Randy Oliver's Critique of the 'Harvard Study'.

[Stromnessbees]

Thanks for the change of title.

I actually want to give others, like Gavin and Nellie or anybody else a chance to get their opinion on the critique in first, so that they won't be influenced by what I have to say.

Anybody wanting to have a go yet?

[Calum]

Randy Oliver's Critique of the 'Harvard Study' seems rational.
It raises valid questions that should be tested/controlled in a repeat of the trail.
Also, the number of colonies used in the trail are very very low.
I would have split the treated goup into two subgroups myself one with low dosage and one with the increased dose, they should have tracked much more data...

[Bumble]

I actually want to give others, like Gavin and Nellie or anybody else a chance to get their opinion on the critique in first, so that they won't be influenced by what I have to say.

With respect, I'd like to be able to refer to what Randy Oliver says on his site, rather than what seem to be selected highlights. I know there's a link elsewhere, but could you provide one in this thread too? It'll save a lot of time looking for it.

[Neils]

It is currently on the front page of Randy's site:

Scientific beekeeping if it changes I'll try and update the link.

[Jon]

He posted the review on bee-l as well

If you check down the thread list for April there is lots of discussion on the Harvard paper, very little of it supportive.

[Bumble]

Thanks. It's handy to have the Bee-L link too, I find that site a nightmare to navigate. I tend to agree with Randy's critique, he says it much better than I could.

I think the researchers should be ashamed of themselves, they've done themselves no favours. If results don't seem to be coming out the way you hope you should admit it, not ignore the results you don't like, change things mid-study to try to skew things to suit a hypothesis.