> "We" have the exact same documentation and evidence that you do when you
> conclude that treating with formic acid is going to prevent a massive
> die-off of your bees.

I never said that.

I did think, though, that it would reduce the varroa and tracheal 
populations significantly.

I had fairly good evidence that this was extremely likely and I 
confirmed the varroa success afterwards by observations, which I 
documented in part in my diary.

> That is: none.

Because I never said any such thing.  I am surprised that anyone would 
suggest I did.  That is quite bizarre.

> Same documentation you have when you
> say that an untreated hive can't live for more than three years

I never said that.  What I said was that it is quite well documented by 
people with scientific training that an untreated hive in the USA has -- 
in past years -- been quite likely to die.

Some exceptions have been noted, but no general explanations have been 
proved and accepted by a scientific consensus AFAIK.

I have no opinion about the present and future other than what can be 
extrapolated from the past, combined with reports on current 
observations, which are, by their nature delayed in time.

In my own experience, my last collapse seemed to come after three years 
as well, even after bringing in 'resistant' stock.  In hindsight, maybe 
that was my mistake?  Does that experience prove anything?

Being the third attempt over a decade, with the same result -- 100% loss 
of the test hives -- would it be prudent to try the same thing again 
without changes?

(Two of the attempts are documented, one may not be since I did not make 
diary entries for a year or two at http://www.honeybeeworld.com/dairy

  ... none.

Because I would never say something like that.

>   Refer to all the "scientific studies" you like.  The evidence you cite for
> what worked for you last year and this year and possibly next year is
> totally subjective.

I would love to see you explain that rather categorical claim.

> Your idea that you need treatment has more to do with your own assessment
> of your risk of loss that it does any "documentation or evidence."

That is not _completely untrue_, but it is not completely true either, 
so it has to be categorized as untrue.

Zero for four, as I see it.

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