# Possible Cause of Bee Die-Off Is Found



## WillH (Jun 25, 2010)

Now, a unique partnership — of military scientists and entomologists — appears to have achieved a major breakthrough: identifying a new suspect, or two. 

From New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/science/07bees.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes


----------



## ChristopherA (Jul 20, 2010)

Summary

Its a virus/fungi combo (they think) detected in RNA based test. Alot of blah blah blah.....with nothing more than what most already know or thought.

Another 5 years and they will identify it...virus means vac. of bees...how you do that? Fungi well thats easy.

Oh they did say cold wet dark areas were part of the reason and it starts in the bees digestive track.....future will tell.

Only being a smart A cause I always hate seeing we are almost there...kinda like HIV/AIDS Vac. Still waiting on that one too.


----------



## wkinne (Jul 17, 2010)

Since they say the virus is not treatable.

Treat the fungus, called N. ceranae. Nosema ceranae

At least we can fight that.



wkinne


----------



## ChristopherA (Jul 20, 2010)

I think that is one of the issues. We know the body or in this case the bee can only cure the virus......as for the fungi, I would rarely treat in an extreme case. The only way for a body/bee to become immune is to be exposed. Exposure is important and they should proceed with treating the fungi with natural resources and not chemical medications. Finding the cause of the fungi and limit that will decrease the fungi, with minimal exposure maybe one day we can have a bee that can fight off this like life body/bee is suppose too.


----------



## Beekeeper's hubby (Jun 5, 2009)

The New York Times article is relatively incomplete. The combination found is listed, Nosema C. However they do not list the Virus which is Varroa destructor-1

Research report can be read here:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013181


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

Beekeeper's hubby said:


> The New York Times article is relatively incomplete. The combination found is listed, Nosema C. However they do not list the Virus which is Varroa destructor-1
> 
> Research report can be read here:
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013181



keep reading... Varroa destructor-1 was simply found in the US (allong with the kakugo virus) but they did not link either of those viruses to CCD, nor was that the major discovery which was a DNA virus rather than the RNA Varroa destructor-1 virus. The DNA virus that they have linked to CCD is currently unidentified but appears to be similar to IIV-24 and IIV-6 and may actually be a mutation of one of those two.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's an excerpt from the Jerry Bromenshank, et. al., paper: "Iridovirus and Microsporidian Linked to Honey Bee Colony Decline" .



> We used Mass spectrometry-based proteomics (MSP) to identify and quantify thousands of proteins from healthy and collapsing bee colonies. MSP revealed two unreported RNA viruses in North American honey bees, Varroa destructor-1 virus and Kakugo virus, and identified an invertebrate iridescent virus (IIV) (Iridoviridae) associated with CCD colonies. Prevalence of IIV significantly discriminated among strong, failing, and collapsed colonies. In addition, bees in failing colonies contained not only IIV, but also Nosema. Co-occurrence of these microbes consistently marked CCD in (1) bees from commercial apiaries sampled across the U.S. in 2006–2007, (2) bees sequentially sampled as the disorder progressed in an observation hive colony in 2008, and (3) bees from a recurrence of CCD in Florida in 2009.


What's unusuall about this paper is the use of MSP to find a correlation between IIV, Nocema c., and CCD. It's refreshingly different from the usual RT-PCR/PCR, microarray, etc., methodologies.


----------



## Rick 1456 (Jun 22, 2010)

Everybody wants their grants renewed. Sorry,,,,Lipservice IMHO


----------



## The Soap Pixie (Mar 15, 2010)

It is always interesting to learn who is behind these studies. Good grief! It now holds absolutely no weight. I'd rather see studies from unbiased sources.

_The study, written in collaboration with Army scientists at the Edgewood Chemical Biological Center outside Baltimore, analyzed the proteins of afflicted bees using a new Army software system. The Bayer pesticides, however, go unmentioned.

What the Times article did not explore -- nor did the study disclose -- was the relationship between the study's lead author, Montana bee researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, and Bayer Crop Science. In recent years Bromenshenk has received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination. Indeed, before receiving the Bayer funding, Bromenshenk was lined up on the opposite side: He had signed on to serve as an expert witness for beekeepers who brought a class-action lawsuit against Bayer in 2003. He then dropped out and received the grant._

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm

and here is another article that gives insight to some of the "drive" behind this research.

http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-10-14-the-new-york-times-gets-it-wrong-on-bees/


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

The study only holds "absolutely no weight" if you've already decided that Pesticides Are The Cause Period And Nothing Else Matters. It may well be that pesticide presence was not accounted for in the study; it may well be that the reason pesticide presence was not accounted for is that the scientist in question didn't want his funding to dry up. But the documented presence of IIV and Nosema c. in CCD bees is still scientifically-useful data. I think that instead of simply burning this paper as propaganda, it would be more constructive to encourage similar studies with the same methodology, minus the Bayer funding, to see if the results are similar.

If you ask me, the Bayer funding isn't nearly this paper's biggest problem:



> Eban reports something the Times piece doesn't: that Bromenshenk's consulting company, Bee Alert Technology, is developing diagnostic tools for "various bee ailments." The company stands to profit from curing bee diseases -- and thus it's rather convenient that Bromenshenk has published research that points the finger towards "treatable" conditions, rather than pesticides, as the primary culprit in bee deaths.


----------



## The Soap Pixie (Mar 15, 2010)

Any time there is a conflict of interest the information is useless. If the researcher, in this case Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, withholds information, such as where his funding comes from, then why would anyone trust anything else he has to say. Just receiving funding from Bayer might not be the papers biggest problem but add the fact that he stands to gain a lot financially if he proves his theory correct along with the fact that he is inconsistent as to which theory he believes (hence why he once stood on the side of the beekeepers believing pesticides played a role in their hives collapse). 


Don't get confused, just because I doubt this biased piece of research doesn't mean I believe pesticides are the cause of CCD. I'm waiting eagerly to learn the cause as are most others, but I know that research only counts when it comes from an unbiased source and this man is far from unbiased so I will restate, this information holds no weight, instead it is all suspect!


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

The Soap Pixie said:


> Any time there is a conflict of interest the information is useless. If the researcher, in this case Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk, withholds information, such as where his funding comes from, then why would anyone trust anything else he has to say.


But that's not what happened, is it? AFIAK, Bromenshenk has publicly admitted he received a grant from Bayer; he only insists it wasn't for this project.

There's a baby somewhere in that bathwater, is all I'm saying.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's a piece detailing some other flaws in the study itself.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/honeybee_mystery_solved_not_quite_bee_experts.php


----------



## The Soap Pixie (Mar 15, 2010)

melliferal,

Well he'd be a fool not to admit where his funding comes from when the facts are already known, being reported to the public and people are questioning it. I call that getting caught with ones pants down.  and I believe he didn't use any money received from Bayer for this project :lpf:


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

WLC said:


> Here's a piece detailing some other flaws in the study itself.
> 
> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/honeybee_mystery_solved_not_quite_bee_experts.php





> I wrote Leonard Foster, bee expert and chief apiarist at the University of British Columbia, to ask his thoughts on the matter. For Foster, the main concern isn't the Bayer funding, he said in an email, "in part because the preponderance of evidence from other groups as well indicates that at least one, if not two or more infectious diseases are responsible for CCD. That's not to say, though, that pesticides might not play a role."
> 
> Of more concern to him is that the researchers have not released some of the "most essential data supporting their conclusions." From what Foster can tell, the authors may have "made some rather serious (honest) mistakes when interpreting their data."
> 
> Those errors could include the researchers having mistaken "bee proteins for something else, such as IIV proteins," as well as the "method they used to quantify the level of virus between the CCD and no-CCD colonies—its accuracy is very low and so this could also lead to erroneous conclusions."


Now that's something a bit more tangible and useful than simply crying "shill".


----------



## soupcan (Jan 2, 2005)

Read this deal 2 times now!
I think we all probably knew just as much about this problem before this collection of ideas or what ever we should call it were put into print.
As one nationally well known bee researcher quoted to me a few years back
" our bread is now buttered on both sides with grant & research dollars from large companies "


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I learned a thing or two from this whole situation.

MSP is a research methodology that has it's own pitfalls. IIV can kill Honeybees and is in the US. Make sure your data is available before you publish. Don't forget to disclose any $s that you received from the likes of Bayer before you publish. Avoid being featured by the NYT when you do finally publish.

Finally, make sure that an award-winning, investigative journalist isn't on your tail after your published study is a headline in the NYT.


----------



## gavin_r (Mar 7, 2010)

I learned a few things too. 

- One journalist in a prominent position can more or less destroy a person's reputation in one short article as long as the message is one that people want to hear.

- It doesn't matter how many lies you pack into an article, people who want to believe it *will* believe it.

- The speed of the dissemination of misinformation on the internet these days is truly amazing. Try Googling 'bromenshenk bayer'.

Jerry denies out of hand three of the main planks of that article: the grant from Bayer, the failure to disclose funding, and the advantage his technology would gain if pathogens rather than pesticides are the main causal agent.

I'm sincerely hoping that Katherine Eban learns some lessons from this too:

- That when a man who is the subject of a defamatory article you've written and shown him tells you point blank that it is utterly wrong, and why, you really ought to listen.

- That destroying a leading scientist's reputation in such a public way can be very, very expensive.

G.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

There's nothing that Eban wrote that I would call a lie. I think that the correct term is 'spin'. Jerry was simply an easy target.


----------



## gavin_r (Mar 7, 2010)

Here are three statements in the article that are completely denied by Jerry, who also has said that he tried to correct the report before it was published but the reporter wasn't interested in doing so (in which case this jumps from spin to deceit):

'In recent years Bromenshenk has received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination.'

'Bromenshenk's company, Bee Alert Technology, which is developing hand-held acoustic scanners that use sound to detect various bee ailments, will profit more from a finding that disease, and not pesticides, is harming bees.'

'The Times reporter who authored the recent article, Kirk Johnson, responded in an e-mail that Dr. Bromenshenk "did not volunteer his funding sources."'

Jerry said this on Bee-L:

'The Fortune reporter knows full well:

(1) the onion seed pollination work was done for a large U.S. company,
there was no grant received from Bayer,

(2) the acoustic recorder is better at pesticide detection than pathogens
- the latter part of the development is an ongoing research project still
being funded by USDA. 

(3) we weren't asked by NYT to disclose our funding sources, it wasn't 
brought up, and there was no need since this information is required by PloS
ONE before they will even review a paper. You can find it on the PloS ONE
site.'


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

PLoSone doesn't vet the funding sources or competing interests of its authors. They basically accept 70% of papers submitted for a fee of approximately $1,400. It's a money maker for PLoS. 

While I don't have first hand knowledge of the 3 issues Jerry responded to, I did note the Jay Evans comment on PLoSone about the unavailability of the study data. The credentials of Jay Evans as a Honeybee research scientist are impeccable.

Since that data availability is a requirement of PLoSone for publication, and Jerry, et al., have broken that agreement according to Evans...

_Was Jay Evans wrong? 
Was Leonard Foster (another bee researcher) also wrong?
Let's not forget, the award winning journalist/Rhodes Scholar, Eban's claims._

...why should I believe Jerry?


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

Look, the bottom line is finding the cause of CCD. One study, no matter how flawless it is, is not going to prove anything. More studies will need to be taken to prove or disprove the findings of this study. We won't know anything for sure until that is done. A lot of what is being argued here is premature. At the very least, this study points other honeybee research scientists in a direction to find the cause.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

If the bees died of Nos. C. then did they REALLY die of CCD? 

I'm leaning toward no.


----------



## gavin_r (Mar 7, 2010)

PLoSone is an Open Access journal. It charges authors US$1350 for the privilege of publishing and the authors pay this money so that the general community - including beekeepers - can get free access to their work. Excellent. The researchers paying to publish are effectively paying our subscription charges for access and that is how the journal makes its income to cover its costs. Dennis vanEnglesdorp did this for his CCD paper, Chris Mullin for his, and Jerry Bromenshenk for his. I salute them all.

I don't know what you mean about PLoS not vetting funding information. They ask for authors to declare this, the authors do declare this, and that information is published as part of the paper. Are you implying that Jerry lied about his funding sources and PLoS never checked it out? Why? The accusation was that Jerry had a big pollination grant from Bayer and he utterly refutes that.

Was he unwilling to share data? The statement: 'An extensive summary of detected peptides and microbes is presented in a recently completed technical report' covers his requirement to released the data on which his conclusions are based. You should be able to find it in the Wick et al. report. I'm getting the impression that there is a lot of bad feeling between some American bee researchers. Is this why he was criticised by James Frazier and Jay Evans? I don't particularly care about that, I just want to know whether this study is a major step towards a full understanding of CCD, and I believe that it is.

best wishes

Gavin


----------



## gavin_r (Mar 7, 2010)

Bens-Bees said:


> If the bees died of Nos. C. then did they REALLY die of CCD?
> 
> I'm leaning toward no.


It looks like they may have died of Insect Iridescent Virus and Nosema ceranae working together. Maybe Nc amplifies IIV, that is yet to be worked out.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

gavin,

TR 814 (Wick) is the data that Evans was told to check back on in 2 months.

It simply isn't available. In the world of science research, that's a serious breach.

PLoSone isn't as prestigious as you might believe. It's more like a 'Kmart for Science'. Almost anyone can get a paper published there.

I would say that Jerry found evidence for IIV and not a correlation for CCD/IIV/Nosema. The study is too flawed to say anything else. It borders on being called 'Junk Science'.

As for American Honeybee researchers 'bushwacking' Jerry, that's possible. Is Leonard Foster related to Dianne Cox-Foster? If that's the case, then you have some major groups of researchers lined up against the study.

The Eban piece reports that Jerry received a major grant from Bayer. If Jerry or his company received any $ from bayer, of any kind, then it's disingenuos of Jerry to say that he didn't receive a 'pollination grant' from Bayer.

He needs to come clean and say how much $ he received from Bayer, and when. We already know what he got the $ for (Was it 30 pieces of silver?).

So, I repeat, why should anyone believe anything Jerry says?


----------



## gavin_r (Mar 7, 2010)

Or to put it another way, is there any reason that people should *not* believe what Jerry says? I only know him as a contributor to Bee-L (plus a very brief correspondence over his demonisation in some of the email circulars that get sent round beekeeping groups). On Bee-L he seems unusually open for a researcher, happy to engage with beekeepers and tell the community things that they would not get access to otherwise (without breaching usual etiquette).

PLoS isn't as prestigious as Nature or PNAS, but it isn't what I'd regard as K-Mart (not sure that we have an equivalent over here).

You say that the study borders on junk science? On what basis? Will you come back on here and say how wrong you were if subsequent papers strengthen the IIV-Nc-CCD link? I'm a plant geneticist and beekeeper, and regularly review journal articles. It is pretty obvious that this paper is just a step along the way, but I'd be amazed if its central findings are wrong. It is ground-breaking in the use of MSP for example, and very embarrassing for competing scientists who did receive proper CCD funding and missed the IIV link.

OK, I've seen the comments left on the PLoS site now about access to the Technical Report. Yes, it should be available. Some people on Bee-L have had copies, so it has been distributed. If the US Army are not distributing it because they don't think that it has been approved for release, why do people not try Jerry or his US Army co-authors directly? It *ought* to be available and it looks as if it will be widely available, and in some quarters it is already available.

On your 30 pieces of silver theory, Jerry said this when I copied him into my rebuttal of an anti-pesticide anti-Jerry circular going round beekeepers in Europe:

> We DID NOT receive a grant from Bayer

That was the accusation made in the CNN Fortune piece. If you have accusations that he isn't telling the truth, or hiding something, it would be nice to hear details!

all the best

Gavin


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Well, I would say that there are the 13 beekeepers in North Dakota, who lost their lawsuit against Bayer, that might question Jerry's integrity.

Are you saying that I should direct Jay Evans over to Bee-L to get the data? 

You're joking? 

I think that playing 'monkey in the middle' with someone like Evans is a losing proposition.

I think that we can all agree that the MSP approach to studying the link between CCD, Nosema, and viruses has its limitations. I won't repeat Foster's (he's a researcher in proteomics) comments above, nor will I repeat my own objections with regards to the under-reporting of viral peptides by MSP, or the questionable groupings of Nosema species and viruses to demonstrate a correlation w/ CCD.

But, if I do see a CREDIBLE study showing a link, then I would be more inclined to agree.

Yet again, did Jerry, or his company, receive any $ from Bayer for any reason?

It's disingenuos to say 'we didn't receive a grant from Bayer', when $s were received from Bayer, regardless of the reason or whomsoever received it.

Jerry should come clean on the above, and he should also stop with the semantics. 

Deny, deflect, and delay isn't a viable strategy for a scientific study.

Besides, he's already been 'exposed'.


----------



## gavin_r (Mar 7, 2010)

How does Dakota beekeepers losing a Class Action to Bayer impact on Jerry's integrity?! What is it that you think you know about Jerry receiving $s from Bayer. Is there anything there at all, or are you just engaging in unfounded internet insinuations? I doubt very much that we'll hear more from Jerry on this in the meantime. He has said that he is in discussions with his and his university's lawyers. He hasn't been 'exposed', it seem to me that he has been libelled.

Jay Evans could try asking the authors directly. I wasn't suggesting that you do anything.

all the best

Gavin


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

gavin:

It's a simple matter of full disclosure.

Did Jerry. or his company, receive any consideration, of any kind, at any time, from Bayer or any of it's subsidiaries?

If so, that's a genuine conflict of interest.

I would say that he hasn't been libelled. It's more likely that he has alot of explaining to do.

Basically, the CCD/IIV/Nosema link remains unproven.

PS-You do realize that those 13 ND beekeepers might also have an actionable cause?


----------



## gavin_r (Mar 7, 2010)

I really don't think that internet fora are places to make insinuations about conflicts of interests. I don't know if Jerry received free calendars from Bayer or what (and I suspect not), but he was directly accused of taking grant money from Bayer and that was directly denied. Didn't the Penn State researchers' study of pesticides in hives receive funding from commercial beekeepers? Was that a conflict of interests? Should we reject their findings (mostly dramatically alarming levels of pesticides near LD50 levels put there by the beekeepers themselves)? Should we now demonize them?

The IIV link seems to be a real step forward in the understanding of CCD. Dee Lusby explained the unusual symptoms she saw in colonies surviving the 200/300 colony losses she saw in one of her areas, and they fit very well to a 'clustering disease' which IIV is supposed to cause.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Jerry never said, 'I didn't...'

He said, 'We didn't...'

He's being evasive.

HE is the lead investigator of a team of 17 other investigators. That's why the focus is on him and not the team.

As for the Penn State study, I'm sure that they're credible and have fully disclosed any competing interests and funding.

The MSP/IIV findings are the main issues brought up by this study.

Perhaps there will be some newer supporting studies done soon.

As soon as some primers are published for the different types of IIVs, then the party gets started.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

From Bee-L :
"In a message dated 10/9/2010 8:37:02 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, 
[email protected] writes:

>>That should be the "New York" magazine.


Thanks Peter - 
Sorry, I was in a rage.


The Fortune author was fed a concocted story, and she refused to change the 
story she had already written. 

I did not receive a grant from BAYER, so the whole premise of the article 
and its clone was false. 
Our study is based on data from the Premiere US ARMY lab for this type of 
work. I have 17 co-authors. 

I WAS livid - never did I think that our results would be so threatening 
that I'd be personally attacked in an attempt to discredit the work of the 
Army, 4 universities, 3 companies, and 18 authors.
Jerry<<

And that should end these personal attacks.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here we go again...

"I did not receive a grant from BAYER,..."

He's being evasive again. 

He hasn't denied receiving $ from Bayer.

So, if it wasn't a grant, what was it?

Let's repeat the critical question...

Did Jerry, or his company, receive any consideration, of any kind, at any time, from Bayer or any of it's subsidiaries?

He hasn't answered the above question.

If so, that's a genuine conflict of interest. 

Especially for the lead investigator of a research study on Honeybee, Colony Collapse Disorder.

Jerry has to come clean on this because he has involved 'the US Army, 4 universities, 2 companies, and 17 authors'.

For the 'ethically challenged', he had to disclose any Bayer $ (or consideration) to everyone else involved.

This isn't a personal attack because the information was published in 'Fortune' as a response to a headline in NYT.

Jerry's a public figure now.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

a couple of things come to mind as a weed through the controversy:

1. I've corresponded with Jerry a number of times over the last few years....he has always answered promptly and been helpful. At the same time, there are a few things that never made sense to me (I won't go into them here)....my point is that I don't have 100% universal trust or distrust for him based on actual experience.

2. It is surprising that no one has specifically named when and for what the Bayer grant was supposed to be for. I don't know the grant world very well, but don't grant recipients often (if not usually) acknowledge grants in the writeups of their studies? It would clear things up considerably if a grant could be pointed to rather than alluded to.

3. Would the data in question be covered by the freedom of information act? I've made these requests from the USDA, but never from the military. This doesn't solve the issues, but could at least provide the documents in question.

deknow


----------



## oldenglish (Oct 22, 2008)

WLC said:


> Jerry never said, 'I didn't...'
> 
> He said, 'We didn't...'
> 
> He's being evasive.


I am not going to comment on the study, I dont have the credentials. But please give me a break, this is nit picking on a level that just drives me nuts.

He says "we didnt" because he is part of a company, you want him to say "I didnt"
I can be pretty sure if he had said "I" instead of "we" you would still be complaining that he is being evasive, you would be asking about his company, his family, his friends or anything else that helps you with your conspiracy theory. Dont give up your day job, Mel Gibson did it much better.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

His company?

Are you saying that BeeAlert got the grant? That would explain why he said I didn't and we didn't...

I forgot about family and friends!

Thanks oldenglish.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

I don't understand what conflict of interest there would be if he did accept money from Bayer. This particular bit of research was one that couldn't have identified pesticides as a cause of CCD because the methods used in the study weren't capable of detecting pesticides. This wasn't meant to be a conclusive study that absolutely nailed down all the exact causes of CCD. That's why the headlines read: POSSIBLE cause found... instead of just: Cause Found. This study was designed to use a different tool to see if different results would be found by using this different tool, and lo and behold, yes there were different results. The study discovered 3 diseases previously thought not to be in the U.S. bee populations... one of which is as of yet unidentified. That's certainly worth discovering, and now that we have we can do some more studies to find out the exact effects of these diseases and how they may interact with bees that have or have not been affected by pesticides. 

This study is a beginning, not an end. So what's the big deal?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

They most certainly did apply a new approach (MSP) to the study of CCD.

Yes, they did find evidence for IIV as well as Kakugo Virus and Varroa Destructor Virus 1. Those are new findings.

I don't think that getting funding from Bayer is a big deal.
What I can't understand is why Jerry won't disclose the details.
Once he does that, the issues go away as far as I'm concerned.

However, with the NYT and Fortune pieces, the whole disclosure and conflict of interest issues become the focus of the media, and, in an important way, the scientific community as well.

Unfortunately, the NYT and Fortune articles went 'viral'. As a result, Jerry's study, and his Bayer ties, are all over the WWW. That was way too much attention for this kind of a research paper.

I'm of the opinion that this is a lesson on how not to publish a scientific paper. The controversy has overshadowed the study itself.

That Doesn't bode well for those involved.


----------



## heaflaw (Feb 26, 2007)

Bens-Bees: I agree with you completely. This was an important study whether Bayer was involved in the funding or not.


----------



## Bens-Bees (Sep 18, 2008)

Well, even though the news ran with the controversy (that's what the media does... because that's what sells stories)... I still think the main goal of identifying these things has been accomplished and that other researchers will be able to pick up and run with it anyway. As far as I'm concerned, that's mission accomplished for this study. Sure Jerry's reputation might suffer more than it would have had he not been involved in this controversy, but that's of little consequence.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's the rub: is the data available yet? Will it become available after the hubbub dies down? 

I wouldn't underestimate the amount of review that had to occur after the Fortune article was published. There's Montana State, Texas Tech, Istituto di Ecologia, Towson U., and the US Army and contractors.

I'd say that many of Jerry's colleagues are non too pleased with him. 

The study can implode if the data is withheld or authors pull out.

So, I wouldn't call the findings a done deal just yet.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest are serious issues for academic institutions. God knows how the army does it, but someone is going to 'see stars' (or at least eagles).


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Here's an update on the Bromenshenk/Bayer controversy.

It seems that Jerry received funding from Sun Seeds Inc. for the onion pollination study. Sun Seeds was acquired by Nunhems, a subsidiary of Bayer, before the study was completed according to Jerry's partner.

So, if Jerry did drop out after Nunhem was acquired by Bayer, then it does raise some questions as to why he dropped out as an expert for those beekeepers who were suing Bayer.

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/not-so-sweet/Content?oid=1319017

In 2009, Jerry did in fact help the ABF and AHPA get seated on the Beekeeper Advisory Board to the pesticide industry.

There's a photo of him and a Bayer scientist on the link below.

http://www.scientificbeekeeping.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77

This does raise the question: did Bayer, or one of it's subsidiaries, fund any of the groups listed in the funding section of Jerry's paper?

... the National Honey Board, California Almond Board (06-POLL8-Bromenshenk, 09-POLL10-Bromenshenk), The Foundation for the Preservation of the Honey Bee, ... Project Apis m., California Beekeepers Association...

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013181

Scientific independence is an important issue for scientists and beekeepers alike.

This article helps to put things in perspective:

http://sciblogs.co.nz/southern-genes/


----------



## The Soap Pixie (Mar 15, 2010)

WLC,

Thank you so much for all of that information! You did your research, I appreciate it, and I look forward to reading the links.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

This is the best, most honest review of this study that I have seen

http://www.examiner.com/science-new...-colony-collapse-disorder-afflicting-bees-u-s

sometimes scientific studies prove nothing


----------



## Roland (Dec 14, 2008)

It is interesting that the editor of the article noted that the hypothesis did not stand up to Koch's postulates. When they find something that does, let me know.

Roland


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I wanted to revisit this statement:

"Jerry said this on Bee-L:

'The Fortune reporter knows full well:

(1) the onion seed pollination work was done for a large U.S. company,
there was no grant received from Bayer,..."

and this statement from the above link made by Jerry's partner and coauthor:

"...Colin Henderson, a UM researcher, co-author of the study and co-owner of Bee Alert Technology, explains that after UM researchers were successful in training honeybees to detect explosive vapors for the Department of Defense, they were approached by the seed company Sun Seeds Inc. to train bees to prefer to pollinate onions over other surrounding plants. Toward the end of that study, Henderson says, Sun Seeds was acquired by a Dutch company called Nunhems, a subsidiary of Bayer.

"So there's the connection," Henderson says..."

That's saying that they received a grant from a company that became a subsidiary, of a subsidiary, of Bayer. So Bayer was the parent company when the onion pollination study was completed.

Do you see why I felt that Jerry was being evasive? 

Why didn't he just say so in the first place?

Maybe because it would give creedance to Eban's assertions in the 'Fortune' piece?


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

It looks like a timing issue to me. Bayer was NOT the company that hired the onion study. That they came in later is irrelevant. 

I think this is all a lot of smoke about nothing.

Personally I would have liked to see Bayer fund the study. My impression was that funding was very scarce and hard to come by during this pathogen search.And it was a pathogen study NOT the chemical side of it. Others are looking at that issue.

The take away message to me is that YES nosema C is a bigger concern than some scientists have been hinting. This is an issue I am dealing with in my own bee outfit(as opposed to many who aren't )


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

loggermike said:


> nosema C is a bigger concern than some scientists have been hinting. This is an issue I am dealing with in my own bee outfit(as opposed to many who aren't )


I think keeping the mid gut healthy is the answer, although some think brewtec & sugar will fix that.


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

>>I think keeping the mid gut healthy is the answer<<

How do you do that?

I started doing lots of spore testing on my bees this fall, and found the highest levels in the hives in a 'dearthy' area, that have been living on stored honey and supplemental feeding. Hives coming off a late flow had no detectable or low levels.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

I think people forget that Bayer has thousands of beehive themselves... I agree, I wish they would have helped with the funding... I also believe that those who attack this study the strongest had their minds made up before the study was published that nicotine was the culprit. I think it might be a contributor to hive losses but I don't believe it's involved in CCD, whatever that is... I guess all of us need to buy one of those $400.00 microscopes and start testing our hives on a regular basis. Then the question becomes, what do we treat the hives with when spores get too high. I really don't want to put Fumagilin-B into my hives and I am pretty sure it will soon be illegal to use it anyway... presently my counts are low. I am going to dose my hives with carvacrol next spring and see how that works to keep the spores down.


----------



## bbbbeeman (Jan 13, 2007)

as well as I can understand IIV and nosema c are both a combonation cause of but not the complete cause of ccd. so if we treat for nosema it will help to keep ccd down and we dont know how to treat IIV. so brake out the fumagillin for treatment for now in infected areas. we didnot know that before the report so thanks jerry. good luck rock.


----------



## Barry (Dec 28, 1999)

"so brake out the fumagillin for treatment"

You really believe those who got CCD weren't already fumagillin users?


----------



## bbbbeeman (Jan 13, 2007)

who knows what has been used as a treatment ,if I lost most of my hives thats what I would do, treat with what I know work for nosema c.!GOOD LUCK ROCK.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

All hope isn't lost folks.

It looks like there's been a successful field test of RNAi (RNA interference) technology against IAPV by some scientists you might recognize by name.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=259110

If you haven't kept up with the literature, there was also a report of success in 'knocking out' an expressed gene product in Nosema.

My read on this is that a number of important Honeybee disease researchers are looking at RNAi technology as a replacement for pesticides and other treatments.

It could work (if the price is right).


----------



## loggermike (Jul 23, 2000)

"It could work (if the price is right)."

Lets hope so. The price of fumagillin aint no picnic. As my drained bank account clearly shows.
We really need economical and safe (for bees and people) alternatives to fumagillin. A breeding approach is the long term solution. But we need a short term answer (in the long run ,we are all dead)


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

There has been some success with carvacrol [oil of oregano]. I'm going to put it in my spring patties and use it on new nucs. I used thymol this spring on all my hives, had my hives tested for virus loads and got extremely low virus load. I think it might have been the thymol because a couple of packages had dysentery [nosema? didn't test] and they cleared up very quickly. Oregano oil has more carvacrol than thymol and it's the ingredient that they think might be helpful with nosema. Besides, it's pretty cheap.


----------

