>>On 6 Oct 99, at 10:29, Ted Fischer wrote:

>> You didn't say whether or not you also used control nucs without the
>> treatment, or whether the nucs were made up from Apistan treated mother
>> colonies.  In the absence of controls, all these observations are simply
>> that: observations.  The first step in the scientific method, but
>> certainly no basis for making any kind of conclusion.  If you have no
>> varroa, and your aim is production rather than science, it is perfectly
>> fine.  Yet such observations must be verified by controlled scientific
>> experiments by others as well.

>WHY? I am totally baffled by this. Does this mean that *observation*
>and discussion of it, is not allowed on this list?  Also why should
>such observations be verified by anyone whether it be scientific or
>otherwise? Are we to assume that I am for some reason fabricating
>results of a free treatment?

No, observation is just fine. The question was "did you use controls?" What
he wants to know is it possible that we have another "cold fusion"
observation? Now take that how you will but the two who made the "cold
fusion" mistake were pretty smart folks. It took a good deal of looking to
find the flaw in their work.

All that is being offered is the old "post hock, ergo propter hoc" argument.
I did this, that happend therefore what I did caused that. How would the
original posting have been if control nucs were used and they also showed
the exact same mite counts?

It's not that I think badly about what you are doing, I am glad you are
putting in the work and are kind enough to share your results. I am
following it carefuly and taking it into my own work. It is great. But, you
could be fooled by results or mistaken in your mesurement, you are after all
just human.

Here is an example two of my hives had their mite populations drop to
nothing. I could not find mites in either hive. I had not treated with
Apistan, Essential Oils, or FGMO. But if I were I may have been fooled into
thinking that something I was doing was producing the results. Today one of
the hives still looks to have no mite population and the other has gone
queenless.

But when you ask about discussion of your observation, do you discount the
question asked? That is the very discussion that one should expect. Too be
fair you posted a formula and a theory. "do this and the mites are
controled." It is not fair to expect you to front the total expense of the
trial and control. I for one am going to try and help out. I have two hives
that will work as a good test/control pair. Now my sample size will be way
too small for the results to matter but if I can get a few others to do the
same thing we can get a very good test. One hundred hives, fifty test and
fifty control would be a good way to start. But the test will have to be
controled and agreeed to so that we don't polute the results with our
variations. So if someone can define the experiment for the test please post
it and lets see what we can do. Someone has been kind enough to do some
ground work for us, lets not let it go to waste!