>>QUOTE=Solomon Parker.. So it's not that "SC proponents" claim it wasn't done correctly, it's that somebody's missing the mark on what 'correctly' is. And since the studies 'prove' what most already believe, this seems to be overlooked.<<

What are you talking about? All the criticism of the university studies have been that the experiments weren't done correctly, for long enough, or some other factor such as foundation positioning wasn't correct. All I'm saying is then...someone...do it correctly.

>>You mean 'when is someone going to do a small study that is done as nature requires?' The only thing natural selection cares about is selection.<<

No, I'm not saying that...you are. I'm saying do an experiment that shows that any benefit is from cell size..

>>Meanwhile, I have seen Mr. Bush's operation and it is exactly as he suggests,...I'm not sure if some of the visitors to this forum think we're just making it up or what. But for whatever reason it is working, it is working.<<

Well, I too have seen Michael's bees. I'm not denying his success. I'm saying anything about Michael or his beekeeping methods. Both of which are top shelf. I'm only asking that someone prove his success is because of cell size and not...as you bring up...less virulent varroa mites, or management. The fact that there were plenty of dead varroa on his bottom boards makes me think his success is more about less virulent varroa and not about cell size.