> Their results will be
> interesting, but not conclusive. They will be shown to work or not work
> under the conditions they have in their apiaries, but not necessarily
> anywhere else.

An argument can also be made that the same is true of "real" testing with
all the controls. A reduction of all variables to a manageable number is
convenient for the researcher, but seldom does nature operate this way. What
is more meaningful to me is to have various people in various regions with
various local conditions say they are able to duplicate something, than a
study saying this *should* be the result given our test data from our ten
test nucs, so forth and so on. A scientific paper does have its place. As
does the beekeeper testing things out in his hives.

> A true trial of either SMR or 4.9 would require controls; a reduction of
> all variables to a manageable number; an introduced mite load or, at a
> minimum, a uniform, existing mite load; a method of testing for
> efficacy;  and reproducibility by others. I am sure I am missing even
> more that should be included.

I disagree. This is what the scientific community would see as the only
valid approach. A lot of beekeepers would say ho hum and do what their other
beekeeper friend is doing, tested or not. This points out again the canyon
that often divides the two, each looking down on the other as being unreal
and out of touch. We need more researchers and scientists willing to work
hand in hand with the local beekeeper, who by nature of his work, will have
far more hands on knowledge than the researcher or scientist will working in
their labs. There needs to be a balance.

Regards,
Barry