Re: Lectins, GE Debate v0.2, archive 2285
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Lectins, GE Debate v0.2, archive 2285
- From: Roberto Verzola <email@example.com>
- Date: 01 Dec 99 10:58:13
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> >Bt is a lectin only in as much as it binds sugars.
>>So do you confirm then that the Bt toxin is a lectin?
>No. No one to my my knowledge has ever made that suggestion except
>apparently Pusztai (and even in this case, I'd like some direct
>confirmation that he actually believes Bt toxins to be lectins). The Bt
>Cry toxins share one property with lectins; they bind sugars under
>particular conditions. That does not make them lectins.
Your earlier post gave me the impression you agreed that Bt is a
lectin. Anyway, I cite Pusztai's opinion that Bt toxin is a lectin
based on a private message forwarded to me by one who asked him
directly about it. I also remember that he said so in a transcript
of his testimony at the British parliament (but I'm still trying to
locate that transcript). This was also confirmed (in that transcript)
by another scientist who actually helped kick him out of Rowett.
I know this is not an unacceptable source, until I produce that
transcript. I'm working on it. If subsequent research finally
determines that Bt toxin is not a lectin, I will of course drop that
paragraph in the document.