Very interesting. I am pretty sure that Hop Latent Viroid (HpLVd) has a biological function in nature that for sure we do not understand, as I believe is the case with all viroids and viruses when they are in equilibrium within the ecosystem. All that nonsense about "obligate parasites" is just absurd. A piece of RNA is an "obligate parasite"? We truly are ridiculous, but anyway...
I find this observation the most important one:
[Under normal HpLVd testing paranoia, these plants would have been killed the first time any positive test was delivered. But here we have evidence of at least 2 genotypes of cannabis than can exhibit mosaic tissue expression of HpLVd which varies overtime and can even disappear from the leaves on its own.]
What would be the utility of the influenza virus for example?
There exist some theories that influenza symptoms are due to uncontrolled vitamin A release from the liver I believe. Hypervitaminosis A is also probably a common thing.
Could the influenza virus utility be some sort of vitamin A detoxification boost that can become too much?
I don't think it is a specific function although we could explore processes in which it may play a relevant role. I believe it is more like asking what is the function of a squirrel in the forest.
One obvious hypothesis is a sort of biological solvent, helping the host to shed something, e.g. toxins or even dead and decayed tissue.
Host to host transmission of the "viruses"believe to be found in animals is a hypothesis that has been disproven. The studies that exist that tested that hypothesis disproved it a hundred years ago.
Given the nature of the subject and current technological limitations, we probably won't be able to properly test other hypotheses for a very long time.
KMC - Once Upon A Time In The West... half a century ago I'd just pull over and pick me some. If they had left well enough alone, that HLV probably doesn't hop on over (pun intended) to a hybrid that promoted it. Old school WT was robust and pernicious as fuck, they had to control burn it, and even then. Just like C19, this is what happens when talking monkeys try to play god. If it works, don't.... just enjoy it in its natural state. They called it weed, because it is one.
When we screw things right up and out of their natural state and then chase nature all over the microscope trying to figure out how to stop it from putting things back in order...
This is very exciting to see an honest effort, albeit with important technological limitations, of testing an alleged viral pathogen against all of Koch's postulates (all of them - since some research groups think they can be properly satisfied in separate experiments).
Could you elaborate on the degree of confidence we have in synthetic genomes mirroring the behavior of natural "viruses" or other types of organisms? Are there existing studies that corroborate the biological outcomes of synthetic genomes are consistent with those of their whole, natural counterparts?
I am confused about the terminology. “…there is a problem with all HpLVd infection studies performed to date. None of them have isolated the viroid, prior to infection.” This is clear. We think there’s something out there, but we haven’t been able to separate it from its environment.
“… we spent the time to synthesize the 256bp circular RNA genome … free of any other biological contaminant… So this is as isolated as any Koch’s postulates ever performed as we have purely synthesized genomes with zero biological background like you might find in various virus isolation procedures…”
Not this is a clear statement that we have artificially created something outside of any natural environment. Paraphrase this: this thing has not been found in the biologically natural sample, but was created in the lab. We have not isolated it from anything, because we didn’t need. We simply “…have purely synthesized genomes with zero biological background…”
How come isolation (= separation something from something) is considered equal to synthesis of something “with zero biological background”?
Clearly, we need source environment and the thing to speak about isolation. It is a removal process.
By the same standard, we need substrates to synthesize something. No need for any environment, because the process runs in an opposite direction, it is not about removal, it consists in adding something and in an environment completely (100%) different from the natural one.
Conclusion: no matter what we do in the lab, it has nothing to do with isolation (“…we have purely synthesized…”).
I am very interested to see the progression here, since no other papers - ever - have even tried this hard to test a suspected "virus" against Koch's postulates.
However, no matter the outcome of this experiment, there will remian several questions. These come quickly to mind but there are likely many more.
Does a synthetic genome have the same biological effect as the entire natural particle?
What would have happened in a mock-infected plant using only the suspension solution? (which wasn't disclosed)
What would have happend if various other synthetic genomes, not suspected to cause the same disease, and preferrably with known effects, were injected into the plants?
I can actually think of a lot more, when one starts to think about how far the experience of these plants are to that of living in their natural circumstances.
The whole of "virology" is, at this time, with current technological limitations, only a fantasy. And, in practical terms, the whole currently psuedo-scientific pursuit of virus-hunting has the effect of keeps us in a situation comparable to "straining out the gnat while gulping down the camel," neglecting the "terrain", symbiotic, and even mechanical, systems that, when cared for, make the presentation of these supposedly "viral" illnesses of little concern.
To me, if there are different takes on anything, it means everybody is wrong. No matter how well “published” or respected they are. Either all approaches are wrong because they are all based on wrong assumptions, or there are factors in play that no-one is aware of. (Political reasons set aside, of course.)
As to the question: “Does a synthetic genome have the same biological effect as the entire natural particle?” The answer is obvious: never. Simply because we have no idea about the combined compounded effect of what is in the living organism. Plus, we have no idea how the organism interacts with ALL factors present in the environment or affecting it.
“Isolating” a single artificial substance from the context of all this and declaring anything final about it sounds like unimaginable arrogance. It is equivalent to affixing plastic wings made after some bird to your arms and jumping off the cliff - you have synthesized wings that look similar to those observed, and you call it “isolation of the wings”, AND you maintain that it’s all fully 100% identical with what you see in birds.
This neglect of contributing factors of which we “know” (observable, measurable) or which we can assume to exist, but we cannot explain it (like contagious laughter) renders any further questions scientifically invalid. We will never be able to say anything final without the precise knowledge of all aspects of the organism/phenomenon/process. That doesn’t mean that we should not explore. We only need to remember - and write it in a large font - that our “science” is only guesswork or theory, and we merely experiment. That will be fair.
Very interesting. I am pretty sure that Hop Latent Viroid (HpLVd) has a biological function in nature that for sure we do not understand, as I believe is the case with all viroids and viruses when they are in equilibrium within the ecosystem. All that nonsense about "obligate parasites" is just absurd. A piece of RNA is an "obligate parasite"? We truly are ridiculous, but anyway...
I find this observation the most important one:
[Under normal HpLVd testing paranoia, these plants would have been killed the first time any positive test was delivered. But here we have evidence of at least 2 genotypes of cannabis than can exhibit mosaic tissue expression of HpLVd which varies overtime and can even disappear from the leaves on its own.]
What would be the utility of the influenza virus for example?
There exist some theories that influenza symptoms are due to uncontrolled vitamin A release from the liver I believe. Hypervitaminosis A is also probably a common thing.
Could the influenza virus utility be some sort of vitamin A detoxification boost that can become too much?
I don't think it is a specific function although we could explore processes in which it may play a relevant role. I believe it is more like asking what is the function of a squirrel in the forest.
One obvious hypothesis is a sort of biological solvent, helping the host to shed something, e.g. toxins or even dead and decayed tissue.
Host to host transmission of the "viruses"believe to be found in animals is a hypothesis that has been disproven. The studies that exist that tested that hypothesis disproved it a hundred years ago.
Given the nature of the subject and current technological limitations, we probably won't be able to properly test other hypotheses for a very long time.
KMC - Once Upon A Time In The West... half a century ago I'd just pull over and pick me some. If they had left well enough alone, that HLV probably doesn't hop on over (pun intended) to a hybrid that promoted it. Old school WT was robust and pernicious as fuck, they had to control burn it, and even then. Just like C19, this is what happens when talking monkeys try to play god. If it works, don't.... just enjoy it in its natural state. They called it weed, because it is one.
When we screw things right up and out of their natural state and then chase nature all over the microscope trying to figure out how to stop it from putting things back in order...
We probably took a wrong path.
And once Pandora gets out of her nasty little box, you can't squeeze her back in.
Thank you, Kevin!
This is very exciting to see an honest effort, albeit with important technological limitations, of testing an alleged viral pathogen against all of Koch's postulates (all of them - since some research groups think they can be properly satisfied in separate experiments).
Could you elaborate on the degree of confidence we have in synthetic genomes mirroring the behavior of natural "viruses" or other types of organisms? Are there existing studies that corroborate the biological outcomes of synthetic genomes are consistent with those of their whole, natural counterparts?
I am confused about the terminology. “…there is a problem with all HpLVd infection studies performed to date. None of them have isolated the viroid, prior to infection.” This is clear. We think there’s something out there, but we haven’t been able to separate it from its environment.
“… we spent the time to synthesize the 256bp circular RNA genome … free of any other biological contaminant… So this is as isolated as any Koch’s postulates ever performed as we have purely synthesized genomes with zero biological background like you might find in various virus isolation procedures…”
Not this is a clear statement that we have artificially created something outside of any natural environment. Paraphrase this: this thing has not been found in the biologically natural sample, but was created in the lab. We have not isolated it from anything, because we didn’t need. We simply “…have purely synthesized genomes with zero biological background…”
How come isolation (= separation something from something) is considered equal to synthesis of something “with zero biological background”?
Clearly, we need source environment and the thing to speak about isolation. It is a removal process.
By the same standard, we need substrates to synthesize something. No need for any environment, because the process runs in an opposite direction, it is not about removal, it consists in adding something and in an environment completely (100%) different from the natural one.
Conclusion: no matter what we do in the lab, it has nothing to do with isolation (“…we have purely synthesized…”).
Where do I get it wrong?
Excellent point.
I am very interested to see the progression here, since no other papers - ever - have even tried this hard to test a suspected "virus" against Koch's postulates.
However, no matter the outcome of this experiment, there will remian several questions. These come quickly to mind but there are likely many more.
Does a synthetic genome have the same biological effect as the entire natural particle?
What would have happened in a mock-infected plant using only the suspension solution? (which wasn't disclosed)
What would have happend if various other synthetic genomes, not suspected to cause the same disease, and preferrably with known effects, were injected into the plants?
I can actually think of a lot more, when one starts to think about how far the experience of these plants are to that of living in their natural circumstances.
The whole of "virology" is, at this time, with current technological limitations, only a fantasy. And, in practical terms, the whole currently psuedo-scientific pursuit of virus-hunting has the effect of keeps us in a situation comparable to "straining out the gnat while gulping down the camel," neglecting the "terrain", symbiotic, and even mechanical, systems that, when cared for, make the presentation of these supposedly "viral" illnesses of little concern.
To me, if there are different takes on anything, it means everybody is wrong. No matter how well “published” or respected they are. Either all approaches are wrong because they are all based on wrong assumptions, or there are factors in play that no-one is aware of. (Political reasons set aside, of course.)
As to the question: “Does a synthetic genome have the same biological effect as the entire natural particle?” The answer is obvious: never. Simply because we have no idea about the combined compounded effect of what is in the living organism. Plus, we have no idea how the organism interacts with ALL factors present in the environment or affecting it.
“Isolating” a single artificial substance from the context of all this and declaring anything final about it sounds like unimaginable arrogance. It is equivalent to affixing plastic wings made after some bird to your arms and jumping off the cliff - you have synthesized wings that look similar to those observed, and you call it “isolation of the wings”, AND you maintain that it’s all fully 100% identical with what you see in birds.
This neglect of contributing factors of which we “know” (observable, measurable) or which we can assume to exist, but we cannot explain it (like contagious laughter) renders any further questions scientifically invalid. We will never be able to say anything final without the precise knowledge of all aspects of the organism/phenomenon/process. That doesn’t mean that we should not explore. We only need to remember - and write it in a large font - that our “science” is only guesswork or theory, and we merely experiment. That will be fair.
Agreed. There is a disgusting hubris apparent in "science" that is resulting in nothing short of atrocities.
And they will never be atoned for.
Because "science".
It has all the elements of a religion. And may end up being the bloodiest of them all, if we don't correct course.