I agree with kathyp that there is not enough information in the article tocome to the conclusions that it did.
As for why the diseases did not exist 100 years ago, the article stated "...disease is an expression of lowered vitality .."
So you assume the "lowered vitality" is a result of movable frames? Could be - but there would have to be a study to verify that. Lowered vitality could come from a variety of sources - pesticide use, for one. They did not have those 100 years ago. There could be other factors as well.
What do you propose as an alternative to movable frames?
There is no alternative to movable frames because the law here states we all have to use them for purposes of inspection.
So that aspect of the equation is moot.
The fact that we use movable frames does not mean the we have to move them around, either in the same hive or from one hive to another.
Lowered vitality is a result of stress.
I think we can all agree that stress is a contributing factor and most likely a major one.
Each time we go into a hive we create stress in one form or another.
Feeding during a dearth is a good example.
Does the intrusion out weigh the stress created? In most cases, YES!
Examples of intrusions that do not always out weigh the stress are:
Stealing honey during mid season
Stealing and/or introducing brood any time of the year
Changing the worker drone ratio
Feeding sugar water when nectar is available
The introduction of foreign comb
The constant requeening of hives
The point I'm trying to make here is that most of what we do to/for our bees is mainly for our benefit and not necessarily for the benefit of our bees.
We want more honey, we want more wax, we want to take a short cut to pest management, or we just want to take the easiest route to solve our problems.
The hobbyist beekeeper is in the best position to try alternative measures.
The small commercial beekeeper (I will draw the line at non migratory) may also be well suited to venture into these waters and may be best suited to set up proper controls for experimentation.
The large commercial beekeepers (migratory) probably can't afford to risk their investment in order to experiment and are locked into a method of operation that is beyond their control.
We are not going to see "PROOF" as we have come to know it.
Nobody has the ability to set up double blind tests.
Let's face it, most of the information over the last 150 years is anecdotal at best.
We have to rely on anecdotal evidence and sift through it with an open mind and make the best sense of it, for ourselves, taking into consideration the type of bees we keep, the reason(s) we keep them, the location and climate we keep them in, and our style of management.
I'm not trying to offend anybody and if I have I apologize.
I'd just like to point out that we should be discussing the problems and their potential solutions instead of digging our heals in and arguing.
By the way, Buckbee's forum, has active members from six continents and is the most diverse group of beekeepers that I have had the privilege of communicating with.
welcome aboard, Buckbee.
Modified from seven continents to six. Brain fart on my part. I know of no one on the continent of Antarctica who posts there.