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