> Considered proven? Considered proven *by whom*?  And what does
> *considered proven* mean? Is this different from proved?

I think Dee is saying that it is proven to *her* satisfaction.  As for
proven, well in spite of what most of us think, much of what we believe is
not actually well proven.  Most bee facts are based on limited tests in
limited regions with specific bees at specific times in specific
environments.  We feel comfortable generalizing from these 'proofs' and are
seldom challenged because others are easily persuaded by the same shallow
proofs.

> Remember, if you are doing a lot of unusual practices and you get
> results, you have no way of knowing *which* of these practices is
> causing the effects you are getting. That is the reason that
> controlled studies are needed. How do you know that the results you
> are getting are not attributable solely to bee stock and not to
> foundation at all?

This is the question many of us are asking.  Nonetheless, Dee has a system
that appears to work for her.  As for things like honey production, and the
reasons for low mite impact, nobody knows. Do small bees make as much
honey?  Getting honey out of small cells is significantly more difficult
than extracting from larger cells...

Most succesful beekeepers have a system and each component of that system
is integrated into the whole.  Each aspect of the system is important.  One
of the most common bee-ginner mistakes is to borrow working parts from a
number of differing successful systems and create their own new system --
one that simply does not work.

One of our problems on BEE-L is that we often focus on a single aspect of
someone's system and debate its merits without considering context.   Since
context is essential to understanding, we often wind up arguing over things
we would agree on if we knew all the facts.

> One final caution: Buyer beware! If a product shows up in a catalog,
> it means one thing and one thing only: somebody thinks they can make
> a lot of money from it. It does *not* mean it has been proven
> effective (whatever you mean by that).

I sincerely doubt Dee and Ed are trying to make big money.  They were
teaching home-made foundation pressing free of charge to all and sundry up
to now, and I am sure they still are, even with the plastic coming out.  I
think they simply are trying to help other beekeepers and the bees, just as
they say they are.  They give away their experience freely, and are not big
spenders. Of course everyone who handles the product will get paid for the
effort.  That is the way it is with all products in America.  The
production of this plastic foundation is just something serendipitous that
popped up.  Many beekeepers said they wanted it and the opportunity came
up, so Dee grabbed it.  Is she going to make a buck?  I hope so, but I also
know she won't be greedy, and frankly I am a bit afraid she will not even
take a small cut.

I'm sure we all have our doubts and reservations about the role of 4.9 cell
size in Lusbys still incomplete success (They still have to prove they can
make honey).  We will each have to prove -- or disprove -- this whole thing
for ourselves in our own context.

Although I was, and probably still am, very much a doubter, as I have
listened and learned, I have concluded the idea is not as preposterous as I
initially thought.  I am willing to give it a shot if I have time and can
find some bees that look as if they would appreciate some smaller comb.

I think that criticisms and questions are quite in order -- and I certainly
have many of my own -- but I have to say that I have the greatest respect
for Lusbys and do not doubt their generosity even slightly.

allen
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/diary/