It gets worse- From

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/09/the-crisis-of-integrity-deficient-science/

(snip)"Their report and *Science* article supposedly presented all the
results of their exhaustive research. They did not. The authors fudged the
data, and the “peer reviewers” and AAAS journal editors failed to spot the
massive flaws. Other reviewers (here
<http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/06/the_data_do_not_support_the_idea_that_neonics_hurt_bees.html>,
here
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2017/06/30/neonic-study-makes-a-splash-in-the-headlines-but-trashes-science/#76ab171a3f5c>
and here
<http://themadvirologist.blogspot.com/2017/07/bees-neonicotinoids-statistics-and.html?m=1>)
quickly found the gross errors, lack of transparency and misrepresentations
– but not before the article and press releases had gone out far and wide.

Thankfully, and ironically, the Woodcock-CEH study was funded by Syngenta
and Bayer, two companies that make neonics. That meant the companies
received the *complete* study and *all 1,000 pages* of data – not just the
portions carefully selected by the article authors. Otherwise, all that
inconvenient research information would probably still be hidden from view
– and the truth would never have come out.

Most glaring, as dramatically presented in a chart that’s included in each
of the reviews just cited, there were far more data sets than suggested by
the *Science* article. In fact, there were *258* separate honeybee
statistical data analyses. Of the 258, a solid *238 found no effects* on
bees from neonics! Seven found *beneficial* effects from neonics! Just nine
found harmful impacts, and four had insufficient data."(snip)

"In sum, fully 95% of all the hives studied by CEH demonstrated no effects
or benefitted from neonic exposure – but the *Science* magazine authors
chose to ignore them, and focus on nine hives (3% of the total) which
displayed harmful impacts that they attributed to neonicotinoids.

Almost as amazing, CEH analyses found that nearly 95% of the time pollen
and nectar in hives showed *no measurable neonic residues*. Even samples
taken directly from neonic-treated crops did not have residues –
demonstrating that bees in the CEH trials were likely never even exposed to
neonics.

How then could CEH researchers and authors come to the conclusions they
did? How could they ignore the 245 out of 258 honeybee statistical data
analyses that demonstrated no effects or beneficial effects from neonics?
How could they focus on the nine analyses (3.4%) that showed negative
effects – a number that could just as easily have been due to random
consequences or their margin of error?

The sheer number of “no effect” results (92%) is consistent with what a
dozen other field studies have found: that foraging on
neonicotinoid-treated crops has no effect on honeybees. Why was this
ignored?"(snip end)

There is a lot more.But it looks like someone had an agenda.

Bill Truesdell

Bath, Maine

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html