Wow... you didnt read or critique the methodology at all, did you?
Fraenkel-Conrat shoots himself in the foot on p.584 when he notes that B. Singer fully isolated the "mosaic virus" RNA, applied it to tobacco leaves and got the resulting lesions as evidence of "disease/infection." He states explicitly:
"Gradually, B.S. [Singer] was forced to conclude that the RNA was infectious per se, and produced exactly the same disease as intact TMV [tobacco mosaic virus]. Gierer & Schramm (1956) came to the same conclusion at about that time."
So what evidence is there that the "virus" alone causes the disease when you can get the same effect with chemically precipitated "viral RNA", no virus particles present at all?
Its methodologically flawed, like the whole science of virology itself.
"Gradually, B.S. was forced to conclude that the RNA was infectious per se and produced exactly the same disease as intact TMV. Gierer & Schramm (1956) came to the same conclusion at about that time. The low infectivity of the RNA could be attributed to its sensitivity to cellular nucleases when not covered by the large amount of viral coat protein. This was borne out later when the RNAs of other viruses that apparently had icosahedral and less protective protein shells, were found to have a similar level of infectivity to that of the intact viruses."
The protein coat that usually protects the viral RNA was missing and it cut the infectivity by making it sensitive to nuclease enzymes. And different viruses that had less-protective protein shells did better when the shells were removed (because they were more resistant to begin with, needing less protection in the first place).
The problem is the word 'genomic'. Yes Rna codes for proteins but that doesn't mean they make a genome of a 'virus'. A virus in any case cannot live nor reproduce without a cell- so it can't really be said to have it's own genome.
I sort of agree with those points. I'm in the camp that thinks viruses are not alive, but I don't go so far as to say that they do not exist. Rocks are not alive, but they exist.
I don't think it was blinded but much of this research was from way back in the 1950s and they are summarizing everything that they did. You can't have a double-blind study with plants, unless you are willing to say that plants are conscious, rather than vegetative.
But you could in theory blind the investigator applying the solution to the plants.
No, this doesn't prove the exist of infectious viruses. The tobacco mosaic 'virus' is more like a spore produced when the plant is under stress. The symptoms of the disease are produced when the plant is 'inoculated' by making cuts in it and injecting concentrated extracts made using detergents etc, and NOT doing controls. The plant may well produce RNA of hybrid spores in reaction to this stress. It doesn't show that it's been infected nor prove the existence of 'viruses.
Their interpretation that the entity with 6,400 nucleotides encased in 2,130 amino acid protein coat is a 'virus' is false.
Bacteriophages and spore like entities (RNA encased in protein coats) are produced by bacteria and plants under stress as a survival mechanism that researchers have misunderstood.
The test in which they make cuts in a suitably stressed plant and add the hybridised TMV/HR entity in a concentrated extract and the plant produced both the symptoms of HR and the specific HR RNA and HR protein coat further supports the fact that the stress is causing the production of spore like entities and the specific symptoms of 'disease' are part of the survival mechanism.
The fact that RNA can code for proteins is not proof that infectious particles called 'viruus' exist.
They didn't report that they stressed plants in order to produce the encased nucleotides. And they did use controls, because when just applying the coat protein without any RNA, no lesions got produced:
"The protein never caused lesions at any level"
It's not very straightforward to say bacteriophages get produced by bacteria when under stress, because the phages outnumber bacteria by 10-fold, and the phages -- being viruses that infect bacteria -- can and have been used in order to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
If your claim was true (phage = mere stress molecule), then it could not become true that phages could get used against bacteria successfully, like they have. The success of their use is evidence against your claim.
It all makes sense when we realise the symptoms are the healing . The RNA may well have coded for annd produced the symptoms - it doesn't mean that that this represents an 'infection'.
do you mean antibiotic not antibody resistant bacteria? References please.
Dr. Vasquez, the argument for "proof of virus" that I am using goes one step beyond Koch's Four Postulates:
1) The organism must be found in people with the disease and be absent in people without the disease.
2) The organism must be able to be grown from tissues or other specimens from the affected individual in the laboratory.
3) The organism must cause the disease when given to an unaffected healthy person.
4) The organism must again be grown from this second individual.
When the researchers in 1999 isolated the RNA and proteins from two different viruses (TMV and HR) and then put them together like putting new combinations of Lego pieces together -- and the new combination was "still" pathogenic -- that means they "created" a virus. And if anything can be proven to exist, creations can (because they came from a human effort).
Koch's postulates are pretty crap because they don't emphasize the importance of controls.
Plants (and cell cultures) must be treated in exaclty the same way with being stressed, having cuts made and concentrates of extracts from mashed up plants inserted but using plants that didn't have symptoms of TMV or HR. The same amount of effort must be made to extract RNA from these controls.
Only then can be it be shown that the extracts themselves and not the process are pathogenic or the cause of the symptoms.
It would still not show that they are infectious to a healthy plant nor that the resulting RNA is not cellular and part of the healing process.
I was wondering how they make cigarettes so addictive.
Lucky they didn't inject themselves by mistake with the mosaic virus RNA - too much of that and one night the janitor might roll them all up to enjoy a smooth smoke.
Wow... you didnt read or critique the methodology at all, did you?
Fraenkel-Conrat shoots himself in the foot on p.584 when he notes that B. Singer fully isolated the "mosaic virus" RNA, applied it to tobacco leaves and got the resulting lesions as evidence of "disease/infection." He states explicitly:
"Gradually, B.S. [Singer] was forced to conclude that the RNA was infectious per se, and produced exactly the same disease as intact TMV [tobacco mosaic virus]. Gierer & Schramm (1956) came to the same conclusion at about that time."
So what evidence is there that the "virus" alone causes the disease when you can get the same effect with chemically precipitated "viral RNA", no virus particles present at all?
Its methodologically flawed, like the whole science of virology itself.
The full quote sheds more light though:
"Gradually, B.S. was forced to conclude that the RNA was infectious per se and produced exactly the same disease as intact TMV. Gierer & Schramm (1956) came to the same conclusion at about that time. The low infectivity of the RNA could be attributed to its sensitivity to cellular nucleases when not covered by the large amount of viral coat protein. This was borne out later when the RNAs of other viruses that apparently had icosahedral and less protective protein shells, were found to have a similar level of infectivity to that of the intact viruses."
The protein coat that usually protects the viral RNA was missing and it cut the infectivity by making it sensitive to nuclease enzymes. And different viruses that had less-protective protein shells did better when the shells were removed (because they were more resistant to begin with, needing less protection in the first place).
Hahahaha
The problem is the word 'genomic'. Yes Rna codes for proteins but that doesn't mean they make a genome of a 'virus'. A virus in any case cannot live nor reproduce without a cell- so it can't really be said to have it's own genome.
I sort of agree with those points. I'm in the camp that thinks viruses are not alive, but I don't go so far as to say that they do not exist. Rocks are not alive, but they exist.
Did they makes as much effort with the protein coat mix as the many attempts with the RNA one? Was the experiment blinded?
I don't think it was blinded but much of this research was from way back in the 1950s and they are summarizing everything that they did. You can't have a double-blind study with plants, unless you are willing to say that plants are conscious, rather than vegetative.
But you could in theory blind the investigator applying the solution to the plants.
No, this doesn't prove the exist of infectious viruses. The tobacco mosaic 'virus' is more like a spore produced when the plant is under stress. The symptoms of the disease are produced when the plant is 'inoculated' by making cuts in it and injecting concentrated extracts made using detergents etc, and NOT doing controls. The plant may well produce RNA of hybrid spores in reaction to this stress. It doesn't show that it's been infected nor prove the existence of 'viruses.
Your claim is testable:
1) create stress
2) look for the 6,400 nucleotides of TMV, encased within 2,130 coat protein subunits.
Have you tried it?
If so, did the stress cause the product that you said it would?
The authors did this test.
Their interpretation that the entity with 6,400 nucleotides encased in 2,130 amino acid protein coat is a 'virus' is false.
Bacteriophages and spore like entities (RNA encased in protein coats) are produced by bacteria and plants under stress as a survival mechanism that researchers have misunderstood.
The test in which they make cuts in a suitably stressed plant and add the hybridised TMV/HR entity in a concentrated extract and the plant produced both the symptoms of HR and the specific HR RNA and HR protein coat further supports the fact that the stress is causing the production of spore like entities and the specific symptoms of 'disease' are part of the survival mechanism.
The fact that RNA can code for proteins is not proof that infectious particles called 'viruus' exist.
They didn't report that they stressed plants in order to produce the encased nucleotides. And they did use controls, because when just applying the coat protein without any RNA, no lesions got produced:
"The protein never caused lesions at any level"
It's not very straightforward to say bacteriophages get produced by bacteria when under stress, because the phages outnumber bacteria by 10-fold, and the phages -- being viruses that infect bacteria -- can and have been used in order to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
If your claim was true (phage = mere stress molecule), then it could not become true that phages could get used against bacteria successfully, like they have. The success of their use is evidence against your claim.
It all makes sense when we realise the symptoms are the healing . The RNA may well have coded for annd produced the symptoms - it doesn't mean that that this represents an 'infection'.
do you mean antibiotic not antibody resistant bacteria? References please.
I meant antibiotic-resistant bacteria (will edit it above). A reference for using ingested phage to kill off bacteria is PMC3109452.
Actually, I’m sure viruses were proven to exist before 1999 because we’ve known about the herpes viruses and hepatitis B/C/D for decades. https://healthythinking.substack.com/p/2-videos-deconstructing-the-viruses
Dr. Vasquez, the argument for "proof of virus" that I am using goes one step beyond Koch's Four Postulates:
1) The organism must be found in people with the disease and be absent in people without the disease.
2) The organism must be able to be grown from tissues or other specimens from the affected individual in the laboratory.
3) The organism must cause the disease when given to an unaffected healthy person.
4) The organism must again be grown from this second individual.
When the researchers in 1999 isolated the RNA and proteins from two different viruses (TMV and HR) and then put them together like putting new combinations of Lego pieces together -- and the new combination was "still" pathogenic -- that means they "created" a virus. And if anything can be proven to exist, creations can (because they came from a human effort).
[ https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/how-scientists-identify-virus ]
Koch's postulates are pretty crap because they don't emphasize the importance of controls.
Plants (and cell cultures) must be treated in exaclty the same way with being stressed, having cuts made and concentrates of extracts from mashed up plants inserted but using plants that didn't have symptoms of TMV or HR. The same amount of effort must be made to extract RNA from these controls.
Only then can be it be shown that the extracts themselves and not the process are pathogenic or the cause of the symptoms.
It would still not show that they are infectious to a healthy plant nor that the resulting RNA is not cellular and part of the healing process.
'we've known about' have we? Measles was the first one supposedly discovered isolated whatever in 1954 by Peebles and Enders. Not British butlers but slack scientists unable to apply the scientific method. Here's their story in the second half of this post. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/if-viruses-dont-exist-what-about?utm_source=publication-search
Thanks, and I addressed this in my video yesterday. You’re right that the whole denial of virus existence thing is absurd. https://healthythinking.substack.com/p/2-videos-deconstructing-the-viruses
Thanks!
I was wondering how they make cigarettes so addictive.
Lucky they didn't inject themselves by mistake with the mosaic virus RNA - too much of that and one night the janitor might roll them all up to enjoy a smooth smoke.