Illinois illegally seizes bees resistant to (Monsanto) Roundup; kills remaining queens

[caseymoz]

183. It took you five days to come up with that?

And you cite a broken sentence, and editing error, out of everything I said, to make me look bad in the title.

Don't try present me as a paranoid. This is not like a birther or 9/11 conspiracy. What I'm saying is absolutely plausible. Have you looked into how far the chemical industry now underwrites university chemistry departments? "Who is they?" Duh, let's ignore your broken grammar and see. Bayer. Monsanto. Um, like, interested parties, with their hands in the right place? Some conspiracies are ridiculous. But when you know who underwrites and endows university science, you would be utterly irresponsible to not have some suspicions.

So, when I said irrefutable, what did you think I was referring to? That CCD originated when neonicotinoids were first introduced, or that the industry fought against results tooth and nail? (Scientists wouldn't be commenting on the latter, and the former is the first point the link made.) Whichever, you seem to have assumed the wrong one.

Doesn't the fact that many other pollinators are being wiped out, too, give you pause? Ones that don't keep hives where viruses and mites can spread through crowded populations? Ones that aren't domesticated and so don't suffer from transport shock? Such as the bumble bee went extinct in Britain? Or did you bother with the link? You certainly had nothing to say about any of the points it makes.

You say you're going to go with "them." (If you think I'm paranoid, you sound positively chummy whoever "they" are.) I take it before you do, you'll actually secure a poll demonstrating most university biology are saying the case about neonicotinoids is not irrefutable? I hope you checked on that fact? I take it that you also consider how carefully honest scientists might choose their words about CCD, even if they aren't working for the chemical industry? Yes, of course, you're diligent enough to do both.

You're right, AIDS was a trivial comparison, but a comparison doesn't have to be like the compared to be relevant, it simply has to be like it in the single detail being discussed. My point: disease and parasite infestations can be as much from lowered immune system as it can be from tougher diseases. "Oh, but AIDS isn't like CCD in every way." No kidding. A mouse isn't totally like a human being either, except for being like us enough to be our stand-ins for medical experiments.

But apparently, if the AIDS comparison lost you, that one will leave you adrift. Or will you now object that being lost and adrift have only a trivial comparison to being stupid?

Lastly, how about all the other comparisons I gave? Like DDT? Would it have ever been banned if we could study trachea mites and insect's immune systems then? Or like the tobacco industries work against lung cancer findings?

You're awfully silent about all of that. I'll take it that my points were made. They might not convince you, but the fact you don't mention them, says something.

Go with your imagined experts, but you just watch, their consensus is going to switch to what I'm telling you. It's gotten to the point where even Bayer can't defend their product.