Hello Jerry and All,
Jerry wrote:
  That's why we use statistics, repeat experiments,  and use controls.  That
also takes time, something a person with a problem  doesn't have - time to
wait for a "proven" solution.

When is a theory considered *proven*.  It seems it is hard these days to
prove any new concept.

If you look for instance at the book "Mites of the Honey Bee" by Delaplane
you quickly see that Dr. Delaplane adds a number of studies behind each
statement he makes
in favor of said concept and a number of studies which disagree with the
concept.

Most bee books of the last decade and papers on bees  use the method. In old
bee books statements were put forth as gospel. Why not today? Who looks at
the studies you researchers have run (many identical with different results)
and decides which is the correct concept or are  researchers like weathermen
. Right or wrong still have got a job. Do the study and simply toss out the
results and let the masses figure out for themselves the proper conclusion?
As in my discussion with Bill I can find plenty of studies supporting my
point of view and while looking I found a couple supporting his point of
view. Bill if you are reading this (of course you are) that's the reason I
did not contradict the statements you made on the cerana post.
Although there are more studies agreeing with me there are studies (to be
fair) supporting your view point.

Page 212 of *Mites of the Honey Bee* says that although
the five studies listed  are convinced that "a shorter post capping period
is a significant factor in limiting mite reproduction ,
Quote from book:
NO ONE HAS PROVIDED DATA THAT SUPPORTS THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THERE IS A
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE DURATION OF THE CAPPED BROOD STAGE AND THE
REPRODUCTION STAGE OF THE MITE.

Dr. Delplane carefully covers his tail but really folks *how many studies
( five cited by Delaplane) are we going to have done before we establish the
above as  gospel*?

Sincerely,
Bob Harrison