how-to-fight-varroa

"small cell" is not mentioned and photographs show comb on plastic foundation.


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

BernhardHeuvel said:


> https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...nge-Detecting-Fraudulent-Honey-using-NMR.aspx
> 
> 
> Also fits nicely here: https://entomologytoday.org/2019/02/21/inside-look-how-varroa-mite-diet-discovered/


The above link is great on Dr Sam Ramsey’s work. I will never forget hearing him speak at a SABA Seminar a few years ago with the visual of the slides! For those of you who haven’t seen them it’s worth the visit. Sorry for disrupting the current thread.


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

So not too much to add about the scientists. I assume many are doing honest work. Lots could be said about the publishers., though. Beekeeping example: look at the ads in bee mags. Do you think they would publish early articles that contradict those ads? Or with government funded science: the agencies have agendas. There are examples all over the place where good scientists have had their work suppressed because it did not fit into the agenda.
Then there are also flaws in the scientific method: we westerners claim to be objective observers.... What is the first step in scientific method? Ask a question (that interests me!) Second step? Create a hypothesis (out of myself, not an observation). We inject ourselves into the observation before we start to observe. I think youd have to be brain dead to not see the subjectivity in that! We must fill ousrlves up with our own thoughts about the "thing" before we go into the field to observe it. (surely more objectivity could be achieved if we emptied ourselves so we could see the thing rather than our reflections or projections.)To be sure, many fascinating details have been discovered using the scientific method. It is not objective though. And when we add the editors in we get very subjective indeed. Again, plenty of peer reviewed articles may come close or even achieve great science, but what we the masses consume has usually been significantly edited. And many things which we the masses have come to believe are from articles that have since been retracted or scientifically disproved. I believe the BBC ran a story many years ago that the average scientific "fact" has a 4 year shelf life. Knowing that they also edit this can surely be taken with a grain of salt. However I would not get too attached to any idea that has been "scientifically proven".... Happy BeeKeeping everybody.
PS "They" is plural. So we are still missing a singular pronoun that is not awkward for "her/his" etc. "Han" in Finnish works fine. Some people have already figured it out.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Amibusiness said:


> So not too much to add about the scientists. I assume many are doing honest work. Lots could be said about the publishers., though. Beekeeping example: look at the ads in bee mags. Do you think they would publish early articles that contradict those ads? Or with government funded science: the agencies have agendas. There are examples all over the place where good scientists have had their work suppressed because it did not fit into the agenda.
> Then there are also flaws in the scientific method: we westerners claim to be objective observers.... What is the first step in scientific method? Ask a question (that interests me!) Second step? Create a hypothesis (out of myself, not an observation). We inject ourselves into the observation before we start to observe. I think youd have to be brain dead to not see the subjectivity in that! We must fill ousrlves up with our own thoughts about the "thing" before we go into the field to observe it. (surely more objectivity could be achieved if we emptied ourselves so we could see the thing rather than our reflections or projections.)To be sure, many fascinating details have been discovered using the scientific method. It is not objective though. And when we add the editors in we get very subjective indeed. Again, plenty of peer reviewed articles may come close or even achieve great science, but what we the masses consume has usually been significantly edited. And many things which we the masses have come to believe are from articles that have since been retracted or scientifically disproved. I believe the BBC ran a story many years ago that the average scientific "fact" has a 4 year shelf life. Knowing that they also edit this can surely be taken with a grain of salt. However I would not get too attached to any idea that has been "scientifically proven".... Happy BeeKeeping everybody.
> PS "They" is plural. So we are still missing a singular pronoun that is not awkward for "her/his" etc. "Han" in Finnish works fine. Some people have already figured it out.


:thumbsup: Well stated. It’s also noteworthy that preliminary results of studies are often reported as facts well ahead of any peer review process. 
Even the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine’s reporting gets skewed by a media intent on cherry-picking the sensational stuff to headline an article without fully reporting the complexity of how scientific studies can be interpreted. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5392115/


----------



## Apis Natural (Aug 31, 2017)

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/articles-predatory-journals-receive-few-or-no-citations

interesting read about junk science reporting


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

SuiGeneris said:


> This is a classical example of several common misconceptions of how scientists work, how science itself works, and science funded. There is a lot to unpack here.
> 
> Firstly, the vast majority (internationally, ~80%) of published research is performed by independent scientists (e.g. in university, research centre, or government labs) and is funded via governmental grants or funds from charities/NPO's. And when we are funded by a company or organisation that may create the appearance of a conflict, it is openly declared.
> 
> Bryan


I diligently looked for some confirmation of what you are asserting here out of genuine curiosity and this is the most recent link I could find. 
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...t-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50
On a side note I do find it a bit silly that I have to defend myself from a subtle accusation of sexism for choosing to use the singular pronoun "his" instead of "they" because (I guess) it has been used as a singular pronoun since the 1500's. Seriously??


----------



## Cloverdale (Mar 26, 2012)

“PS "They" is plural. So we are still missing a singular pronoun that is not awkward for "her/his" etc. "Han" in Finnish works fine. Some people have already figured it out.[/QUOTE]”

Is it really that important? Yikes.


----------



## Amibusiness (Oct 3, 2016)

Quote: "They" has been in use as a unisex pronoun since the 1500's.

No not important. I have not done any research on how long they has been used as a singular pronoun. Above the claim was made that it could be used. So chiming in on a side discussion.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Cloverdale said:


> “PS "They" is plural. So we are still missing a singular pronoun that is not awkward for "her/his" etc. "Han" in Finnish works fine. Some people have already figured it out.


”

Is it really that important? Yikes.[/QUOTE]

I suppose we could just refer to said people as "Pat".


----------



## Murdock (Jun 16, 2013)

I'm not a scientist but I do realize that in beekeeping research there are SO MANY variables that doing tests and repeating to see if you get the same results is next to impossible. Every frame of honey is different, the bees are different every 8 weeks, the wx, pollen sources, moisture, sugars and the % thereof. Read, absorb, think it thru and try it. Location is everything and what works in NC in January may NOT work in California.


----------



## JWPalmer (May 1, 2017)

Shoot, what works in NC in January this year may NOT work in NC in January next year! But repeatability is not about precisely reproducing results, it is more about getting the results to be similar in effect such that the relationship between the test and control is reproduced, not the actual data.


----------



## Murdock (Jun 16, 2013)

Very true. My point is to use the idea... just try it for yourself if it sounds good.


----------



## Trin (May 6, 2020)

I can speak from some understanding that you state this correctly. Some so called solutions are driven by laziness, greed, or vainglory. Others are, simply the result of the "herd" mentality that plagues much of society. 

Personally, I have found it profitable to always wonder about why we do certain things. I always have my mental ears alert for the comments like "this is a huge pain" or "everyone hates this job". These are doorways for innovation.
Regarding scientific research: I will repeat what Mark Twain said: "In life there are 3 kinds of lies, plain lies, **** lies, and statistics". It pays to think that we do the best we can (if that is indeed what we actually do) and remember that the world, and what we really know of it, is profoundly complex.


----------



## TehachapiGal (Mar 5, 2015)

My husband is a scientist. He is not lazy, greedy or vainglory. Neither are most other scientists. He was a MIT fellow (paid to go to the school), got his law degree while working full time in the aerospace industry. One of 51% who passed the bar test. Without scientists man would still be using rock tools and the rock wheel. Mark Twain wasnt a genius or scientist. He was a writer of fictitious stories. My husband's middle name is Finley from the book Huckleberry Finn. His family were neighbors to Samuel Clemens in Missouri. Their last name was Wigglesworth. Just saying.

We live on ancient Indian land. In the photo are a few stone tools that 2 thousand year old Indians used. Upper left, a cutting tool made from petrified palm that grew on the top of our mountain when the Earth was still covered by water. Right. hunk of palm with seeds. Lower left. A hunk of obsidium from Owens Valley and traded by Indians to make arrowheads. Lower right. A rock cutting tool. These are a small representation of tools man would be using today without brutely intelligent, honest and creative people on our planet. 








There are numerous books written by beekeepers who are the experts through years of working with bees. We owe them tremendous respect for sharing their knowledge.


----------



## Trin (May 6, 2020)

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." ― Albert Einstein
Isaac Asimov: 'The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.', 'Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.', and 'In life, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate.'

I also disagree with your assertion that Mark Twain wasn't a genius. I would hold that he probably was in his understanding of human nature. Oh and he was friends with Nicola Tesla. Not that this means anything in particular but it causes one to ponder the nature of the company one keeps. 

Questioning the integrity of the members of the scientific community does not equate with remaining a Neanderthal. In all of society we must question and challenge for the sake of finding the gems of true knowledge. How we _feel_ about something has no bearing on reality. In the engineering group I worked in, the mantra was "show us the data". Keeping in mind that data was vetted carefully and questioned as best we could. Published data and statistics were often found to be corrupted by greed and vainglory, with careers and promotions being the driving force. 

I never said 'all scientists' I said "some". So kindly refrain from straw man arguments. My concern is derived from personal experience with corruption in the sciences associated with industry. Oh, I grew up with a phd. father, so I am familiar with academia. Not impressed with the current product in general. I believe there has been a general decline in education from bottom to top with far too much emphasis on massaging the ego of students and not enough teaching on moral logic or how to determine sound reasoning. I am very concerned about the prevalence of narcissism I see in society. This is really bad for science.

There are many conscientious people going about their careers who truly love their respective vocations. This doesn't mean they are always right. Sincerity doesn't equate with truth or reality. 

One of my friends is an amateur American Indian archeologist and flint knapper. I am familiar with the subject. Some of the artifacts we have found elicited an excited admiration for the maker in that the artifact showed a high level of skill. 

Ignorance is not stupidity, rather it can be the launchpad of innovation if one applies themselves diligently with integrity, always remembering with humility, ones ignorance.


----------



## Gray Goose (Sep 4, 2018)

Trin said:


> "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." ― Albert Einstein
> Isaac Asimov: 'The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.', 'Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.', and 'In life, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate.'
> 
> I also disagree with your assertion that Mark Twain wasn't a genius. I would hold that he probably was in his understanding of human nature. Oh and he was friends with Nicola Tesla. Not that this means anything in particular but it causes one to ponder the nature of the company one keeps.
> ...


+1


----------



## Trin (May 6, 2020)

As far as % of studies that are untainted by bias or outside influence; My dad was a phd. scientist. I am not, but I can repeat what he told me. In his field of entomology he estimated that somewhere around 85% of studies he had reviewed were corrupted by faulty foundational work. He presented at an international conference on this and exposed errors. It was not well received to say the least. Careers were called into question as a result. He suffered being blackballed because he pissed a lot of people off. He told me that he exposed the errors because he loved science and was mortified by the lack of integrity he was seeing. 

Didn't get any National Science Foundation grants after that. He was approached and asked to study various things but funding had dried up. So he continued his research as a private citizen and eventually handed his work off to a young phd. who wanted to continue his work. 

Now if I could just bring myself to trust a politician.  (OK it is a backhand at the plethora of governmental dishonesty and corruption gripping our nation.) 

I only knew 1 politician I could say with any certainty was honest. Former roommate who served one term in the Michigan house. He didn't get re-elected because he wouldn't take special interest money. He said "my job is to serve the people of my district, all of them". As a republican he sent some company lobbyist's packing. He really did care about all of the people, and did his best to serve them.


----------



## TehachapiGal (Mar 5, 2015)

Your father is or was an honest man to stand up against bad science. The world needs more men and women who call out lies and incompetence. Some people still believe the earth is flat, that pollution goes into outer space, not held in by our atmospheric pressure.


----------

