Beekeepers Have Low Incidence of Cancer ?

[Michael Bush]

""Scientists have learned what grandma has known for a thousand years""
The articles went on to explain how the chemicals in chicken soup had been found to help with colds.
Scientists had finally proven what and how.

I've met the guy who did the study.  He's here in Omaha.

[BeeMaster2]

She bought a hive knowing that the stings would end her life. After numerous stings the cancer started to subside and she is still with us today. She gets a bee sting every day to stay healthy.
Jim

Well Jim if it is not a sanctioned scientific study with lots of charts and figures your story has no merit.

I will tell my wife who is a cancer survivor and has a bad reaction to stings.  It may be an ace in the hole if she relapses.  Thanks.

Thanks for the put down Acebird.
There is a reason we keep our elders around.
I think you will find that most scientist are working on projects to prove or disprove something someone is paying them to do.
Grandmom based her ideas on what she experienced and saw with her 2 eyes.
There is a lot of good information out there that has never been proven by the "experts".
Jim

[flyboy]

A little more summary, after some more time with a search engine and the AAS site TBeek linked.  Just a note, none of what follows applies to desensitization immunotherapy, the one medical use of venom which has been widely studied and well-understood.  I'm talking about studies investigating the medical use of venom as a treatment for illness in humans.

No double-blind clinical trial has ever been conducted on bee venom treatment, that I can find.  In most, participants as well as researchers know whether they are assigned to be given venom or not.  Most trials lack any control.   All controlled trials I can find have been venom vs. another medication, and do not include placebo.  These are not invalid but they cannot be used to exclude placebo effect as the mode of action.

Reputable clinical trials to prove the safety of venom treatment are very common.  In the absence of allergic reaction, bee venom is clearly harmless when administered at doses used in apitherapy. 

But all of the clinical studies those examining effectiveness of bee venom as a medical treatment are either single case studies or very small (<100 participants total) and very short (less than 6 weeks of treatment) studies, and most are performed in countries without robust academic review systems.  The most reputable academic institution to publish on the topic in the last 10 years was a department of acupuncture and moxibustation at a medical college in South Korea....and that paper, pretty well-written, was a literature review which found only one controlled trial, and none which were double-blind.  Not a single one is published in a peer-reviewed journal in the US or Europe.  The AAS journal lacks a peer-review system, and regularly publishes non-academic testimonials.

The best designed studies on venom were not medical trials but scientific basic research.  Good animal studies have found that injected venom has anti-pain and anti-inflammatory effects and compounds which, when isolated, display a variety of positive effects.

It is not unreasonable that osteoarthritis, at least, and potentially many other inflammatory and chronic pain disorders would respond well to bee venom.

However, at present there appears to be exactly zero legitimate medical research on the topic.  Its unfortunate that the large apitherapy societies persist in publishing air castles and sprang-from-my-deathbed testimonials instead of gathering their resources to conduct large, well-designed clinical trials.

That is quite humorous. I know your heart is in the right place but.....

"Ok folks... we are going to do a double blind experiment on you. One person will receive the actual sting from a bee and the others person will receive a placebo which is a needle with a load of crap that feels like a bee sting, maybe a vaccination. Great idea, make some more money off of that."

That nonsense is what the drug companies want you to believe. That you have to have something completely unnatural and patentable, that a medical professional has to inject into the patient and renew the prescription periodically. Win/win for the Drug Co's and the Docs.

Of course the Drug Cos and the Doctors look at the aspect of 'no more business' as everyone knows that with something like MS there is lots of repeat business, "try this, try that, go to Europe for the operation", etc. etc.

Otherwise they will tell all Doctors and what the Docs all love to hear, is that "sorry but it is not scientifically validated," as we all know that Doctors are too lazy to read any science except what the drug co's (via their reps) filter out for them. That is just common knowledge.

Naturally not all Docs are of this mindset, but most are cowed by their associations and by fear of lawsuits. Exceptions are the notable ones like Mercola. http://www.mercola.com/ He is certainly not the only one.

My friend who gave a talk to our bee club about a year ago, uses bee stings to keep him fit as a fiddle. He previously lost the use of half of his body to MS. To bee clear it was his Doctor who turned him on to apiatherapy.

This guy travels the world to the extreme places like Antarctica and simply gets bees mailed to him. He always explains to the post office what he is up to so they do not get a shock when they hear noises from the package. After a treatment he does not need it for awhile, so travel is not interrupted. His wife is the applicator. He also has a hive at home.

What happened is that his Doc was a bicycle racer and he happened to attend a race in a distant city. As he was cruising around the start line he saw this guy that had been a patient of his, for a long time. The last time he saw him he was in a wheelchair with MS. He was blown away, figured he must be seeing things so he went over and low and behold it was his old patient who had moved away to that distant city and stumbled onto apiatherapy.

The way I see it is there are some folks who want to truly do something about their illness and so are willing to look outside the Government/drug co. approved box and so they get the solution and the others are left to drift on the ocean of 'a life of medication'.

You will never hear about apiatherapy from the media as the media is owned by the drug co's.

That is my rant for the day. Whew 

[D Coates]

Thanks for the put down Acebird.
There is a reason we keep our elders around.
I think you will find that most scientist are working on projects to prove or disprove something someone is paying them to do.
Grandmom based her ideas on what she experienced and saw with her 2 eyes.
There is a lot of good information out there that has never been proven by the "experts".
Jim

He simply can't help it.  Brian was finally kicked off another site after making an utter "donkey" of himself to lots of folks.  The tension and tumult created by those toxic posts have vanished with the departure.  Fortunately narcissists are incapable of introspection and it'll eventually get him kicked off here too, ...again. 

[Acebird]

She bought a hive knowing that the stings would end her life. After numerous stings the cancer started to subside and she is still with us today. She gets a bee sting every day to stay healthy.
Jim

Well Jim if it is not a sanctioned scientific study with lots of charts and figures your story has no merit.

I will tell my wife who is a cancer survivor and has a bad reaction to stings.  It may be an ace in the hole if she relapses.  Thanks.

Thanks for the put down Acebird.

Jim where is the put down?  Did you miss the sarcasm.  Maybe the icons don't work so well here.  I am agreeing with you.  Do not be strayed by D Coates he has a mission of confusing post.  He is pretty good at it.

[BeeMaster2]

Acebird,
Sorry, it did not look like sarcasm.  Most of the new emocons do not work for me. I guess  means sarcasm. I now see it says role eyes.
Thanks
Jim

[deknow]

The difference between anecdote and data is huge.  It is the difference between being in an accident where not having your seat belt on saved you some injury, and deciding that you will generally be safer not wearing your seatbelt.

[mtnb]

This is so interesting! Hi guys! :) I've been reading up a bit on apitherapy. This is the first I've heard it connected with cancer. I even experimented on myself a little bit but that's another story. lol I've been following a fb page where they use bee venom for lyme disease. There seems to be much success. I do believe the mind is a powerful thing and if you go in with the intension of knowing that this will work, it actually will. I prefer alternative medicine. Haven't been to the Dr.s since my youngest son was born 17 years ago. lol I think that's why I don't have cancer. lol interesting discussion

[deknow]

There is plenty of good data for bee stings and inflammation (arthritus), and lots of good results with MS.  There is also good data for topical use of honey.

...all of this is different than the issues with cancer.  Cancer is in many cases curable, and in many cases remission happens for no aparant reason.  To look at the subset that got stung, refused std treatment, and got better.....you have to compare it to other approaches and factors.

In the case if arthritus, anyone with arthritus can predict that a sting will reduce inflamation..and test it.  I know that for myslef it is a reliable short term effect...it is testable with only risking a bit of pain from the sting, and a bit of pain for not taking a pain jiller.  MS is 100% progressive (you won't be cured or go into remission like you might with cancer) amd for many, the results of stings are predictable and very significant...again just risking the discomfort of not taking some of the traditional drugs for a short term.

Cancer could kill you...slowly or quicky....or you could just get better, or you could get better from treatment.  There is no data to suggest that bee stings have any effect on any actual cancer (when many things do).  To go down a road of stings thinking it will cure your cancer is folly...no one had presented any data that shows that to be a wise course.

The lottery is similarly alluring. ....almost everyone looses in the long term, but everyone spends money (often that they can't afford) in hopes of winning.  Michael Bush, when he saw a lottery sign in the store window said, "look, it's a voluntary tax on people that can't do math.".

[Colobee]

Perhaps we could run a very non-scientific poll with the beeks here?

Do you have cancer? Yes or no...

The OP sites a "low incidence" of cancer for beekeepers. There is no suggestion that all beeks are immune to cancer, just less inclined to get it.  There are too many variables to identify the "why". There are so many outside variables - exposure to X,Y&Z carcinogens? What & for how long? This might be nearly impossible to "prove".

And beekeeping benefits - frequency of stings, ingestion of X amount of honey/pollen/other hive products per day. It would be quite difficult, if not impossible to account for the many variables. Starting when, & for how long & how much, and in what combination? Also - nearly impossible to "prove".

On the other hand, a simple "yes or no" seems to have already been established. This is interesting, regardless of the degree of difficulty of substantiating the claims.

[BeeMaster2]

Colobee,
I created a pole as you stated.
See:
Do Beekeepers Have Low Incidence of Cancer Poll
Jim

[deknow]

Without doing hous of reaearch, I can't tell you what the numbers in the OP are referring to.  I would be suprised if the percentage of beekeepers vs the population as a whole was significant enough to draw any statistical conclusions.

I would be very, very, very suprised if they count the skilled and semi skilled labor that does a lot of the work as 'beekeepers"....on the whole that group makes up a reasonable percentage of 'commercial beekeeping work", and that group is very unlikely to have a low incidence of cancer.

[Acebird]

and that group is very unlikely to have a low incidence of cancer.

Do you think cancer is work related?  My son got cancer at the age of 8.  Unless you are working in a coal mine or removing asbestos I don't think cancer is work related.

[splitrock]

Everyone has cancerous cells in them,  good immune systems keep them in check.

Keep your natural your immune system healthy.

Nuff said.

[deknow]

and that group is very unlikely to have a low incidence of cancer.

Do you think cancer is work related?  My son got cancer at the age of 8.  Unless you are working in a coal mine or removing asbestos I don't think cancer is work related.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437276
"Studies of cancer among farm workers are difficult to conduct and interpret given the unique nature of this occupational group. The transitory nature of the work, high levels of poverty, and lack of legal documentation make epidemiologic studies difficult to accomplish. Nevertheless, this workforce in the United States, which numbers as much as 3 million persons, is a high risk population due to exposures to numerous toxic substances, including excessive sunlight, heat, dangerous machinery, fumes, fertilizers, dust, and pesticides. We summarize characteristics of farm workers (i.e., demographics, health care) from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) and the California Agricultural Workers Survey (CAWS) and present findings from a series of studies conducted among farm workers in California. The epidemiology literature was reviewed and methods for a unique farm worker union-based epidemiologic study are presented. Farm workers in California and the rest of the United States, many of whom are seasonal and migrant workers are at elevated risk for numerous forms of cancer compared to the general population and specific pesticides may be associated with this altered risk. Elevated risks have been found for lymphomas and prostate, brain, leukemia, cervix, and stomach cancers."

[Colobee]

Colobee,
I created a pole as you stated.
See:
Do Beekeepers Have Low Incidence of Cancer Poll
Jim

Thanks Jim!

& I went & screwed it up - voting the wrong way . I guess every poll has a degree of error