David Eyre wrote: > Bill Truesdell wrote > >Dr. R ran tests of the same method of application and abandoned > >it since it did not work. So we have two observations and two > >separate conclusions. > > Sorry, incorrect, I think if you read his work on Barry's pages > you'll find he didn't abandon it at all, this list drove him off to > continue working on it all from a different angle. There are some who > consider the methods of this list to be damaging to original thought. > Destructive to say the least. It was reported to me that Dr. R is using the fogger method of application since previous methods of application did not work. He has abandoned the top bar and wick methods. I also get emails from those who are afraid to post on this list when FGMO is mentioned. Also on Barry's pages are all the reports by Dr. R.. If you read the first ones they are very convincing that the top bar application method gave good results. The main concern was the number of times one had to apply the oil. So the wick method was proposed. It now appears that other factors were at work, since when the tests were conducted by others, varroa was not checked at all. If challenging the statement -FGMO works- is not appropriate for this list, that would damaging to not only origional thought but any thought. But this is not a hobby beekeeper list. It is supposed to be a little more advanced than that. And if an absolute statement is made with only one data point, expect it to be challenged. To not challenge it would be wrong. Bill Truesdell