# Really bad honeybee vs. round up news [glyphosate]. Can this article be trusted?



## soarwitheagles

Hi everyone!

Well, just read this article and it was kinda heart breaking. 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018...lame-for-honey-bee-deaths-study-suggests.html

https://news.utexas.edu/2018/09/24/common-weed-killer-linked-to-bee-deaths

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/09/18/1803880115

The research originated from University of Texas and I have a high respect for them. Article was originally published in 
the National Academy of Sciences.

We live on a ranch/farm and often use glyphosate out of necessity. We also just experienced a full 30% loss of our bees this summer.

Ok, my million dollar question:

I would like to know how we can determine if this article is based upon genuine scientific research and data.

How can we know if the facts presented in this article are for real and based upon truth?

Dang, UoT and PNAS appear to be fairly BIG NAMES in releasing accurate scientific research and data...

After reading the article, I am concerned it may be spot on and perhaps we need to stop using glyphosate at our ranch and especially near our honey bee yards [we spray under our honeybee stands 2-3 times per year].

Thanks,

Soar


----------



## amk

The ut article did not even mention varroa when speaking about other causes for bee decline which is suspect in my mind. I live along the gulf coast of Texas my friends are farmers they spray tons of it and I’ve caught many swarms around them. I know of several thriving hives that have been established for years.


----------



## little_john

For anyone who's interested in this paper, a .pdf copy of the article can be downloaded from:
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2018/09/18/1803880115.full.pdf
and a copy of the methods used:
http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/09/18/1803880115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1803880115.sapp.pdf



> I would like to know how we can determine if this article is based upon genuine scientific research and data.
> 
> How can we know if the facts presented in this article are for real and based upon truth?


There is no obvious _prima facie_ reason (imo) to doubt the authors findings - bearing in mind that this is a laboratory experiment. Whether it has 'real-world' validity or not is quite another matter.

"Facts" and "Truth" play no part in scientific research - it's about observation, evidence, and conclusions which may then drawn from them, etc.

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide, and so tends not to be sprayed onto non-GM flowering crops - as doing so is guaranteed to kill them ! Glyphosate *is* used pre-sowing to clear weeds, and pre-harvest to dessicate crops, but at neither time should there be an abundance of 'weeds' in flower.

The issue with this paper promises to be whether or not the scenario they tested is indeed realistic. Monsanto will undoubtedly disagree, as you'd expect.

Spraying glyphosate around hive bases (especially after flying has finished for the day) is certainly a practice I'll be continuing with. If your losses are around 30%, then I'd recommend looking around for other causes ...
LJ


----------



## mischief

I honestly have no idea if roundup/glyphosate is THE cause of the problems bees are facing.
I do however think it is a contributing factor, along with all the other chemicals that are used-other herbicides,fungicides,pesticides,insecticides,artificial fertilizers,foliar sprays like copper on fruit trees.

I have been told that, while studies have been done to insure these chemicals are safe to use, no study has been done on the effects of these when they combine, either on plants or in the soil.
I pointed this out to the manager of a pine forestry nursery I worked at up until last year. the result was that he severely cut back on artificial ferts and spray within the nursery and outlying fields,including slow release ferts used in bed preparation for the next season.
On top of that he also started applying bought in compost materials.
My timeline is not quite straight here cos after I spoke to him about this, he also did a trial that showed areas that nothing was applied resulted in the best productivity for that year-last year.

What I think people miss is that environmental health starts with the soil and the organisms that live in work in it.
Plants have evolved to grow in, what I call a living soil- one that has the whole range of lifeforms in it. 
In that soil are a huge amount of different lifeforms-bacteria, molds, yeasts, fungus, insects-worms all need organic matter not people made fertilizers.
Even the different layers of soil have different types compared to other layers.
It wasnt that long ago, that you would spot wild mushrooms growing in fields, now there just aren't any.

It is not just the bees that are starting to fail health-wise; its us too. There are now pages of different auto-immune disorders that people are now having to deal with.
I used to think our species was a lot more tolerant of chemical overloads than others, I now think it has just taken longer to see the same devastating results.

Its a hard call when you have land that you need to deal with pests, be they weeds or insect infestations, especially when your livelihood depends on a good harvest.
The best I can advise, is to choose one spot where you can 'go organic'-either leave it to it own devises/use a less toxic remedy/choose a different crop.
If time is not pressing,try to learn of other alternatives but also recognise that it does take time to get an local ecosystem back in balance and that it may appear to be worse off in the early stages before it gets better.
So one small area to start off with, so you dont go broke 'trying to fix the world'.


----------



## wildbranch2007

soarwitheagles said:


> Hi everyone!
> 
> I would like to know how we can determine if this article is based upon genuine scientific research and data.


post your question on bee-l and maybe Randy O or one of the other people that know more about it can give you an accurate answer.

seems someone beat you to it. here is Jerry Bromenshanks(sp) comments.



> >Nice high school
> science project, but hardly robust, and how does glyphosate compare with
> other herbicide choices?<
> 
> Am I the only one who shudders every time I see an article that starts with the phrase 'field-realistic doses' in the title? Jerry


----------



## SuiGeneris

I'm a microbiologist/immunologist by profession, work in a department with people who study bee microbiota, and have some microbiotia/probiotic research ongoing in my lab (relating to heart disease, not bees), so perhaps I can shed some light.

TLDR: The results are interesting, but at best, the only concussion the data reasonably supports is that bees which never have been exposed previously to glyphosate may have a short-term increased risk of dying from bacterial infection after their first glyphosate exposure.

Long version:
The study used standard microbiota-measuring methods, but otherwise have some serious flaws in their study design and interpretation. There are also some red flags suggesting that some of their results are spurious (e.g. statistical noise).

_Methods_

The dose of glyphosate used is high - they tested two doses - one at the high-end of what the studies they quoted as realistic field exposures, and the other exceeded the maximum reasonable estimate of field exposure by 33%. So they basically tested the worst-case-scenario and something far worse than the worst-case-scenario.
Their study duration was short. In most long-term studies, microbiota are astoundingly resilient, with most microbiota-changing insults only producing a temporary change. In most cases, the microbiota return pretty quickly to normal after an insult. They only looked at days 0, 3 and 5 - far too short a time to allow for any recovery or adaptation of the microbiota to glyphosate.
The pathogen used to test for an effect was an odd choice, as was the infection method; Serratia is a relatively rare pathogen of bees, and they hatched sterile bees (i.e. bees without normal microbiota development) for these experiments. I don't know the bee immune system very well, but birthing mammals sterilely profoundly impairs their immune system.

_Results_
The results have a number of red flags. I've not yet found a good way to explain this in lay language, so my apologies if this is not clear. There are a number of changes that are observed that are problematic - four in particular are especially concerning:

Whole-microbiota stats are lacking; stats were only performed on individual species
There are several cases where there is a lack of dose-dependence - i.e. the lower dose causes a larger change in the microbiota composition than the higher dose, or only the lower dose causes a change.
These changes occur in samples which show high variability
Similar bacterial species do not respond to glyphosate in a similar manner.
These all point to a serious flaw in their analysis which throws a lot of the data into question. Here's where things get hard to explain...The way microbiota analysis is conducted is called "multi-variate analysis" (multiple variable analysis), with the abundance of each species representing a separate variable. The very first step in these analyses are that you run a statistical test which asks "is there a statistically significant difference between the net change in the microbiota between my treatment groups" - i.e. you test to see if the combined changes across all species together is different between the doses of glyphosate.

If the answer to that question is 'yes', then you go on and do sub-group analyses - i.e. you ask which specific species are changing in response to glyphosate.

If the answer to that question is 'no', then your analysis is done. By definition there are no differences to be found, so performing a subgroup analysis is irrational.

This paper didn't perform that first test, and jumped straight into subgroup analysis. And the results of those sub-group analyses are exactly what you would expect to see if you perform a subgroup analysis when the result of the first test is 'no differences in the microbiota'. The lack of a dose-response and randomness of where significant changes are observed (e.g. related species which should behave similarly, are observed to behave differently), are all hallmarks of the kinds of spurious associations you expect to see when subgroup analyses are performed improperly.


----------



## beemandan

There is some pretty knowledgeable discussion about this research on Bee L.


----------



## GregB

We can beat around the bush a lot.

Chem companies will make more money.
Lab people will get more grants (including from the chem companies).
Average American Joe will keep looking for a magic, quick-fix pill from every bug, weed and sickness under the sun (the pill that does not exist anyway - so stop looking and stop killing everything still left alive).
Chem companies will make more money (because, hey, Joe keeps wanting those magic pills; supply meets demand).
Lab people will keep arguing and get more grants (including from the chem companies).

Meanwhile, it is really very simple - don't put stuff into the nature that does not belong.
Crap does not belong there - don't put it out.
Round-up does not belong. 
Ditch the crap.
That simple and common sense.
What is there not to see?


----------



## SuiGeneris

GregV said:


> That simple and common sense.
> What is there not to see?


"What is there not to see"...apparently you are blind to your own biases and lack of knowledge. Without chemicals like roundup billions will die - there is no way without modern farming methods to feed the earths 7 billion people. The choice isn't chemicals versus nature; the choice is chemicals versus massive human starvation and death. And, given the alternatives, round-up is as good as its going to get. The alternatives are far more toxic and far more damaging to the environment.

As for your implication that scientists like myself are all corrupt and interested in nothing more than grant money - you're talking from a position of absolute and total ignorance that is so far removed from reality to be laughable...or it would be laughable if there wren't people out there dumb enough to 
believe opinions like yours.


----------



## hypsin

This has been widely known for at least a DECADE, nothing new here.

Exposure to sublethal doses of pesticides and systemics does not kill individual bees, but impacts colony health as a whole leading to eventual collapse. Manufacturers are not required to perform extensive studies by a third party - they test themselves and submit whatever results they want to EPA. They test individual bee mortality, not colony health and vitality.

Europe figured it out in early 2000s. We have figured out in 2012 (Harvard Study). Here we are in 2018 still acting surprised, blaming pests, genetics and seasonality without addressing the root cause. Unless enough people make enough noise to make EPA do a 180 in current political climate of anti-environment posture, nothing will change.

Until then, all you can do is make a personal decision to garden organic and educate your family, friends and neighbors.


----------



## GregB

SuiGeneris said:


> "What is there not to see"...apparently you are blind to your own biases and lack of knowledge. Without chemicals like roundup billions will die - there is no way without modern farming methods to feed the earths 7 billion people. The choice isn't chemicals versus nature; the choice is chemicals versus massive human starvation and death. And, given the alternatives, round-up is as good as its going to get. The alternatives are far more toxic and far more damaging to the environment.
> 
> As for your implication that scientists like myself are all corrupt and interested in nothing more than grant money - you're talking from a position of absolute and total ignorance that is so far removed from reality to be laughable...or it would be laughable if there wren't people out there dumb enough to
> believe opinions like yours.


Look, 
1)*already produced *food consumption is to be optimized so to improve its current 50% (if that) efficiency, 
2)how excessive use of Round-up in US suburbia is even connected to food production? uh? - it is not
3)... I could continue but no time for this now.

Yes, keep telling some of us here how *dumb *we are and so we MUST keep using glyphosate and the like in the USA suburbia, golf courses (and under the beehives too) ELSE poor people in Namibia will run out of food. 
Wait? What?

Food production for the starving? 


> *Chicago suburban homes use an average of 8.1 LB/acre vs. farmers spraying soybean use 2.1 LB/acre*


Source: https://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/eh01/pesticides/WHo_is_exposed?.html


----------



## hypsin

SuiGeneris said:


> Without chemicals like roundup billions will die - there is no way without modern farming methods to feed the earths 7 billion people.


Is that a fact or an opinion? Is it a fact that RoundUp is required to feed ALL 7 billion people or an exaggeration of truth? I hear Europe does just fine after banning several Bayer products. Also, let's not forget that there was "no way to control mosquitoes without DDT" not too long ago.


----------



## SuiGeneris

GregV said:


> Look,
> 1)*already produced *food consumption is to be optimized so to improve its current 50% (if that) efficiency,


False. ~70% of all food produced is utilised. The major causes of loss are, in the developing world, field losses to pests (which can be prevent by...you guessed it - chemicals!) and storage losses. In the developed world, the primary source of loss is people not consuming what they buy. But even if 100% of all current production reaches the consumer, current production would only carry us through to ~8.5 billion people - AKA 2030, or 12 years from now...so not only do we need the tools we have now, but we need to make them better if we want to keep people fed.

So not exactly a good argument against the use of modern practices and tools, given that we're barely making ends meet now, and even with 100% efficiency, would only get us through the next decade.



GregV said:


> 2)how excessive use of Round-up in US suburbia is even connected to food production? uh? - it is not


Poor regulation and bad practices in your neighbourhood is hardly justification for banning a valuable farming tool. I'm not in the US - here roundup//glyphosate can only be used by certified individuals for a limited range of applications (farming, remediation, etc).

So maybe the answer is smarter regulations and using chemicals in a more judicious manner, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



GregV said:


> 3)... I could continue but no time for this now.Yes, keep telling some of us how dumb we are and so we MUST keep using glyphosate OR we run out of food.
> What you just said.


Given that your first "evidence" was out-and-out wrong, and your second one was irrelevant, I'm not sure how you demonstrated anything other than what I said - your position is one based on ignorance (or perhaps denial) of the facts. Your entire argument is predicated on "facts" easily shown to be falsehoods and insults against those who reveal facts that run contrary to your beliefs.



hypsin said:


> This has been widely known for at least a DECADE, nothing new here.
> We have figured out in 2012 (Harvard Study).


Psst, imidacloprid is not roundup. If you're going to cite a paper you claim supports the "fact" that glyophosate is known to be bad to insects you may want to read it first to find out that the paper is actually about...you know...glyphosate. Imidacloprid is an insecticide - it targets and kills insects. Glyophosate is an herbacide, and not even chemically related to imidacloprid.

In regards to organic farming, it isn't all roses and butterflies. By most measures of impact, organic is worse than conventional. Its slightly better in terms of energy use than conventional for milk production and cereals, and has a slightly lower CO2 emission for fruits. But it fares worse than most other measures of impact, across all other classes of crops, in terms of land use, soil depletion, water contamination and water acidification:








From: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5/meta

The reason generally organic fares worse than conventional is four-fold: 1) yields are 20-50% lower, so more land (and thus more driving of tractors, thus more energy consumed) is needed. 2) organic farming eschews synthetic fertilisers with high nutrient density, large amount of low-density manure, mineral and compost is used instead. These don't penetrate the soil well, and are applied in larger amounts, and thus have a higher risk of contaminating water due to run-off and wind. 3) Contrary to the claims of the organic lobby, organic farming does use a number of chemicals in their practices; especially on large-scale farms. These chemicals are "natural" (e.g. mineral-based anti-fungals like cupric sulfate), and are much more environmentally damaging than their newer, synthetic replacements. 4) Chemicals like glyphosate enable modern farming techniques such as no-till. These greatly reduce soil erosion, nutrient loss and the need for repeated chemical additions.


----------



## psm1212

Just to make certain I am reading the study correctly:

They used bees from a SINGLE hive.

15 bees were painted in each study group.

The bees were directly fed glyphosate. (Not real world, environmental exposure)

Their guts were "perturbed."

No bees were initially killed.

They introduce a pathogen which kills 50% the bees in the control group and 90% of the bees in the test group.

They repeat the process with similar results 3 times (using a single hive, with 15-bee test groups.)

My mind remains open, but I find the study lacking. I do not understand why we cannot find glyphosate treated fields (not a rare thing) to forage test subjects on as opposed to feeding them glyphosate. 15 bees? 1 hive? 

Maybe someone will expound on this study with something more substantial and real-world. Until then, I reserve judgment.


----------



## nhoyt

Hold on you are saying round up is a good thing? You do understand it is man made not something nature intended right?


----------



## little_john

Bringing suburbia and golf courses into the discussion is a Straw Man tactic.

Hunger and death from starvation is Nature's way of keeping all animal populations under control - but we clever (but not very wise) over-brained monkeys have learned to largely control our food supply so that the human population has significantly increased since the development of artificial fertilisers and the adoption of industrial-style farming. Mono-cropping - which has become essential to meet society's needs - requires the use of all sorts of chemicals to remain viable: pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and so on ...

The idea that you could suddenly stop using this chemical-based method of farming and adopt organic farming methods is naive. If you were able to somehow reduce the human population to that of the Victorian era, this might indeed be possible - but I can't really see such a reduction ever happening.

Too many people on the planet - that's the core problem.

LJ


----------



## SuiGeneris

psm1212 said:


> Just to make certain I am reading the study correctly:
> 
> They used bees from a SINGLE hive.
> 
> 15 bees were painted in each study group.
> 
> The bees were directly fed glyphosate. (Not real world, environmental exposure)
> 
> Their guts were "perturbed."
> 
> No bees were initially killed.
> 
> They introduce a pathogen which kills 50% the bees in the control group and 90% of the bees in the test group.
> 
> They repeat the process with similar results 3 times (using a single hive, with 15-bee test groups.)
> 
> My mind remains open, but I find the study lacking. I do not understand why we cannot find glyphosate treated fields (not a rare thing) to forage test subjects on as opposed to feeding them glyphosate. 15 bees? 1 hive?
> 
> Maybe someone will expound on this study with something more substantial and real-world. Until then, I reserve judgment.


More or less right, although (as I poorly stated in a previous post) its not actually clear that their guts were perturbed as they never did the statistical test that would have actually shown that.


----------



## SuiGeneris

nhoyt said:


> Hold on you are saying round up is a good thing? You do understand it is man made not something nature intended right?


I cannot tell if this is sarcasm or not.

I'm going to assume it is...us silly humans doing things nature didn't intend. Like having most of our kids live past childhood, not suffering life-long and debilitating infections, and the most unnatural of unnatural - cheese.


----------



## wildbranch2007

psm1212 said:


> My mind remains open, but I find the study lacking. I do not understand why we cannot find glyphosate treated fields (not a rare thing) to forage test subjects on as opposed to feeding them glyphosate. 15 bees? 1 hive?
> .


because then they wouldn't get the results they want.


----------



## SuiGeneris

wildbranch2007 said:


> because then they wouldn't get the results they want.


More likely its practicality and budget. Field trials are very expensive, especially if you want to do them right. Small-scale lab studies are easier to perform in a controlled fashion, but obviously come with limitations.


----------



## psm1212

I have between 20 and 25 hives that I keep in 4 separate yards. 3 yards are on cotton fields and one is in an actively managed (and sprayed) pecan orchard. 

In Spring, the cotton fields are full of cover crop, mainly wild radish, some clover, dandelion and a lot of weeds I cannot identify. The bees work these cover crops hard. Then, one day, the farmer decides he is going to "burn down" the cover crop and sprays Round Up on the entire field. Between 180 to 300 acres. In the past 4 years, I have lost 3 hives to laying workers (shook out after going queenless) and 2 hives to varroa mites (one of which I just posted pictures of this week on another thread "Dead Out -Classic PMS.") 

The fact that my hives thrive in this environment is purely anecdotal. Perhaps they would give me twice the production if they were located away from glyphosate. I do not run controls, so I have no idea. The farmer plants "Round Up Ready" cotton seed days later and the cycle continues. 

I feel sure similar farming tactics are used in the Midwest, but instead of 300 acre fields of cotton, I am sure 2000 acre fields of canola would not be a difficult thing to come by. Why can't these studies take place in these fields? Why would that be expensive? It just makes so much more sense than bottle feeding a couple dozen bees in Austin, Texas.


----------



## glennster

i keep bees on my farm. all the farms in my area are gmo corn and soybeans. my hives are located along the edge of my field. never had a problem due to pesticide / herbicide / fungicide applications.; i also have an orchard with fruit trees . they also get applications of fungicides and insecticides, but not while blossoming. no problems from there either.


----------



## rwurster

glennster said:


> i keep bees on my farm. all the farms in my area are gmo corn and soybeans. my hives are located along the edge of my field. never had a problem due to pesticide / herbicide / fungicide applications.


Same. GMO corn, alfalfa, and soybeans. And Im the one who sprays the fence lines and ditches with roundup. Only real problems I have ever had were a few hives on the edge of a field getting blasted by a cropduster early in the morning and varroa, but the problems boil down to mostly varroa.


----------



## Oldtimer

Reading these type threads is so frustrating I can hardly do it. One side presenting properly documented results of studies and research, the other side presenting slogans, 1/2 truths, and untruths.


----------



## wildbranch2007

Oldtimer said:


> Reading these type threads is so frustrating I can hardly do it. One side presenting properly documented results of studies and research, the other side presenting slogans, 1/2 truths, and untruths.


:thumbsup:


----------



## squarepeg

(moved thread to appropriate sub-forum)


----------



## Earthboy

wildbranch2007 said:


> :thumbsup:


Your comments remind me of what Mark Twain has allegedly said: "Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with* experience.*"

Doctors, generations ago, often said nicotine was good based on their *personal* experience, as well. Check old commercials.

Earthboy


----------



## johno

These discussions will carry on for ever usually by the tree huggers that will always try to blame everything else for their inability to keep their bees alive, while others who are surrounded by neonics and glyphosate have a problem with too many bees. It obviously stands to reason that the reason this is so is because the successful beekeepers are in an area where the neonics and glyphosate are supplied by good companies not like Monsanto and Bayer.
Johno


----------



## Earthboy

johno said:


> These discussions will carry on for ever usually by the tree huggers that will always try to blame everything else for their inability to keep their bees alive, while others who are surrounded by neonics and glyphosate have a problem with too many bees. It obviously stands to reason that the reason this is so is because the successful beekeepers are in an area where the neonics and glyphosate are supplied by good companies not like Monsanto and Bayer.
> Johno


Sir,

Your logic impresses me: "It [Gly] was discovered to be an herbicide by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970."

"Glyphosate (IUPAC name: N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine) is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide and crop desiccant. It is an organophosphorus compound, specifically a phosphonate, which acts by inhibiting the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase. It is used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds and grasses that compete with crops. It was discovered to be an herbicide by Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970.[3] Monsanto brought it to market for agricultural use in 1974 under the trade name Roundup. Monsanto's last commercially relevant United States patent expired in 2000.[citation needed][clarification needed]"

So, following your logic, then, cocaine is great as far as it is sold by good guys like Government? Please enlighten me.

Very Respectfully,

Earthboy


----------



## johno

Earthboy have you managed to keep your bees alive? Now I should take a leaf out of Mark Twains book and just ignore you but as I am having such fun tweaking you greenies I cant help myself. The reference to monsanto and other manufacturers was sarcasm and humor, As far as Gly is concerned I also believe it to be some sort of antibiotic but I digress. I spray it around my hives as well, great stuff. Now as far as cocaine is concerned the only experience I have had with that was talking to some New Yorkers on a charter boat in the Carribean who were smoking pot and snorting cocaine and when I approached them about it they told me not to worry about it as they were professional persons in New York and would be quite responsible. They are probably legislators by now. This makes me think that maybe this was a reason that many objected to the use of OA as in some quarters anyone seeing the white powder would stick it up his nose. Now if government could turn a profit from cocaine I an sure that they would get involved but Knowing governments it would not last long as there would soon be a shortage of cocaine and it would still be cheaper to buy from the cartels Anyhow thats enough rubbish for now but the whole story lies in the supposed field related doses.
Johno.


----------



## wildbranch2007

johno said:


> These discussions will carry on for ever usually by the tree huggers that will always try to blame everything else for their inability to keep their bees alive, while others who are surrounded by neonics and glyphosate have a problem with too many bees. It obviously stands to reason that the reason this is so is because the successful beekeepers are in an area where the neonics and glyphosate are supplied by good companies not like Monsanto and Bayer.
> Johno


a more accurate statement was never posted on beesource. :applause:


----------



## psm1212

SuiGeneris said:


> I'm a microbiologist/immunologist by profession, work in a department with people who study bee microbiota, and have some microbiotia/probiotic research ongoing in my lab (relating to heart disease, not bees), so perhaps I can shed some light.
> 
> TLDR: The results are interesting, but at best, the only concussion the data reasonably supports is that bees which never have been exposed previously to glyphosate may have a short-term increased risk of dying from bacterial infection after their first glyphosate exposure.
> 
> Long version:
> The study used standard microbiota-measuring methods, but otherwise have some serious flaws in their study design and interpretation. There are also some red flags suggesting that some of their results are spurious (e.g. statistical noise).
> 
> _Methods_
> 
> The dose of glyphosate used is high - they tested two doses - one at the high-end of what the studies they quoted as realistic field exposures, and the other exceeded the maximum reasonable estimate of field exposure by 33%. So they basically tested the worst-case-scenario and something far worse than the worst-case-scenario.
> Their study duration was short. In most long-term studies, microbiota are astoundingly resilient, with most microbiota-changing insults only producing a temporary change. In most cases, the microbiota return pretty quickly to normal after an insult. They only looked at days 0, 3 and 5 - far too short a time to allow for any recovery or adaptation of the microbiota to glyphosate.
> The pathogen used to test for an effect was an odd choice, as was the infection method; Serratia is a relatively rare pathogen of bees, and they hatched sterile bees (i.e. bees without normal microbiota development) for these experiments. I don't know the bee immune system very well, but birthing mammals sterilely profoundly impairs their immune system.
> 
> _Results_
> The results have a number of red flags. I've not yet found a good way to explain this in lay language, so my apologies if this is not clear. There are a number of changes that are observed that are problematic - four in particular are especially concerning:
> 
> Whole-microbiota stats are lacking; stats were only performed on individual species
> There are several cases where there is a lack of dose-dependence - i.e. the lower dose causes a larger change in the microbiota composition than the higher dose, or only the lower dose causes a change.
> These changes occur in samples which show high variability
> Similar bacterial species do not respond to glyphosate in a similar manner.
> These all point to a serious flaw in their analysis which throws a lot of the data into question. Here's where things get hard to explain...The way microbiota analysis is conducted is called "multi-variate analysis" (multiple variable analysis), with the abundance of each species representing a separate variable. The very first step in these analyses are that you run a statistical test which asks "is there a statistically significant difference between the net change in the microbiota between my treatment groups" - i.e. you test to see if the combined changes across all species together is different between the doses of glyphosate.
> 
> If the answer to that question is 'yes', then you go on and do sub-group analyses - i.e. you ask which specific species are changing in response to glyphosate.
> 
> If the answer to that question is 'no', then your analysis is done. By definition there are no differences to be found, so performing a subgroup analysis is irrational.
> 
> This paper didn't perform that first test, and jumped straight into subgroup analysis. And the results of those sub-group analyses are exactly what you would expect to see if you perform a subgroup analysis when the result of the first test is 'no differences in the microbiota'. The lack of a dose-response and randomness of where significant changes are observed (e.g. related species which should behave similarly, are observed to behave differently), are all hallmarks of the kinds of spurious associations you expect to see when subgroup analyses are performed improperly.


Thank you for this post SuiGeneris. I hope everyone reads it. Twice.


----------



## 1102009

Why should glyphosate be a problem to bees fed with artificial pollen patties ( hopefully organic source) and sugar syrup ( probably organic sugar too)?

It´s the wild insects which lack nourishment in such an environment. Or the natural beekeeper`s bees.

I´m not speaking about the humans consuming glyphosate now whose children and grandchildren will have the long term results of today`s managements. So why should this generation care? We will be gone and leave behind a poisoned earth.


----------



## SuiGeneris

psm1212 said:


> I feel sure similar farming tactics are used in the Midwest, but instead of 300 acre fields of cotton, I am sure 2000 acre fields of canola would not be a difficult thing to come by. Why can't these studies take place in these fields? Why would that be expensive? It just makes so much more sense than bottle feeding a couple dozen bees in Austin, Texas.


Its far more complicated than that. The "secret" to any good piece of science is to hold all variables constant except the one that you manipulate. That way you can be certain any differences you see are due to the variable you manipulated, rather than an extraneous factor.

In a field study that is not possible; even if you find a forage-sized region that is glyphosate free, you need it to match your glyphosate-containing area exactly - same amount/types of forage, same water availability & water quality, same levels of wind/shade/cloud cover/etc, same diseases circulating, same varroa infestations, etc. And you also need your hives to be as identical as possible - same genetic background, same "base" microbiota, etc. If you can do that, you can have a field study the same in structure as the one in the paper, and get good results. But achieving this level of control across multiple sites simply isn't possible.

The way you work around that is that you add a series of additional measurements to each of your sites, and you take a much larger number of samples, in order to determine the impact of these extra factors. Most "field" microbiota trials sample dozens to hundreds of individuals - compared to the handful in this study. Already, the cost as quadrupeled or more; and we're not even taking into account the costs of addressing the extraneous factors. To address those factors you need more hives (again, as similar as possible) and form each hive you'll need a lot of additional measures - rates of food intake, growth rate of the hive, types and numbers of pathogens and varoa present, etc. More hives and more measurements = more people, and people don't come cheap. Likewise, you are tracking additional factors, and quantifying these requires different experimental equipment and reagents - all of which cost money. And, if your trial site isn't near where you live/work, you also have to house and feed yourself and your crew.

As a simple example, the microbiota study my lab is conducting right now would have been ~$60K to do with mice, which lack genetic diversity and which we can keep in a controlled environment and feed a controlled diet - i.e. perform the study in a manner similar to the one posted at the start of this thread. But we're doing the study in people (i.e. a field trial), and so we need to track and account for diet, genetic diversity, and other lifestyle factors. We're in the middle of the study, so the final bill isn't set yet, but we're expecting to be around ~$400K.


----------



## crofter

Thanks SuisGeneris for explaining the controls necessary for a reasonably conclusive experiment. 

Far too often we see links posted to experiments having controls about as rigorous as a grade school science fair project. If it supports our beliefs, we applaud, and yet even if a well executed experiment is contrary to the persons convictions, they claim all scientists works are profit driven fraud.


----------



## psm1212

crofter said:


> Thanks SuisGeneris for explaining the controls necessary for a reasonably conclusive experiment.


Yes. Nice to hear from those whose fields of expertise we touch on. I learn a lot from them. Thank you.


----------



## wildbranch2007

crofter said:


> Thanks SuisGeneris for explaining the controls necessary for a reasonably conclusive experiment.


I agree, thanks for the realistic explanation!


----------



## Bdfarmer555

One part I'd like to touch on is in the study they forced the bees to feed on syrup laced with the high doses of glyphosate. If a weed is sprayed with glyphosate while flowering, there is no way it continues to produce nectar for 5 days. It looks like a piece of straw by day 7. 

Except in the case of roundup-ready crops. But if you're still spraying roundup on soybeans that are already heavily blooming, doubtful if those beans would make a good honey crop anyway. And I'd bet that a hive would likely fly to the next field that didn't have the same application window, thereby limiting its exposure. 

Did I read the study correctly if I thought I read that the higher dosed set of bees actually tested healthier than the lower dosed bees in one of the sets? That makes the study hardly conclusive, I'd think.

Also, if a study this small had claimed that roundup had no effects or improved the health of honeybees, many of the same people who champion this as conclusive would be claiming "Monsanto must've donated a new lab to the university". Or that the study was too small, or more studying needs to be done.


----------



## Oldtimer

Bdfarmer555 said:


> Did I read the study correctly if I thought I read that the higher dosed set of bees actually tested healthier than the lower dosed bees in one of the sets? That makes the study hardly conclusive, I'd think.


What has been alluded to earlier in the thread is that this result shows that the difference is more than likely just noise.


----------



## mischief

Man!! what a thread!!


----------



## Bdfarmer555

Oldtimer said:


> What has been alluded to earlier in the thread is that this result shows that the difference is more than likely just noise.


Doesn't take much noise to disrupt a study this size


----------



## Earthboy

For those interested in how the sly Gly is all over the place, not only in our food but also even in Tampon, here is the url for a Youtube podcast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmAsTrsUjBc

About 2/3 into the podcast, the MIT researcher briefly talks about the synergistic interactions of Gly in honeybee gut.

I appreciate those of you outside USA commenting on this thread with a good measure of sanity.

Earthboy


----------



## psm1212

Earthboy said:


> For those interested in how the sly Gly is all over the place, not only in our food but also even in Tampon


And has been for almost half a century. Even back in the "good ole" pre-varroa, pre-CCD days. 

If I began to list the multitudes of studies that show no ill-effect, it will just be answered with "Monsanto/Bayer paid for that study" whether true or not.

For some very religious people, they see the devil behind every bush. For the non-religious, they do not see him at all. Yet they are looking at the same bushes.

Let's just say openly what these debates are all about: People with pre-conceived dispositions about the uses of chemicals and pesticides making their arguments and cherry-picking their "studies." On both sides.

It makes it very difficult for the agnostics to get to any sense of truth and accuracy. 

The OP was about a SINGLE study that was recently published. It will be much more productive to talk about this study and what it may or may not tell us about glyphosate and what could be done to either verify the findings or discredit them with future studies.


----------



## SuiGeneris

Earthboy said:


> For those interested in how the sly Gly is all over the place, not only in our food but also even in Tampon, here is the url for a Youtube podcast:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmAsTrsUjBc
> 
> About 2/3 into the podcast, the MIT researcher briefly talks about the synergistic interactions of Gly in honeybee gut.
> 
> I appreciate those of you outside USA commenting on this thread with a good measure of sanity.
> 
> Earthboy


The woo is strong in this guy.

Your "source" is an MIT computer prof with no education, experience or expertise in any area relevant to toxicology, medicine, agriculture or any other field even tangential to glyphosate chemistry or pharmacology. In other words, you've used the logical fallacy "appeal to authority" to try and make your argument appear legitimate. Reality is that she (Stephanie Seneff) is a non-expert who, despite making a lot of money giving paid talks, is widely considered a quack and fraud by people actually in the medical sciences.

Her sole "contribution" (I use the term loosely) to the science of glyphosate was a single article in the journal Entropy - a journal that publishes work relating to data science, not on chemistry, pharmacology, biology or any related field. The journal has admitted, in response to the controversy that followed publication, that the "study" was edited and reviewed by data scientists and not by people with relevant experience. The paper itself is generally considered to be fraudulent, for a number of reasons - to the point where the journal has placed a warning at the top of the paper (see the link, above). Notably:


She mis-represented the data and conclusions in the papers she based her analysis on
She cherry-picked her data sources to those which could be skewed towards her desired conclusion, rather than comprehensively analysing the data available in the literature
Her biochemical model was grossly incorrect
She conflated rates of _diagnosis_ with rates of disease _incidence_*
All she found was a weak correlation; and as anyone who didn't sleep through the first lecture in stats class knows, correlation does not equal causation

*this is important, as most data indicates that the rate of autism have been relatively stable for at least 40 years, while the rates of diagnosis have improved greatly over that time

But yes, lets listen to the known non-expert, who is highly conflicted, and is a known fraud, for information. Clearly she is far more knowledgeable than the government and independent researchers who are actual experts in the area, and who understand simple concepts like the difference between diagnosis versus incidence :lpf:


----------



## Earthboy

SuiGeneris said:


> The woo is strong in this guy.
> 
> Your "source" is an MIT computer prof with no education, experience or expertise in any area relevant to toxicology, medicine, agriculture or any other field even tangential to glyphosate chemistry or pharmacology. In other words, you've used the logical fallacy "appeal to authority" to try and make your argument appear legitimate. Reality is that she (Stephanie Seneff) is a non-expert who, despite making a lot of money giving paid talks, is widely considered a quack and fraud by people actually in the medical sciences.
> 
> Her sole "contribution" (I use the term loosely) to the science of glyphosate was a single article in the journal Entropy - a journal that publishes work relating to data science, not on chemistry, pharmacology, biology or any related field. The journal has admitted, in response to the controversy that followed publication, that the "study" was edited and reviewed by data scientists and not by people with relevant experience. The paper itself is generally considered to be fraudulent, for a number of reasons - to the point where the journal has placed a warning at the top of the paper (see the link, above). Notably:
> 
> 
> She mis-represented the data and conclusions in the papers she based her analysis on
> She cherry-picked her data sources to those which could be skewed towards her desired conclusion, rather than comprehensively analysing the data available in the literature
> Her biochemical model was grossly incorrect
> She conflated rates of _diagnosis_ with rates of disease _incidence_*
> All she found was a weak correlation; and as anyone who didn't sleep through the first lecture in stats class knows, correlation does not equal causation
> 
> *this is important, as most data indicates that the rate of autism have been relatively stable for at least 40 years, while the rates of diagnosis have improved greatly over that time
> 
> But yes, lets listen to the known non-expert, who is highly conflicted, and is a known fraud, for information. Clearly she is far more knowledgeable than the government and independent researchers who are actual experts in the area, and who understand simple concepts like the difference between diagnosis versus incidence :lpf:


Your point is well-taken. May I ask your peer-reviewed articles YOU have published please?

Thank you.

Earthboy


----------



## dudelt

nhoyt said:


> Hold on you are saying round up is a good thing? You do understand it is man made not something nature intended right?


Yes, I would say Roundup is a good thing. In the old days (not so long ago) farmers planted clover in the fields to add nitrogen and keep other weeds limited. The problem is that all that clover takes nutrients from the crops and uses plenty of water. The nutrients could be boosted with fertilizer and the water could be replaced with irrigation. Which was fine until the water in the aquifers started disappearing. Now, there is not enough water for all the crops so either we had to plant fewer crops or get rid of the clover. Thus the clover had to go. With the clover gone, the weeds take over and take more water and nutrients than the clover did. Which is where Roundup comes in. Using Roundup, the fields have few weeds and use way less water and way less fertilizer. That is a pretty good deal. Unfortunately, there is a cost to using it too. There is potential for lost bees, water and soil pollution and apparently, cancer. We can stop using Roundup and reduce crop yields but increase water and fertilizer use, until the water completely runs out. We could also hire a bunch of people to manually weed the fields and get $4.00 an ear corn (an exaggeration I am sure). Neither of those options is a really good one. Thus, Roundup is a pretty good thing. Am I happy it is a good thing? No I am not. If I had my way, we would not need it at all.


----------



## SuiGeneris

Earthboy said:


> Your point is well-taken. May I ask your peer-reviewed articles YOU have published please?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Earthboy


There is 38 of them...and three books. You'll need to be more specific about which one you want.



dudelt said:


> Yand apparently, cancer


Actually, this isn't scientifically supported. More than 50 gov agencies around the world have looked at the data and said it didn't support any link to cancer. The WHO report claiming it was cancerous has been heavily criticised by scientists & these agencies - essentially for ignoring the largest safety study on glyphosate (roundup) ever performed, and re-writing the findings of the studies they did cite to the opposite of what those studies claimed. Reuters did a good summary of the controversy:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/


----------



## crofter

Earthboy said:


> Your point is well-taken. May I ask your peer-reviewed articles YOU have published please?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Earthboy


What is the name of this debating style. Is this a strawman, red herring or attacking the person rather than the points made? I am not sure but it stinks! 

Address the merits of the points he made!



1. She mis-represented the data and conclusions in the papers she based her analysis on
2. She cherry-picked her data sources to those which could be skewed towards her desired conclusion, rather than comprehensively analysing the data available in the 
literature
3. Her biochemical model was grossly incorrect
4. She conflated rates of diagnosis with rates of disease incidence*
5. All she found was a weak correlation; and as anyone who didn't sleep through the first lecture in stats class knows, correlation does not equal causation


----------



## Earthboy

SuiGeneris said:


> There is 38 of them...and three books. You'll need to be more specific about which one you want.
> 
> 
> Actually, this isn't scientifically supported. More than 50 gov agencies around the world have looked at the data and said it didn't support any link to cancer. The WHO report claiming it was cancerous has been heavily criticised by scientists & these agencies - essentially for ignoring the largest safety study on glyphosate (roundup) ever performed, and re-writing the findings of the studies they did cite to the opposite of what those studies claimed. Reuters did a good summary of the controversy:
> https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/


"There is [are???] 38 of them...and three books. You'll need to be more specific about which one you want." 

All right, I will be more specific, then. I would appreciate very much about your research done on the synergistic interactions between neonicontinoid and Gly in the gut of honeybees, in general, and in particular, how their synergy affects on the gut bacteria in the long run.

I thank you very much for the url on your book or article.

Respectfully,

Earthboy


----------



## Oldtimer

Thanks guys.

I've used roundup to control weeds around the hives for years, but since that guy sued cos he got cancer and won ( i think ) 250 million, I have been wondering if I need to find another way.


But a read of this thread has restored my confidence in roundup I will continue using it.


----------



## Oldtimer

Earthboy said:


> Your point is well-taken. May I ask your peer-reviewed articles YOU have published please?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Earthboy


OK if we gonna play that game, can I ask how many peer reviewed articles YOU have published please?


----------



## johno

Alistair you do not have to find another way, just come to America and find a lawyer and a jury full of Earthboys. Science does not enter into it.
Johno


----------



## 1102009

http://www.emilywaltz.com/NAS_-_June_2010.pdf

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/gmos-and-pesticides/


----------



## Earthboy

johno said:


> Alistair you do not have to find another way, just come to America and find a lawyer and a jury full of Earthboys. Science does not enter into it.
> Johno


True. 

Not all Americans support the rampant abuse of pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides that harm the environment "because I too have to make a living." As a bloody American, I am glad there are some of us still around.

The average life span of queen bees, it appears, has now been reduced to a season when they used to live, on average, three years--a topic well examined on Bee-L. This is just one example of the overall degradation. Look at the green deserts on our lawns: there is absolutely nothing for the bees to forage. Worse, where will the residue of Roundup eventually end up? In the air we breathe, in the water we drink, in the soil we raise our crops, and in the veins of our blood: this man-made, unnatural chemical is everywhere. 

To argue this chemical is safe is beyond common sense. 

Roundup is a short term solution with a long-lasting impact. Roundup-resistant weeds are popping up already, forcing us to stay _only one step_ away from disaster. We cannot keep up with this kind of arms race. Such arms race is not sustainable just as honeybees kept in a bubble of IPM cannot survive in nature. 

Bees, on a different note, should not be able to merely survive in nature but *thrive* when left alone. Remember bees will make honey "in spite of the beekeeper!" They have been doing just fine for eons.

What kind of world have we created for the bees if they must be medicated around the clock? How sustainable or natural is that? Are we not choking our own throat with our cleverness and for our greed? Don't you realize what we are doing to ourselves in the long run?

Please note that my postings lack ad hominem.


----------



## CircleBee

SulGeneris - thank you for your posts. It’s nice to have someone so knowledgeable in how these types of studies are done and analyzed to explain this to an ignoramus like myself. There is just way too much jumping to conclusions out there in regards to so many topics, when studies (not knowing their limitations or flaws) are published, taken as gospel, and perpetuated by the uninformed or the ignorant to support their view.


----------



## 1102009

There are alternatives.
Thankfully we don´t have to depend on chemicals alone contaminating the ground and water. But it needs some time and a new generation of young enthusiastic scientists who are interested in preserving nature as it was and still partly is.
Weeding Robots will be a part of it. 
Many new inventions:

https://www.youtube.com/user/FiBLFilm

Even Bayer takes part and wants to use less pesticides and preserves the earth 

https://www.cropscience.bayer.de/de...smarter-anbauen-mit-praezisionslandwirtschaft

https://beecare.bayer.com/bilder/up...in_der_Landwirtschaft_RZlow_finalj9e659vl.pdf


----------



## SuiGeneris

Earthboy said:


> To argue this chemical is safe is beyond common sense.


Common sence isn't so common - in most cases, its a red herring used to avoid inconvenient facts. The toxicity of glyhosate is well known - and its less toxic than table salt. Its measured environmental impact is likewise less than that of any previously used herbicide - and it is used (on a per acre basis) in far smaller amounts than other chemicals (yes, even those 'natural' ones used by organic farmers) - 1-2 cups of concentrate per acre.



Earthboy said:


> Roundup is a short term solution with a long-lasting impact.


Note to self: 44 years is now "short-term"

LOL



Earthboy said:


> Roundup-resistant weeds are popping up already, forcing us to stay _only one step_ away from disaster. We cannot keep up with this kind of arms race. Such arms race is not sustainable just as honeybees kept in a bubble of IPM cannot survive in nature.


Its called evolution, and whether you use "natural" or synthetic compounds to manage weeds, it is an inevitable issue that will be faced. And the answer once again is science - evolution of resistant weeds can be limited by how, when and in what quantities glyphosate (or any other herbacide) is used. And we are remarkably good at it - 44 years in use, and resistance is remarkably rare and usually wiped out in a season or two.



Earthboy said:


> Bees, on a different note, should not be able to merely survive in nature but *thrive* when left alone.


In N. America, honey bees are an invasive species which have extensively displaced many native species. Pretending they are "natural" or important to N. American ecosystems is outright fraudulent.



Earthboy said:


> They have been doing just fine for eons.


And they will continue to do so - they have previously rapidly evolved to paracytes and other pressures, continue to do so, and nothing will stop that from happening in the future.



Earthboy said:


> Please note that my postings lack ad hominem.


Yeah, you've swapped that out for a series of other logical fallacies including red herrings, appeal to emotion, affirming the consequent, naturalistic fallacy and false equivalence.

Your trip into existential crisis mode was entertaining though.

You've also failed to address the points I raised in response to the video you posted, a challenge nicely restated by @crofter. AKA, moving the goal posts - yet another form of logical fallacy.

As I said, the woo is strong in you


----------



## Earthboy

SuiGeneris said:


> Common sence isn't so common - in most cases, its a red herring used to avoid inconvenient facts. The toxicity of glyhosate is well known - and its less toxic than table salt. Its measured environmental impact is likewise less than that of any previously used herbicide - and it is used (on a per acre basis) in far smaller amounts than other chemicals (yes, even those 'natural' ones used by organic farmers) - 1-2 cups of concentrate per acre.
> 
> 
> Note to self: 44 years is now "short-term"
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> Its called evolution, and whether you use "natural" or synthetic compounds to manage weeds, it is an inevitable issue that will be faced. And the answer once again is science - evolution of resistant weeds can be limited by how, when and in what quantities glyphosate (or any other herbacide) is used. And we are remarkably good at it - 44 years in use, and resistance is remarkably rare and usually wiped out in a season or two.
> 
> 
> In N. America, honey bees are an invasive species which have extensively displaced many native species. Pretending they are "natural" or important to N. American ecosystems is outright fraudulent.
> 
> 
> And they will continue to do so - they have previously rapidly evolved to paracytes and other pressures, continue to do so, and nothing will stop that from happening in the future.
> 
> 
> Yeah, you've swapped that out for a series of other logical fallacies including red herrings, appeal to emotion, affirming the consequent, naturalistic fallacy and false equivalence.
> 
> Your trip into existential crisis mode was entertaining though.
> 
> You've also failed to address the points I raised in response to the video you posted, a challenge nicely restated by @crofter. AKA, moving the goal posts - yet another form of logical fallacy.
> 
> As I said, the woo is strong in you


Thank you for teaching me what evolution means and what a short-term means in geological sense i have used the term. In the meantime, would you please help me with this? 

I would appreciate very much about your research done on the synergistic interactions or interplay between neonicontinoid and Gly combined in the gut of honeybees, in general, and in particular, how their synergy affects on the gut bacteria in the long run.

Most important, I am interested in how the interplay of the two affects the honeybee's flight orientation, such as German study has once illustrated.

Waiting for your url


----------



## GregB

Earthboy said:


> .......Waiting for your url


Me too interested.
I like reading a good book, now and then.
Sometimes I even buy a book.

Mind you some of us here are too unassuming to publicly (and repeatedly) display our credentials and credits (especially IF directly irrelevant to the subject discussed).


----------



## SuiGeneris

Earthboy said:


> I would appreciate very much about your research done on the synergistic interactions or interplay between neonicontinoid and Gly combined in the gut of honeybees, in general, and in particular, how their synergy affects on the gut bacteria in the long run.


I've been very clear on where my area of expertise lies in the past, and what my experience with microbiota is. I know you are desperate for any reason to ignore what I have written, but the data is out there, and the data is all - the messenger is irrelevant.

In other words, you're seeking the cowards way out. I pointed out that the video you posted as "proof" of your claims was a known fraud, and linked to the relevant sources demonstrating that.

Rather than addressing that data, you're trying to shoot the messenger...yet another logical fallacy...



Earthboy said:


> Most important, I am interested in how the interplay of the two affects the honeybee's flight orientation, such as German study has once illustrated.


...and on the topic of fallacy's, now you're shifting the goal posts.

Strange, that you cannot address the huge gaping flaw in your own claim.

LOL


----------



## SuiGeneris

GregV said:


> Me too interested.
> I like reading a good book, now and then.
> Sometimes I even buy a book.
> 
> Mind you some of us here are too unassuming to publicly (and repeatedly) display our credentials and credits (especially IF directly irrelevant to the subject discussed).


As an academic who researches in a woo-subject area, it would be idiotic in the extreme to identify myself on a forum like this. I've had to get restraining orders against woo-sters in the past (2 naturopaths and 1 creationist) and need to protect myself and my family in the future - not doxing myself is part of that.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Let me be clear here: Having peer-reviewed, published articles on *any* subject is *not* a requirement for posting to Beesource. If it were, there would be no Beesource!

If we cannot get past the demand for a list of publications by members posting in this thread, I will close this thread.


_... move on ..._


----------



## 1102009

SuiGeneris said:


> As an academic who researches in a woo-subject area, it would be idiotic in the extreme to identify myself on a forum like this. I've had to get restraining orders against woo-sters in the past (2 naturopaths and 1 creationist) and need to protect myself and my family in the future - not doxing myself is part of that.


Do you really believe in this or are you just feeling superior and making yourself important?
I have not realized anything you posted as so dangerous, there are only sceptic reactions and different opinions.
Actually you have a whole armada of supporters here 

44 years? Well, it´s a lifetime :scratch:


----------

