> since after a year's treatment, the dusted colonies had less than a third 
> the mites that they started with, whereas the control colonies returned to 
> the original mite levels.  However, the differences were not 
> *statistically* different (although when looking at the standard errors I 
> couldn't understand why).  Unfortunately, the authors declined to share 
> the original data with me to analyze independently.

> This was an excellent and meticulous trial, but it may not really tell us 
> anything new beyond what I have already posted to my website.

Hmmm.  If we cannot see the raw data, how can we know "This was an excellent 
and meticulous trial"?  It seems so often that we talk nice, so as not to 
offend or seem scurrilous.

I sit so often in darkened rooms and look at pretty slides and just KNOW 
that there are all sorts of things hidden in the data that do not show up in 
the presentation, many of which would make the study meaningless or worse. 
The presenters took money and spent time and resources, so are obliged to 
present.  We are expected to accept the conclusions without being able to 
follow the procedures and examine the data.

I wonder how many of the studies we see and accept are hopelessly flawed, 
yet make it to PowerPoint presentations or slip through to publication of 
one sort or another. 

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