Peter said:

> I think you are reading too much between the lines. 
> A lack of response cannot be taken as an indication 
> of anything in particular.

Thanks, but to clarify, I was speaking about a response, not a lack of a
response, and I was reading the lines themselves, not between them. :)

When noting that "overall colony build-up" was a weak and vague metric by
which to measure the impact of any controlled variable under study, I got an
overt "blow-off" response from the person citing the study at issue, also
the sole person known to have access to the paper/data cited, specifically:
 
> His metrics are actually more refined.  
> To this beekeeper, the rate of colony buildup reflects the final calculus
of all factors involved.

So, while there were more details, we are expected to take it on faith that
they compellingly supported the position claimed.
And regardless, it is intoned that a clearly gestalt and subjective metric,
"colony buildup",  is somehow a result of so precise and reliable a process
of analysis that it is described as a "calculus".

I will repeat what I said - "I see a basic inequity in this thread".

While the burden of proof is high for "gut bacteria" to be anything more
than another "Housel Positioning" or "N-Rays", the burden of refutation is
to give solid reasons for each refutation, and not succumb to the temptation
to go to town on any one single point being refuted.  In this specific case,
the "proof" offered must be taken on faith, and proof by its nature tends to
be the antithesis of faith.

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