since peter and i were the ones talking in this thread, it seems obvious that much of what bill has posted is directed at me.  i don't like this role of being "defensive"....but i feel i must clarify some gross inaccuracies:

From: Bill T <[log in to unmask]>

>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.)

in order to be of any value, research has to be open to critique.  in the case of the several "small cell studies" (which i think you are alluding to), not a single one that i'm aware of has attempted to recreate anything close to the "protocols" that are being used in the field by beekeepers claiming success.  i understand the desire to boil things down to a single variable and into a study that can be completed in a few months, but such studies do not test what many of us see working in the field.  wrt Jerry's findings, i have a very open mind.

>.....but biased greatly toward the anti-Bayer,

i've said nothing here or anywhere else that is "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.

if bees are being kept successfully without treatments (they are), it seems that the "science" isn't yet up to the point where it can explain observable reality.

>On the other side I see people like Randy willing to look at the problem and
test to see if anything is really there.

Randy is doing good work....but imho he loses some credibility when he pretends (and tries to convince others) that a paid Bayer spokesperson who has never read a particular study and does not know the details of it can simply dismiss it (no matter what it says), and this dismissal becomes "fact".  i applaud his efforts to bridge some of the gaps between beekeepers and bayer, but his defense of dr. little's statements goes too far.

>The other side just wants to ban before tests are confirmed...

if i am supposed to be the other side, you would be mistaken.  i'm very much opposed to some uses of neonics (like the widespread tree injections in our area), but i'm not on the "anti bayer" bandwagon, and i usually find myself arguing in bayer's defense(both online and at beekeeper meetings)..not because i love bayer, but because i think bayer quickly becomes the boogie man and allows everyone to ignore what the real problems might be.

there are several books that have come out recently about bees that blame everything on bayer...ours is not one of them.

>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.

did you read dr. little's comments?  what "facts" do you think he presented?

>....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, the mention of bayer is not the issue.  when a corporate spokesperson makes an official public statement to the press about a study he has not read and does not know the details of, it has to be taken with _at least_ a grain of salt.  to cast such a statement as a fact is a grave error...one that i'm surprised that randy made in the first place.  there is nothing "scientific" about rejecting a study without knowing anything about it...which is what the bayer spokesperson did.

deknow

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