I was going to respond but decided it was not worth it. However, after the
standard diatribe, which I always expect, had to.

The issue is simple- I accept my studies and reject everything else that is
in opposition, including defaming the authors of conflicting studies. (We
have seen the results of that attitude here on the BeeL with Jerry's
findings.)

I would love to paint both sides with the same brush, but cannot as they are
not equal, but biased greatly toward the anti-Bayer, anti-treatment,
anti-much anything that does not fit the doctrinal positions of the
evangelist. Science is difficult to find in the arguments, but faith is.

On the other side I see people like Randy willing to look at the problem and
test to see if anything is really there. The other side just wants to ban
before tests are confirmed using the preventative principle (which, if you
follow this to its logical end, we would still be living in caves).

It bears repeating, but the list is about "Informed" discussion. That means
keeping biases in check and relying on facts and labeling hypothesis as what
they are, informed guesses. It also means a good give-and-take with facts.

There have been many such discussions on this list and all have resulted in
the truth coming out eventually. It is a hard list because you will be
challenged, and to discount the challenge because Bayer is mentioned has no
merit unless you can show the trial to be faulty. That is good science. It
is also "Informed".

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

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm