> > A true trial of either SMR or 4.9 would require controls; a reduction of
> > all variables to a manageable number; an introduced mite load...

> I disagree. This is what the scientific community would see as the only
> valid approach. A lot of beekeepers would say ho hum and do what their other
> beekeeper friend is doing, tested or not...

I don't think a true trial is necessary to prove the obvious.  More subtle
effects, or understanding the underlying principles more clearly may require
scientific approaches and controlled trials in order to refine understand of
what is happening and how such effects can be best used in other situations.

Obviously what Lusbys have done has worked for them, and others are now trying
their ideas to see if they will work for them too.  What scientific
investigation CAN do here is try to determine what is causing their success, and
if it is what Lusbys theorize, or just luck -- or something else.

There is no arguing with their success, but many questions remain unanswered, or
at least unproven to the sceptical among us.

allen

http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/