Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

nafex - Re: [NAFEX] Bee Colony Collapse Disorder, spin-science, the madness of cows

nafex@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Stephen Sadler" <Docshiva@Docshiva.org>
  • To: "'North American Fruit Explorers'" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Bee Colony Collapse Disorder, spin-science, the madness of cows
  • Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 15:58:31 -0700

Copper/manganese ratios, as well as organophosphate links, have been investigated in Mad Cow.  Those theories have been rejected by the BSE inquiry and the Horn committee, but there are still papers being published that explore the associations.  Everyone agrees that a prion causes Mad Cow – the question is whether prion contamination is insufficient, or that a low Cu/Mn ratio or organophosphate exposure are necessary for infection, increased the risk of development and/or the severity.  The apparent links may just be due to the agricultural practices where Mad Cow has occurred.  Infected cattle seem to coincidentally ingest feed with a Cu/Mn ratio than might be less than optimal for allowing animals to enjoy the neurological and virological protections copper may contribute to.  So, as of now, the consensus is that although prion exposure, Cu/Mn imbalances, and organophosphate exposure have all occurred in the same populations of cattle, there’s absolutely no clear evidence that any one of those things leads to one of the others; they seem coincidental, not etiological.  The area is still being explored.

 

Universities are certainly dependent on corporate and special-interest funds.  Bio and chem departments maintain lists of requested, fundable studies that come from interested corporate parties.  Research only happens when it’s funded.  This is why it’s important to encourage altruistic research, through such things as charitable donations and political advocacy.

 

Spin-science is confusing at best.  We end up with an advocate system of biological research, where one interested party (the copper industry funds studies linking low copper to Mad Cow) fuels and publishes research that support their bottom line, while other industries (feed and fertilizer suppliers, in this scenario) support research that would keep their costs down, by not having to reformulate their products to correct mineral ratios.  All such research should be taken with a grain of sand (or copper manganate).  It’s just impossible for a lay person to suss out the truth from what the corporate PR machines (the lie persons) are spinning.  It’s hard for a biochemist.  So there are arbiters, like the BSE inquiry, In those arbiters it can be helpful to look for bias; does the arbiter want the problem silenced, or solved?  I’m fairly able to examine the underlying science, rather than infer that bad science must necessarily come from biased sourcing; but I do scrutinize literature more carefully and specifically when the funding source has a clear agenda.

 

There are other biases in science that are not commercial.  In psychiatry 40 years ago, the bias was upbringing rather than biology; then nature was given its due, and we see that people have different brains, which result in different psychologies, temperaments, orientations, and disorders.  Now there’s a pretty good nature/nurture balance, I think – but extremists on each said would say I’m wrong (thus my perception of balance).  In biology, there is a pathogenic bias.  Ever since ulcers were found to be largely caused by a bacterium rather than stress or bad diet, pathogens have rejoined the list of usual suspects.  It’s certainly as good an area as any to research in Colony Collapse.

 

For heaven’s sake stay prudently cynical.

 

~ Stephen

 


From: nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of BRosholdt
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2:45 PM
To: nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [NAFEX] Bee Colony Collapse Disorder

 


I looked at the article.  Now they are looking for a pathogen.  Just like in Mad Cow disease - which has since been shown to be related to types of pesticides and copper/manganese.  I wonder why none of the German/Japanese research that found a potential link to GM pollen is cited?  Is it that American Universities are so dependent upon funds from GM purveyors that they dare not "go there"?  I expect the Japanese research will be declaimed as "bad science", just like all the initial studies on Mad Cow that did not look for a pathogen.

I get tired of industry-funded "spin-science".  If you want to know why I feel this way, I recently watched "The Future of Food".

A little cynical today, but improving,
Barbara Rosholdt
Z7




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page