Hi Jim -

>> Let those wanting "official reports" do what it takes to get them.
>
> If, on the one hand, you want studies to be done, and think the prior studies
> were of low quality,

I already said in my last email that I DON'T want/need studies to be done.
Others are demanding studies, not I. Are you planning to give us your take
on a recent study, as I had asked?

http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/pav/scstudy.htm

> It also raises additional latent concern about the veracity of the claim that
> any such samples exist.  Therefore, only physicals samples will do, and
> only impartial parties will do.

A major problem in discussing this issue with you is your obvious
presumption that I, and others, are not truthful. I see no way to discuss
these things when such an underlying assumption is there. I have physical
samples, yet in your eyes, this means nothing, or some sort of conspiracy.
You can see for yourself, but then I suppose I'll be blamed for altering the
image to make it appear in such a way that it 'fits' the SC theory.

http://www.bee-l.com/biobeefiles/lee/index.htm

>> but I've taken the position that it will have to stand on its own
>
> Then why the impassioned pleas?

Go back and read this posting that brought in SC to the discussion and you
will see that the names of the two involved are Keith and Jim.

http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0212A&L=bee-l&P=R1425

I quote:

>>Anyone have an actual solution to suggest?
>> I'm fresh out.
>>
>>         jim

Keith M. replied:
> Small cell, The Lusby,s and several beekeepers in the USA and Europe have
> done just as you have suggested above using small cells. Though their hard
> work and results are negated. When is a caring and honest researcher going
> to research small cell methods correctly and completely?

A large percent of your writing needs to be directed towards Keith, not I.
You keep trying to pull me into discussion points that I have not made. In
fact, Keith even prefaced his remarks with:

> this is only my opinion and is an anecdotal conclusion

And then Keith Benson wrote:

> Just because some might want small cell to be a panacea (and it would
> be nice it is turns out to be) doesn't mean that anyone else has to
> devote time and resources to ivestgating it.

I fully agree with Keith here, yet Jim keeps saying that I am pushing for
testing.

> I think that your statement of July 2001 was very reasonable.
> What has happened in a single year made a difference to you?
> What credibility has been added by more people STARTING the
> multi-year process?

Read for yourself.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BiologicalBeekeeping/

> Just who's lab WOULD you agree would be impartial and fair, up front,
> before the time and money were spent?  Any lab?  Anywhere?

We still have no idea just what it is you think will be tested and what
these tests will prove. Hold on, I just found this in the archives.

http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0212A&L=bee-l&P=R2101

Jim wrote:
> I've yet to see anyone present any records to show that:
> a)  They have used no chemicals
> b)  Their colony losses have been minimal
> c)  They have produced reasonable marketable crops, or pollinated

I have underestimated a labs ability to draw factual conclusions. To be able
to have the final (truthful) word on these points, all from a piece of comb,
is just amazing! I can see point 'a' being determined, but not much else. I
guess it's a trust issue. All these beekeepers spending good money on 4.9
foundation and all the hard work to get the bees drawing it right, but
secretly on the side putting chemicals in the hive and then telling everyone
that SC works. I have more faith in people than to think that. Besides, I've
never yet said that SC works beyond the Lusby's and perhaps Bolling Bee, as
I know of no others who have had bees on SC for more than a few years. I
still await the trial of time for the rest of us.

Please let us know what kind of results you are having with SC.

I'm also waiting a for a reply to this:

> The world awaits an explanation, 'cause we've had a bellyful of
> random claims and excuses that everyone who sees no results
> did something "wrong".

Please give specifics. Names of people who have used SC and have had no
results. The people I know who are using SC are sharing their experience
with it in a public forum with a range of results. I haven't heard from
anyone who claims to have used it without any results. Let's hear of them so
it can be public knowledge. Please?

Regards,
Barry