Reply to Elwell: anonymous sources and Bt as a lectin
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Reply to Elwell: anonymous sources and Bt as a lectin
- From: Rick Roush <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:50:40 +0930
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
- In-Reply-To: <014b01be5c60$051dafc0$33a732ca@user>
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Resent-Message-ID: <"Sh8d9.A.vOG.aES02"@bakunix.free.de>
- Resent-Sender: email@example.com
>>Clive, Can you identify this source?
>CE No, I prefer not
In other words, you want to claim that Gatehouse's claims should be
discarded on the basis of someone's anonymous remarks, ie., we should
reject the claims of an noted scientist who is willing to come forward, in
favor of hearsay from someone who stays in the shadows. That seems to me to
violate the most basic principles of evidence.
>>>>Concerning the Bt toxin. (Elwell's hidden source) asked Pusztai about
>>>>it and he said that Bt does
>>>bind to sugars so in that sense they are comparable.
>>Clive, Bt toxins are NOT lectins. They both bind sugars, but not even
>>Pusztai has claimed that they are lectins. This is by admission of your
>CE I have read several references which claim otherwise, or at least state
>there is a very strong connection. Can you refer me to an info source on
Clive: Try "Lectins", 1989, by Sharon and Lis and published by Chapman and
Hall. They describe a wide range of other sugar binding molecules that are
also not considered to be lectins. Even antibodies have properties similar
to lectins in that they agglutinate, which Bt crystal proteins (the genes
for which are placed into plants) do not do.
It is not even clear that Bt crystal proteins even bind to sugars directly,
but instead it appears that they bind to other molecules that hold the
I have given my source, which was written long before and is independent of
the current debate. What are yours?