On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:52 PM, randy oliver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> Of course, and did you review that paper?  If you did, you would
> immediately notice that it was completely bogus!  All the mortality curves
> are the same for all tested compounds regardless of their toxicity!  The
> researchers inadvertently starved the bees, as pointed out clearly in a
> review of the paper by Schmuck.  One glance at the figures would tell
> anyone that the experiment had problems.  Unfortunately, their findings are
> widely cited.
>

Randy, if you do a search in the bee-l archives you will find that the
Suchail study that shows that imi metabolizes quickly is "widely cited" by
YOU.

If their other study had problems, then please be careful calling the same
researchers who you widely cite "completely bogus".

A review by Richard Schmuck, Bayer's researcher, is suspect in my mind.
What has Suchail himself or herself said about said about the study you
criticize?  You obviously respect their work enough to widely cite the
facts they found about metabolization.  Did the team acknowledge problems
or mistakes?  Isn't that the way that science is supposed to work?  Aren't
the INRA team the most knowledgeable non-Bayer experts on IMI (in terms of
length of time they have been studying it?)

Stan

             ***********************************************
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