> Unfortunately, Allen Dick appears to be trying to discredit some of our work
> and has provided a one-word "quote" that he feels is "enough said".  I
> provide the following facts to correct his misrepresentation.

I don't think that I am trying to misrepresent your otherwise
excellent work.  I am simply pointing out that the response at the
time of the presentation by you or your partner was that the samples
were not field spiked, and therefore most of us concluded there and
then that there is no evidence that the lab did not simply throw them
away and send out the desired result.

Of course I am not suggesting that, but merely that it appeared
*possible* and throws doubt on the results. That would be extreme,
however lab inaccuracies, miscalibration, loss, spoilage or confusion
of samples, sloppiness, and fudging cannot be ruled out.

Again, I am not saying any of the above were involved -- I am inclined
to doubt it -- merely that they could have occurred either in a few or
all cases, and, lacking spiking done in advance outside the lab, no
one would ever know.

Going back the the presentation to the Honey Council: after Jerry
asked that simple question, the response by the presenter appeared to
us in the audience to be one conveying chagrin, and nothing much more
was said, leaving the strong impression that far too much trust was
placed in the lab, and that there was now no way now to check their
work.

Are you now saying that 1.) you spiked some samples before sending
them in, blind, and unknown to the lab people, or that 2.) the lab
spiked some themselves to check their own work?  There is a huge
difference IMO.  If you are saying the former, then I apologise.  If
the latter, then there is nothing more to say.

> The PEI clover study did include spiked samples, however, they were
> lab-spiked, not field-spiked. Spiking samples in the lab is a normal,
> accepted procedure that proved the validity of the analytical method.

Granted.  However field-spiking, (with details not revealed to the
lab) is an accepted procedure to verify that the lab is doing the
work, doing it right, and is properly calibrated against the real
world.

> all analyses were performed under strict GLP guidelines.  All samples
> collected in the field were immediately placed on dry-ice.  Back in the lab,
> the samples from the field were stored in a locked lab freezer and when it
> came time to ship the samples to the analytical lab, the samples were
> packaged with dry-ice and shipped by overnight courier.  All samples arrived
> still frozen.  There is ample evidence showing the stability of the samples
> under these conditions of storage and length of time from collection to date
> of analysis.

I am sure everyone was very impressed by that scrupulous attention to
detail.  I know I was and still am. You did a lot of good work.  Thus
I was stunned that this -- to me -- essential verification technique
was omitted.

> Therefore,  there is no reason to suspect the analytical
> findings are invalid, and every reason to accept them as valid.

Without a lab-independent spiking, in spite of all that hard work, to
me they will never be fully credible, especially in light of the fact
that the findings were all -- if I recall and please correct me if I
am wrong -- essentially "not detectable".  If the matter were not so
controversial, I could give much more latitude, but this topic is far
too important to let one study, flawed in this detail, be used to draw
conclusions.

Moreover there are huge sums of money riding on the conclusionsof any
such study, so I think we all know that "not only must Caesar's wife
be virtuous, but she must also be seen to be virtuous".   We must see
that there is no weak link in the chain of proof where the results
could have been compromised.

If there had been at least some positives of some magnitude, or some
field-spiked samples for comparison, I would be much more inclined to
accept the conclusions less critically.

However, science is science, and we need to know if this omission --
if indeed there was one -- has an effect on the credibility of the
credibility of the study.

In closing, I do not like to have to draw the conclusions I have about
the study, and if I am wrong in my information, my analysis, or my
conclusions, please let me know exactly where and I will immediately
apologise most humbly.

I appreciate any scientific work done on bees and pesticides and do
not wish to undermine anyone doing so and submit my criticisms with
great respect for you and your attempts to learn more about bees and
pesticides.

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************