# misapplication of FGMO



## topbee (Mar 17, 2004)

I will ditto your post. I recently attended the Illinois State Beekeepers meeting and the discussion of varroa treatments was brought up. Everything they discussed ranged from apistan to checkmite to the possibility of a fungus.

I asked the gentleman (speaker) from the Texas research lab, did they ever try to use FGMO? The jerk made me feel like and idiot. He said they did some trial results and laughed that they had no mite kill what so ever. Now, with all that said. How is it that all these people on this site use the FGMO treatment and have pretty good results.

Does these scientist and lab techs think they will be out of a job if they would even consider the FGMO treatment? I was really frustrated when I left. You know, it is not whether and idea works or not, but be professional and don't be-little the people who try to find ways to better care for their bees.

I also asked if it is o.k. with Europe and Canada for all the other treatments and they are approved abroad, why does it take the U.S. soooo long to get a treatment approved.

Great Post!

Tony


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks. 
Thanks for your wonderful posts and trust in my work. 
Imagine how I must feel after 11 years of sacrifices and hard work trying to find a working solution for our problems in beekeeping. I am satisfied that my methods work. I have mite free hives and hives with very small mite drop counts. I do not do anything else but what I have published. 
Further more, I have invited "the big wheels" to come and see my hives and to inspect them. 
But, guess what, no one has even replied to my offers. 
The December ABJ article made me laugh! The person in the photo engulfed in FGMO did not even bother to read the instructions that come along in the Burgess manual for the fogger. Do they think that people who read these articles are dumb? There must be a lot of readers out there who are laughing just like I. That photo was really dumb!
We have many adages in the Spanish culture applicable to them but I will not use them here. 
Happy thanksgiving my friends and God bless you all. 

Kurt Bower: Please send me your e-mail address. I would like to chat with you on a personal basis. [email protected]
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## clintonbemrose (Oct 23, 2001)

It isaid to only believe 1/2 of what you hear AND 1/2 OF WHAT YOU READ.
I have used FGMO for 3 years and just started with Thymol mixed in last year.
The Thymol did improve what was done but in the 3 years I have used FGMO I never lost a hive to mites. I protect my 505 hives with FGMO with no problems. We fog once every 7 days. My bees are my living.
Clint


------------------
Clinton Bemrose
just South of Lansing Michigan
Beekeeping sence 1964


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Clint: Thanks for your honesty and courage for coming out and expressing your thoughts. Let your words be an eye opener to those who doubt the veracity of my work. 
Happy Thanksgiving to all and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## honeyman46408 (Feb 14, 2003)

I always heard don`t belive anything you hear and only 1/2 what you see









I get flustrated every time that I read that it wont work but no one has done a test except Dr R. and I think the bigest JOKE was the artical they printed about the guy that did a 9 DAY test! and they printed IT.

I guess the bottom line is it is not the honey it is the MONEY

Ed


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Amen brother Ed. Some people will do anything for money. Rmember Judas?
Thank you!
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Well Im still here and so are my bees. The bees are doing very good. I am using the FGMO and THYMOL. I am using the cords about once a month. I know I should be replacing them every 2 weeks, But all seems to going well. I wish that the ones saying it doesnt work would at least do it the exact way the Dr. has done his test. Not one article has been tested the proper way. Ive said this before and Ill say it again, Dr. keep up the good work and I thank you for all the years you have put into FGMO. Dont let these certain ones get you discouraged. JJ


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Thanks to all of you who trust my work and judgement. Yoour comments make my day and inspire me to continue in search of better (if possible) ways to protect our bees with non-contaminating,safe means. 
Do not be disappointed with what you hear. As posted here earlier, believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see (from those others, I mean). I hope that you continue to believe in me!
Revelation: Because there were so many of you who argued that replacing the cords every two weeks was too much work, I tested replacing them once a month. It worked but I needed four sections of cord per hive and more if it had several suppers. It worked like a charm (both in Virginia and in Spain, actually better in Spain because we had a very dry season there and the bees took to the cords looking for fluids, I suppose) as you will see when you read my next article coming soon. I appreciate a great deal when all of you say that you are following my instructions. Like every thin else in life, there is an exact order of things. Well, success with FGMO is no different. My set of rules are simple but they work. Any one who desires to succeed with FGMO can do it! But not blindly. It has taken 11 years to develop my technique but it is functional and effective. Please stay with it and you will be happy campers much to the chagrin of those who claim that FGMO does not work. I hope that you enjoy my next publication.
Happy Thanksgiving in the Company of The Lord.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

Hello Pedro and everyone -

I didn't read the articles, so could someone tell me what it was about them that you took exception to? Was the test flawed from the start due to the way it was set up? Please give us more details. Thanks

- Barry


----------



## Bob Russell (Sep 9, 2003)

After three years of researching Dr.Rodriguez's eleven years of continuous research and developement of protocols for use of FGMO as an alternative varroa control it easy to spot the protocol errors in the November and December 2004 ABJ Publications.How many errors can you see.The photo of the operator in the December publication is almost obliterated by a white out of excessive fog. This is irresponsible use of a fogger with disregard for operator and bee safety.Singed bees from flare ups are created when the fogger is not operated to the instructions.Fog applied as in the photo would result in premature failure of the fogger and also emit fog particle size outside specification.How many beekeepers would be able to interpret the data charts in the December publication.

Bob Russell
Commercial Beekeeper
Engineer
New Zealand


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
I agree wholeheartedly with my kiwi brother, Bob Russell. 
I have a few more comments to make. The afore cited reports are plagued with shameful errors, especially when these are coming out of a U S Government facility specializing in honey bee research. And to think that these very researchers criticize our work alleging lack of "proper research techniques." 
My research report will be forthcoming in my next publication listing our findings for the 2004 year research project. Notice ONE whole year research project that includes all phases of growth of the colonies treated, not just SIX weeks performed in the Spring when the drone population is in its prime and consequently mite production. 
Their reports state that their purpose was to test the effectivenes of FGMO and cite one of my previous reports. If they intended to contrast and compare the effectiveness of FGMO why did they NOT utilize my protocol? FGMO followers who utilize my established protocol are reporting success with FGMO. As a matter of fact, none of the FGMO comparison tests that have been performed up to this point have utilized the protocol that has proven to be effective. Beekeepers and the beekeeping industry deserve more fairness out of those who proclaim to be dedicated to protect our bees.
Fellow beekeepers, please be patient and wait for my report. It will be published in time to benefit the 2005 beekeeping season. 
Happy Thanksgiving and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

There is a lot of this in "bee research". A protocol is established by someone for a method they claim is useful and some "scientists" ignore the protocol, in fact DEFY the protocol (as in doing exactly what the protocol says NOT to do), run a very short term "test" on a very small population and claim that the protocol failed.

I have seen this with FGMO and small cell and other subjects from bee feed to whatever.

Once cause of some of this seems to be that the "research" is often done by a student who has a short amount of time to do a Masters or Doctorate thesis or dissertation and so they do an "experiment" that is too small and too short to be statistically valid and it is poorly done, often because of budget or time constraints, in order to meet the constraints of their school program.

Passing off "studies" that do not (and apparently cannot) follow the established protocol as "science" is a disservice to everyone. Beekeepers. Scientists. Everyone.

But it gives anyone who wishes to discount a method the ammunition they need to say that it's been "scientifically disproven".


----------



## Guest (Nov 25, 2004)

We are broadcasting live from the kitchen today, where Thanksgiving
dinner is being prepared for 25 guests plus whoever the 25 drag along.
(I am merely an assistant chef, so I mostly do prep work and clean up 
after the experts.)

I'd like to see some specific points in critique of these papers, 
rather than a generalized indictment.

If some would rather not do so "in public" e-mail me 
(james POINT fischer AT gmail POINT com), or at the address shown 
in my "profile".

If the techniques described in the papers would never have resulted 
in success, then I can write up a critique of the sort that is appropriate 
for publication in a real science journal. There are all kinds of "rules 
of the game" for such things, and rule one is that you need to be 
"credentialed". I'm assuming that Pedro would rather not get into yet 
another "argument", and would prefer that someone else do the critique.

To be honest, I'm not sure that a "real science journal" would even 
bother to consider printing a critique of something published in ABJ, as they 
would simply sniff, and state that they would not consider things published 
in ABJ to be "part of the scientific literature". Understand that ABJ is not 
really a science journal - it is a magazine for beekeepers. 

Another point which should be mentioned is the number of beekeepers using FGMO
either alternating with "traditional" treatments, or as their sole treatment.
I will post a separate message requesting a straw poll both on BeeSource, and 
on the other usual forums. While several hundred beekeepers MIGHT be wrong, 
they can't all be lucky enough to have low varroa counts purely by chance.
If we have a reasonable number of beekeepers claiming some level of success for
some period of time, this would be a "larger study" than the Weslaco study,
moreso if anyone has records that include mite counts, and treatment dates.

I am not an "FGMO supporter" by any means. But I don't see any reason for
people to lie about it, and I have seen only a small number of statements
where beekeepers have said "FGMO failed". The preponderance of the anecdotal
evidence supports the claim that FGMO "works", perhaps not as well or as
reliably as other treatments, but still having a beneficial effect without
much of a downside.

An approach that is non-toxic, helps, and has little collateral damage is
worth the "extra effort". It is worth more when one realizes the collateral 
damage inherent in formic acid and oxalic acid treatments.




[This message has been edited by jfischer (edited November 25, 2004).]


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
The Lord acts in many mysterious ways. I am truly proof of that, I know!
Eleven years ago I made a terrible mistake getting in "arguments" with people who opposed FGMO. I apologized for my error then and I am apologizing again. 
The Lord is my savior and guide. I try to follow His ways and definitely, me getting into "arguments" is not His advice. I have decided to continue my work in quest of ways to protect my loved honey bees without getting into controversies. I do wish that my work would be accepted for what it is, a sincere effort to help beekeepers and in so doing humanity ultimately. I perform my work at my own expense and with the help of my partners. Since I have chosen not to profit from my work I can,t see why there is so much opposition to my efforts. With sixty six years in beekeeping, professional education and training and my love for honey bees, I think that I have enough "credentials" to
perform the type of work that I am doing. 
May The Lord guide all of you, especially those being chastised for believing in FGMO.
Happy thanksgiving and God bless all.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Mike Bush and Jim Fisher: thanks for your contributions (above). Your explanations are very much appreciated. Also thanks to all of you who continue to post on beesource.com. Your contribution are greatly appreciated.
Best regards amd God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

So what is going on here? I dont see any blatent mistakes in his observations. Are you dismissing his figures becasue they dont match yours? Treatments need to be able to be replicated by different people with different interests to give studdies full and non prejuticual scrutiny. 
Is the reason the treatment failed, was becasue cords were not used? And if so, then perhaps the FGMO fog is an act of assurance.
Other treatments, formic, oxalic for egample, dont get this constant mix of working results. And the reason is because thier treatments are easily replicated with considerations of envirnmental conditions stated and understood. Perhaps FGMO isnot aswell understood as we all think and has other factors which affect its success in treatments. 

Ian


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

I keep seeing Thymol in the FGMO formula. Is it the FGMO that is killing the mites or the Thymol? Perhaps the FGMO is acting as a meduim for the Thymol to be distributed in throgh the hive bodies.

Ian


----------



## Phoenix (May 26, 2004)

It is my understanding that the Thymol is added to the mix in order to increase the mortality of the tracheal mites. The vaporized FGMO covers the mites with a layer of oil and does not allow them to breathe, therefore suffocating the mites, as well as coating the bees with the vaporized oil and inducing them into grooming mode, therefore encouraging them to dislodge both the dead mites and a great majority of those that do not receive enough of a coating to be suffocated.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2004)

Ian said:

> Treatments need to be able to be replicated 
> by different people with different 
> interests to give studdies full and non 
> prejuticual scrutiny.

This is quite true, but what if someone
wanted to test a new type of tire, and
decided that they did NOT need to first
learn how to drive a car (or hire someone
who did)? Would their driving the car
straight into a brick wall be the tire's fault?









There may well be a "proper technique"
to fogging. This could explain why
some beekeepers have gotten lousy
results, and some are satisfied.

While I have yet to see the ABJ issue that
started this march of the angry townsfolk
to the castle of the mad scientists,
(complete with pitchforks, torches, and blunt
instruments, it seems) I understand that at
least one photo shows more fog outside the
hive than would be usual when using the
classic "Burgess Fogger" in the classical
manner.

Like, um... hey guys - rule one clearly is
"You HAVE to get the stuff IN the hive
if you want it to work."

The mere fact that this was the "USDA ARS"
doing the testing should impress no one.
Did they consult with anyone who could
show them how to handle a fogger with
aplomb, style, and panache? Did they even
bother to send Pedro an e-mail and ask him
for handy hints and pointers? I thought not.

I did REAL science for a living. Hard-nosed,
prove-it-or-die-trying, spend a million
bucks on one experiment kinda science that
tells us very basic stuff about reality
itself. Physics is where the machines are
made of titanium and bronze, and the men
are made of steel. None of this touchy-feely
namby-pampy stuff with bugs in wooden boxes,
mind you, but the sort of science where the papers can often have more contributing
authors than paragraphs, and took years to
complete from start to finish.

There are very few experiments that can be
"replicated" by someone who is not willing
to talk to lab techs, ask for copies of
notes from the prior trials, and get a
>>CLUE<< from someone who has poked into 
that area before.

If not for open and frank communication
and a willingness to listen to the details
of the quirks of equipment and processes,
we would still be sitting in caves banging
rocks together in futile attempts to make
the second wheel, the first one having been
made by a guy that may have simply lucked
into the proper technique for chipping stone.

(Edited to remove a nasty word that
beekeepers would never use.)



[This message has been edited by jfischer (edited December 05, 2004).]


----------



## JJ (Jun 22, 2004)

Well said Mr, Fischer I still dont understand why alot of questions are being ask-Is it the FGMO that kills or the THYMOL.If you read the Drs. method and proceedures you will see that FGMO does kill and the Dr. has said that the THYMOL gives that extra knock down to help the killing of the mite. First no one reads the Dr. instructions for oil,fogger, thymol. If i am going to try something I dont go and read the instructions and then go do it my way. All I here is if you cant get the 1443 Burgess fogger, just go buy one its ok, sorry thats not how the Dr. tested it. Then you here oh go to walmart for oil you dont have to pay to have it sent, wrong again the Dr. tested the method with STE crystal plus 70fg mineral oil.The Dr. has said over and over be sure that you use pure THYMOL and just to call him and he could get it or tell you where to get it, no we cant do that lets just go and fine some down at the cornor. In the two test done in the ABJ, No one contacted the Dr.and they surely did not do as the Dr. has said. Where were these gentlemens respirator. As Mr. Fischer said there was more fog outside the hives (were these guy trying to keep the mites off of them). If you read the articles some hives died from natural cause then were taken out of the count then later added back in the count. I am not saying that FGMO&THYMOL is the silver bullet, but I will say it does work and if you want to use it go by the Dr. proceedure. Lets not make it up as we go. Why is everyone trying to find fault, lets work together and thing we find out let the Dr. know. He is alway trying to make it work better or should I say make it easier to apply. I am not trying to be a know it all because I am far from it, I learn alot from reading what you all write. People like Jim Fischer, Bob Russell and the Dr. they have been in the business for a while. I dont want any body mad at me for writing this, but it is just surprising to see questions being asked and tested and people are not even reading the instruction and method. TO ALL OF YOU GOD BLESS AND HAVE HAPPY HOLIDAYS JJ


----------



## honeyman46408 (Feb 14, 2003)

Amen JJ very well said!!
Ed


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

<<There are very few experiments that can be
"replicated" by someone who is not willing
to talk to lab techs, ask for copies of
notes from the prior trials, and get a
>>CLUE<< from someone who has poked into 
that area before.>>

Amen. This appears to be a core problem with almost all the "alternative" methods beekeepers are running into. This appears to be at the core of the small cell debate also. A relational breakdown between the scientist and the beekeeper in the field working with it. I won't get into which side bears the fault, if there is such a thing where one side bears all the fault. I see it happen here with FGMO also. The lack of open and honest corroboration between the two parties. It appears Pedro has offered his hand to those having the "power" to do "proper" studies. Yet this tends to be threatening to the upper echelon. I know there are positive results to be gained from both FGMO and SC. I sure wish we could figure out a way to cut through all the fluff and get to the hard facts.

Regards,
Barry


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

>>Like, um... hey guys - rule one clearly is
>>"You HAVE to get the stuff IN the hive
if you want it to work."

>>As Mr. Fischer said there was more fog outside the hives 

>>Lets not make it up as we go.

And you came to this conclusion how?? From the picture that was submitted? From what I read, therre was no blantent missapplication of the fogg. 

Ian


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2004)

> From what I read, therre was no blantent 
> missapplication of the fogg.

The photos are there for all to see, so
I must ask the group. (Thanks to Bob
Russell in NZ, who sent me pdfs of the
articles.)

Each must decide from his own experience
how much fog should be around the hive
when one is trying to get the fog IN
the hive, but the photos sure do show
lots of fog around the hive, and apparently
none at all coming out cracks or top
entrances.

So, "what's wrong with this picture" in
both the Nov and Dec articles? Anything?
You tell me.

Regardless, my point about needing to know
how to drive a car to test a tire stands.


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

"Then you here oh go to walmart for oil you dont have to pay to have it sent, wrong again the Dr. tested the method with STE crystal plus 70fg mineral oil"

In an issue of ABJ in 2003, Dr. R. did say that the mineral oil sold in pharmacies, the kind without fragrance added, is ok to use.

------------------
Rob Koss


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Just back from a very much needed vacation. I have not taken a holiday since the 90's when I started doing FGMO! Now, back to the grind again! I am sure that I will remember enjoying both, the pleasure of having taken a break and the pleasure of returning to continue looking for reliable ways to improve my work.
I do not wish to pick "arguments" or "disagreements" with any one. Count on it! But, I think that I should provide certain information to this panel and any one who reads it. Please read it for what it is worth. 
When I learned that the Weslaco (USDA-ARS) laboratory would be conducting tests on FGMO I thought that it might be useful to inform them that I would be available to provide any form of assistance that they might wish from me. I called the laboratory many times and my phone calls were not answered. I left messages indicating that I was available but my messages were never replied. I sent e-mails to the laboratory and never received a reply to them. I think that their "test results" could have been different and more positive had they consulted me about my protocol and about the use of the fogger. I tend to believe that their intentions were not for the purpose of finding the potential of FGMO.
With modern technology phone calls become permanet records hence "search" of my phone calls to the Weslaco laboratory would be useful for those who may wish to test the veracity of this statement. 
Happy holiday season and God bless all.


----------



## Guest (Dec 13, 2004)

First, science, or what one may think we are calling "science," is about testing ideas. One makes a hypothesis, then goes about observing data to see if the hypthesis is correct. 

Observations can be greatly reinforced when a control group is used to verify the influences of different variables. Without a control group, how do you verify your hypothesis? Without observable data, how can you conclude your hypothesis is correct? 

Hopefully, the ideal experiment limits the variable between the treated group and the untreated control group. As with beekeeping, everyone pretty much agrees there are great differences between hives, between beekeepers, between locations and climate. 

Even if one duplicated the exact protocols of a previous experiment, or experimenter, results will likely differ. Every experiment will have a "human element" of error even with the greatest of care to duplicate the protocols.

Second, many great "failures," that is, observable data that did not support the most popular hypothesis, have been helpful in moving people in other directions or refining the process or fulfilling a partially-informed hypothesis. 

I don't necessarily believe that finding different results from running a similar experiment on FGMO has to be construed as a personal attack on Dr. Rodriguez. I seem to be in the minority on this opinion, however. Dr. Rodriguez has a loyal following that appears rather impatient with anything suggestively contrary to his work, or anyone who takes the general idea of FGMO in a different direction.

But let's not get wrapped up in personalities. Can we stick to the ideas? Are we all not trying to refine a process using FGMO as an alternative miticide, even with different protocols? Why not learn together, even if we choose different paths or come up with different results? Even Dr. Rodriguez has changed his ideas over the years from plain FGMO to the addition of thymol and the emulsion strips.

The two most recent articles in the ABJ show what is not working, or at least they demonstrate a procedure that yields a partial fulfillment of the desired results. When you look at the larger picture, both of these articles verify and support the persevering work of Dr. Rodriguez and where he is at today with the addition of thymol and emulsion cords and the increasing effectiveness of his protocols.

And yet in the face of different protocols and different results, why do we feel the need to attack personalities or discredit a poorly chosen picture (perhaps staged for the photo opportunity rather than the actual experiment)? In both articles in the ABJ, results show there is SOME benefit, even though the December article incorrectly concludes there is "none."

Quite frankly, I don't mind using a couple of "soft" solutions that offer their respective partial results rather than put my trust in one sole, "hard" solution trusting it's going to work all the time under every condition.

Part of our problem in having an intelligent discussion about any subject, not just FGMO, is the nature of moving from ideas to issues of attacking or defending personalities. Science is supposed to be about ideas and testing those ideas, then accepting the results and making the appropriate changes for the next hypothesis.

Can we talk about ideas and different protocols, even those that do not result in the same solutions and keep moving us forward? Remember how great inventions are not brought to us by the success of a single idea but rather the 10,000 "failures" that showed us how it couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't work. And sometimes there are results we didn't expect that prove immensely beneficial.

Third, there seems to be an ignorant assumption in this discussion of FGMO that if one finds differing results or uses a different method, that we need to throw the veterinarian out with the bath water.

From my perspective, I do not think this is necessary at all. And let's remember too, that great ideas and innovative procedures have always had to stand the critical challenges from those who disagree. If the idea has merit, then the challenges will only strengthen that idea. Good ideas have no fear of critical judgment.

But can we at least keep the critical challenges on the ideas and not the personalities or the suspected motivations of articles in the ABJ?

Fourth, some of my greatest advances, personally and professionaly, have come from people who disagreed with me, or showed me how I was wrong, or showed me a better method to that which challenged me. At the time, I hated it, but in the long run it served me well. And in my maturity, I began to see how they really wanted the best for me, even as it was painful at the time, even as it was the last thing I wanted to hear.

I think we need to stick together on this subject of FGMO, even in our disagreements, rather than allow the discussion to degrade into personal attacks. Let's stick to the ideas rather than perpetuate the misguided, though valiant, defense of personalities.

And personally, having met Dr. Rodriguez, I thoroughly enjoyed the man. I greatly appreciate his efforts in moving us closer to an alternaive miticide. I only wish we could rise above the personalities and talk openly about different results and different ways of keeping bees healthy and prosperous.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2004)

A highly idealistic view of science is presented
in the following statement:

> One makes a hypothesis, then goes about observing 
> data to see if the hypthesis is correct.

This happens (or, used to happen, at least sometimes)
in physics, where there are separate groups (theorists and 
experimentalists), but more often than not, the theorists 
were put on triple overtime, working nights and weekends to 
come up with new theories to explain experimental results
that did not conform to any theory put forth by any of
them. Nowadays, some of the experiments one would have to
do are so expensive and/or complicated that we cannot submit
some theories "to test" in the foreseeable future.

In the other sciences, it really does not happen often enough 
to be a useful definition of the actual process. It is taught 
in schools, and the lay public bought the story hook, line, 
and sinker, so most scientists let the misconceptions stand, 
as they gain additional prestige as a result of the misunderstanding.

The actual process is much more messy. Discovery is only very rarely 
made by someone shouting "Eureka!" Most often, it is someone mumbling 
"Hmm, that's weird..." or "Darn, the frammitz integrator broke AGAIN..."

When the jobs of both "theorist" and "experimentalist" are
done by a single person, things get murky, and the experiments
are done with the overt intent of "proving" something that the
scientist believes to be both true, and new/exciting.
The level of this conflict of interest can be very high in
some cases, moreso when funding or tenure is at stake, or
when the work will be expensive or time-consuming.

Yes, of course one puts controls in place, but double-blind
trials are difficult to have in areas relating to bees, as
it is easy to see which hive gets the different conditions.
(More effort could be made to have the work done outside the
view of the person to do the data-gathering, so that, for
example, the person who counts the mites has no idea which
hives were treated one way versus another, and I have no idea
why this is not a required item, except to say that no one
has demanded this much rigor, and it would likely cost more.)

But if you have read other postings I have written, you can
see that "scientists" are just random people who kept taking 
college courses longer than you did, and stumbled into jobs
where they were paid to "do research", rather than the more
tangibly productive work that you likely do for a living.
Don't put us up on pedestals, because one of our number is
sure to prove us all unworthy. Scientists are subject to
all the quirks and faults of everyone else, and while we
have a pretty good system to insure that liars and cheaters
and the merely mistaken are exposed, it is by no means 
perfect. There is too much going on, and there is too 
much specialized technical knowledge required for any single
human being to even read everything being published in his
own field, let alone other fields that have a good chance
of having an impact on one's field of choice. Every year,
one can read thoughtful tomes that worry over the fact that
to read all the papers in one specific field, one would need
to hire a staff of several dozen full-time "readers".

Scientists are just people. No more ethical or honorable than
any other random group. I wish we could somehow live up to
the expectations, and we do try, but it is a losing proposition.

Remember, "p=0.05" means that one time out of 20, what is claimed
to be "proven" did not work in the experiment/study said to "prove"
something. If I sold you a car that did not start one time out
of 20, you'd want your money back.

Think about that.


----------



## shoefly (Jul 9, 2004)

Jfischer:
"Remember, "p=0.05" means that one time out of 20, what is claimed
to be "proven" did not work in the experiment/study said to "prove"
something. If I sold you a car that did not start one time out
of 20, you'd want your money back.

Think about that."

...and yes I did think about that. I like your posts a lot, very thought provoking, no mincing of words but your example of how to account for statistical variability is a little extreme. Most gradual cause and effect relationships are not easy to prove.

When it comes to an empirical study with many many variables scientists have to "prove" that the data they collected is not just due to chance. If you flipped a coin 20 times and it comes up heads every time, you'd "prove" that there is probably something other than chance at work.


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Good morning folk from an unusual weather-wise Virginia. Thank The Good Lord, we are having beautiful weather here. The bees are flying (not too long but they are flying) giving me the opportunity to observe their progress with treatment and food storage. 
Re: variables in my study. Another of the "beauties" of working with FGMO is that there are very few variables reducing the chances for uncertainty. With careful and detailed dedication, I have been able to establish a fine protocol setting forth the parameters needed to conduct simple field tests by almost any beekeeper worldwide. FGMO application is simple, safe for the bees, beekeepers and nature,uncomplicated, economic, and proven non contaminating. And best of all proven to be effective! I have had my trials and frustrations but thank The Lord I have overcome those to arrive at a useful working condition to offer those who may wish to try an alternative cost-effedtive method to add to the array of tools emplyed to combat the terrible threat that mites present. As I have stated in the past, FGMO is not a silver bullet but it is a method that is to providing satisfactory results to those who are willing to use the method. I hope and pray that all of us will join hands in finding how it may work best. 
Have a wonderful holiday season and God bless all.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2004)

>> "Remember, "p=0.05" means that one time out
>> of 20, what is claimed to be "proven" did
>> not work in the experiment/study said to 
>> "prove" something.

> your example of how to account for 
> statistical variability is a little extreme. 
> Most gradual cause and effect relationships
> are not easy to prove.

Well, what part of the phrase "95% confidence"
is unclear to anyone?









If I publish a paper saying that I have
proven that swinging a dead skunk around
my hives increases mite fall, and I have
p=0.05 in my paper, that means that my
data supports my contention 95% of the
time, and refutes it 5% of the time.

The traditional approach is to publish
papers with "95% confidence", and reject
them if they have only "94.9% confidence".
One paper is able wear the white lab coat
of "Science" with a capital "S", and the
other is dismissed as "unproven".

But even the publishable data is only
consistent 19 times out of 20. If the
results were any better, be sure that
the paper would brag of a much smaller "p".

My point is that no one can be absolutely
certain, but this whole "p=0.05" thing
keeps much that is useful from being
crowned as "proven". Pragmatic beekeeping
means weighing both the upside AND the downside.

So, while napalm would have a 100% certainty
and a 100% kill rate on the mites, the
collateral damage would be just a bit too
high for most beekeepers.


----------



## topbee (Mar 17, 2004)

Just curious,
Is it a misuse of FGMO or is it a minor bump in the road. I was speaking with some commercial beekeepers that currently use FGMO and they said they are finding that there is a build up oil on the combs. Could this be a problem or has there been any research regarding the effects of FGMO in the hive?

I currently use the FGMO and thymol mixture no cords and it seems to be doing a great job. By using the thymol can you treat once a month so the residual FGMO on the comb is less?

Any thoughts


----------



## clintonbemrose (Oct 23, 2001)

I have been foging my hives for three years weekly and never seen any residue or oily aperance on any comb or equipment other than the smoker.Last year I added Thymoil to the FGMO treatment. It has improved my hives by getting rid of most of the mites.
I check 50 hives a week using the mite drop test and every month I use ether roll test on 25 diferent hives. I also check for Treachel mites with a microscope.
I'm a beliver in FGMO.
but I only treat 504 hives weekly.
Clint

------------------
Clinton Bemrose
just South of Lansing Michigan
Beekeeping sence 1964


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
Hi Clint. Soooo good to see your posts! Thanks for your excellent contributions.
I hope not to sound repetitious. I tend to think that I have suggested before for interested parties to read the archives in Beesource.com There is a wealth of information that has been gathering here for the benefit all interested. Among the data stored in the archives are my written test reports that include chromatography laboratory analysis of both honey and wax from hives under treatment with FGMO and thymol during three years before samples were collected. The tests revealed Zero residues for FGMO or thymol in either honey or wax. 
I would like to add that yes, FGMO can be absorbed quite readily by combs, BUT it requires to be DUMPED on the combs. Beleive me I have performed constant tests for it from 1993. For those who may worry about what happens to FGMO when applied (either fog or emulsion): the great majority of the FGMO is taken up by the bees in their hairs and body. As all of us know, the life span of a bee is not very long. Bees die rather shortly especially during harvesting seassons. Most bees fly away and die in the field or are carried out by their hive mates and with them goes FGMO applied to them. Therefor, most of the FGMO applied is taken out of the hive by dieng/dead bees. End of worries, folks.
Happy holidays and God bless. 
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## topbee (Mar 17, 2004)

Clint,
Do you fog with the thymol on a weekly basis or on a monthly? I appreciate your response on the topic. I have been using FGMO and thymol for just one season and going into the winter my hives are doing quite well. I was just bringing their thougts to the table.

Thanks,

Tony


----------



## dickm (May 19, 2002)

>>>>If you flipped a coin 20 times and it comes up heads every time, you'd "prove" that there is probably something other than chance at work.<<<<<<

Actually, you would not have proved anything except that the coin came up heads 20 times. Most people would think that on the next flip there is more of a chance for it to come up "tails". That would require that some invisible force was going to act on that coin. The truth is that the next toss has a 50/50 chance of being tails just as was true with all the other tosses. 
Now, if I toss the coins 10X and you toss them 10X and all mine came up heads and yours were random ... would that prove that I could control the coins?
This relates to FGMO where a large # of those reporting success do so with a small sample. 

Clint,
Do you worry about getting Thymol in the honey? No Listerine taste? 

Dickm


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

I got heads 27 times in a row flipping a quarter once. It was spooky.


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello folks.
I participated in a great number of situations during my school years (BSA and doctarate) using analytical deductions. I remember very well the admonitions from our teacher in one of my genetics courses. "do not be tempted to manipulate your samples to prove your findings." 
Sampling is a very useful tool for statystical analysis but it certainly can be flawed and may not prove anything precisely because it can be manipulated and because "rare" situations may crop up, as for example Mike's Bush twenty five consecutive heads tosses. 
Here is where my 11 years of repetitive consecutive positive findings with FGMO are extremely valuable as demonstrated by equally positive findings from those of you who use FGMO. Our findings are solid as constrasted to the reports of those who do a one time "test." I welcome well intentioned replicating tests because they can be useful. I seriously doubt "tests" performed without the least intention of replication.
Attempts at deafeating the progress obtained with FGMO during 11 hard working years does not do anyone any good and instead hurt beekeeping. 
Happy holidays and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## clintonbemrose (Oct 23, 2001)

I fog all 504 hives weekly with FGMO/Thymol and have been using Thymol for only 1 year. I have kept samples of honey from before using FGMO and have done taste tests with family and neighbors and still have not detected any diference. I am still waiting for that new Listerine flavor to show up. Am I doing something wrong?
Clint.

------------------
Clinton Bemrose
just South of Lansing Michigan
Beekeeping sence 1964


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hi Clint.
Not in this lifetime!
If you had thymnol in the honey or wax you would be able to smell and taste it. Thymol has avery distinctive smell. Thymol evaporates rather easyly, so after using thymol for a year you would detect thymol evaporation in the air if there is any. Rest at ease friends.
Happy holidays and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2005)

Can someone point me to a how to guide in using fgmo? I have seen the fogger at lowes and can buy the oil at a livestock/vet supply store nearby. This will be my second season coming up. I have only four hives and don't want to start with chemicals.Here in KY seems they are resistant (so I have heard) to Apistan . I have sbb on all four so I have a head start on mite control.
Henry


----------



## ikeepbees (Mar 8, 2003)

http://beesource.com/pov/rodriguez/index.htm


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

> and can buy the oil at a livestock/vet supply store nearby.

Usually the oil at the livestock/vet supply is the WRONG viscocity. I would either order the STE or buy some laxitive at Wal-mart or other drug store. I would NOT use the oil at the farm store or livestock store.
http://www.steoil.com/ (70)


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2005)

Thanks Michael, the oil I have there for cattle does not have the viscosity labeled. Thanks for the warning. Henry.


----------



## Dr. Pedro Rodriguez (Feb 5, 2002)

Hello again folks.
I can see an inherent error in trying to talk to a forum of this size and arrangement. Lots of newbees and contributors who have not read some or all the past posted information. 
I sent an alarm early during my FGMO studies regarding the use of the "proper" FGMO. I specifically wrote indicating: DO NOT USE MINERAL OIL FOR VETERINARY USE." Why? Because I tested meneral oil intended for veterinary use and killed all the bees in the colonies where it was tried. I kept saying that it may be toxic. So, again, please do not use any other form of oil that is not Food Grade Mineral Oil! Mineral Oil intended for human medicine is food grade and is okay for this purpose also. 
Best wishes for the holidays and God bless.
Dr. Rodriguez


----------

