Interesting, you maybe haven't had the privilege of looking down so many microscopes and seeing so much phenomenal, specific staining in histology slides- only 'nature' could be that clever!
A biologist I’ve listened to ,JJ Couey, said that the further you go in understanding the body you always end up at a level of complexity that you don’t know how to get past, I’m paraphrasing but I thought it important, he urges humility in the field as the arrogance of thinking we can play God has gone bananas. Enjoyed your article.
Jo, may I suggest that when electron microscopes came along one of the first things some malicious 'scientists' did was look for viruses (aka germs at the time) and took the first likely candidate.
"Mice are injected with a human protein of interest, this stimulates the B cells in their spleens to produce globulins that bind to the protein and others very like it from other species. The globulin is labelled with a dye and when added to a tissue section it will bind to and stain only the target protein and leave all the surrounding proteins untouched."
This is a very limited explanation of how the monoclonal antibodies are created. You did not explain that they combine the mice spleen with myeloma cancer cells, PEG, and who knows what else as the recipe remains hidden due to trade secrets. You misrepresented what I stated in your comment. I never said that PEG specifically was causing the staining. I said that they add chemicals like PEG into the culture with other ingredients which remain a mystery. Monoclonal antibodies are an artificial creation that have no resemblance to anything in nature. We both know that if you took the blood said to contain antibodies directly from a mice, you would not observe the same staining patterns. You only get those results from heavily altered artificial lab-created concoctions. There is no reason to assume that antibodies are present nor that they were the cause of the staining pattern. There is nothing natural about monoclonal antibodies.
"This precise localisation of different components of the tissue would be impossible with human made chemicals."
Why would it be impossible? What evidence backs up this claim? It seems like pure speculation on your part.
"The evidence of our own eyes of the antibody staining in tissue sections and the production of antibodies that seems to occur in the convalescing phase of illness warn us not to throw out the antibody baby with germ theory bath water."
You are using an effect (i.e. staining) to assume a cause (i.e. antibodies). You are making the exact same mistake virologists do in their cell culture experiments where they assume CPE (the effect) is due to a "virus" (the fabricated cause).
No you would not get the same staining with mouse blood as it contains many other things.
I think you are placing too much confidence in what they can do in labs. Something comes out of a B cell that sticks to the same thing as was injected. I am using an effect to imply that something, and not nothing, has caused it. It doesn't matter what it's called.
Something has caused this effect.
Are you saying the effect of adding a substance to the tissues in the first two images ie the pretty damn specific staining of the target protein previously injected into the mouse was caused by the artificial process of making of that substance, in the same way that random cell damage in the second two images was caused by starvation, antibiotics and oxidants (I am not responsible for virologists fantasizing other causes)?
Of course there is nothing 'natural' or acceptable, ethical, moral or justifiable about imprisoning, injecting, murdering and then fiddling with the cells of other animals. Nor anything natural about the process of histology and immunochemistry. But this staining effect must be explained.
May be it is possible to artificially make thousands of chemicals that stain thousands of particular structures, proteins and enzymes without using animals. But why the lie about needing mice as part of the process? Hey, I could go back to working in a lab if they are all human made.
I'm not sure how you'd get using human instead of mice subjects through the ethics process, jo. But of course in this day and age it could be worth giving it a go, you never know.
I assume we agree that the remarkable effect- the staining of many different target proteins previously injected into mice- is real and must have a cause.
I think you're saying that it's possible that the cause is a substance produced by secret technical lab wizardry.
I say that the cause is most likely to be a substance produced by the mouse.
Wow! Excellent response! Steve obviously had no clue how to answer you. He seems to like to throw debates and money around as a barrier to anyone challenging him. My paraphrasing: 😉
"How much will you pay Sin Lee to teach you?"
"Don't you want to take my one million dollars by winning a debate? All you have to do is front a million dollars to play."
Money and debates are the way Steve tries to take the spotlight off of his imability to form a coherent argument. He seems panicked as they are losing the narrative. Thanks for sharing! 🙂
It's gone very quiet as to possible ideas how labs manufacture 100's of different targeted 'substances' that consistently bind, 1000's of times a day, to morphologically appropriate parts of tissue sections, without using animals. Or if they do use animals, what part exactly they play?
Jo
I accept some of your comments and have edited my post.
Well I can see a problem on about the third line but you're also asking me to do several hours of work to critique this. My biology is 101, my politics, classics, history & religion is more 901 (actually kind of 401 but with heaps of research hence 901).
Which one do I need? From the mistake on line 3 or so it seems it's not the 101.
Yes I have seen these. the chemical structure of whatever 'antibodies' are may indeed be unclear. but that says nothing about the existence of them, specific substances are made by mammals to 'antigens', this is not at all in doubt.
I'm one of those 'throw the antibodies out with germ theory' guys. But good read nevertheless.
Hiya Rich,
Interesting, you maybe haven't had the privilege of looking down so many microscopes and seeing so much phenomenal, specific staining in histology slides- only 'nature' could be that clever!
Jo
A biologist I’ve listened to ,JJ Couey, said that the further you go in understanding the body you always end up at a level of complexity that you don’t know how to get past, I’m paraphrasing but I thought it important, he urges humility in the field as the arrogance of thinking we can play God has gone bananas. Enjoyed your article.
Why is an electron microscope useless?
Jo, may I suggest that when electron microscopes came along one of the first things some malicious 'scientists' did was look for viruses (aka germs at the time) and took the first likely candidate.
Thanks. Source(s)?
"Mice are injected with a human protein of interest, this stimulates the B cells in their spleens to produce globulins that bind to the protein and others very like it from other species. The globulin is labelled with a dye and when added to a tissue section it will bind to and stain only the target protein and leave all the surrounding proteins untouched."
This is a very limited explanation of how the monoclonal antibodies are created. You did not explain that they combine the mice spleen with myeloma cancer cells, PEG, and who knows what else as the recipe remains hidden due to trade secrets. You misrepresented what I stated in your comment. I never said that PEG specifically was causing the staining. I said that they add chemicals like PEG into the culture with other ingredients which remain a mystery. Monoclonal antibodies are an artificial creation that have no resemblance to anything in nature. We both know that if you took the blood said to contain antibodies directly from a mice, you would not observe the same staining patterns. You only get those results from heavily altered artificial lab-created concoctions. There is no reason to assume that antibodies are present nor that they were the cause of the staining pattern. There is nothing natural about monoclonal antibodies.
"This precise localisation of different components of the tissue would be impossible with human made chemicals."
Why would it be impossible? What evidence backs up this claim? It seems like pure speculation on your part.
"The evidence of our own eyes of the antibody staining in tissue sections and the production of antibodies that seems to occur in the convalescing phase of illness warn us not to throw out the antibody baby with germ theory bath water."
You are using an effect (i.e. staining) to assume a cause (i.e. antibodies). You are making the exact same mistake virologists do in their cell culture experiments where they assume CPE (the effect) is due to a "virus" (the fabricated cause).
Hi Mike,
thanks for reading.
No you would not get the same staining with mouse blood as it contains many other things.
I think you are placing too much confidence in what they can do in labs. Something comes out of a B cell that sticks to the same thing as was injected. I am using an effect to imply that something, and not nothing, has caused it. It doesn't matter what it's called.
Something has caused this effect.
Are you saying the effect of adding a substance to the tissues in the first two images ie the pretty damn specific staining of the target protein previously injected into the mouse was caused by the artificial process of making of that substance, in the same way that random cell damage in the second two images was caused by starvation, antibiotics and oxidants (I am not responsible for virologists fantasizing other causes)?
Of course there is nothing 'natural' or acceptable, ethical, moral or justifiable about imprisoning, injecting, murdering and then fiddling with the cells of other animals. Nor anything natural about the process of histology and immunochemistry. But this staining effect must be explained.
May be it is possible to artificially make thousands of chemicals that stain thousands of particular structures, proteins and enzymes without using animals. But why the lie about needing mice as part of the process? Hey, I could go back to working in a lab if they are all human made.
Important to keep an open mind.
Jo
I'm not sure how you'd get using human instead of mice subjects through the ethics process, jo. But of course in this day and age it could be worth giving it a go, you never know.
I assume we agree that the remarkable effect- the staining of many different target proteins previously injected into mice- is real and must have a cause.
I think you're saying that it's possible that the cause is a substance produced by secret technical lab wizardry.
I say that the cause is most likely to be a substance produced by the mouse.
We are at an impasse.
Jo
Was the cell observed inside the mouse, or outside under electron microscopy?
Cheers Rich x
Wow! Excellent response! Steve obviously had no clue how to answer you. He seems to like to throw debates and money around as a barrier to anyone challenging him. My paraphrasing: 😉
"How much will you pay Sin Lee to teach you?"
"Don't you want to take my one million dollars by winning a debate? All you have to do is front a million dollars to play."
Money and debates are the way Steve tries to take the spotlight off of his imability to form a coherent argument. He seems panicked as they are losing the narrative. Thanks for sharing! 🙂
-Mike
Hi,
It's gone very quiet as to possible ideas how labs manufacture 100's of different targeted 'substances' that consistently bind, 1000's of times a day, to morphologically appropriate parts of tissue sections, without using animals. Or if they do use animals, what part exactly they play?
Jo
I accept some of your comments and have edited my post.
Well I can see a problem on about the third line but you're also asking me to do several hours of work to critique this. My biology is 101, my politics, classics, history & religion is more 901 (actually kind of 401 but with heaps of research hence 901).
Which one do I need? From the mistake on line 3 or so it seems it's not the 101.
Also the appeal to authority is a classic mistake in online debates. With the added sarc it's possibly only worthy of derision.
Well written!
Thank you Ocloman,
Jo
Mike Stone has more articles on antibodies since this post at https://viroliegy.com/category/antibodies/
Yes I have seen these. the chemical structure of whatever 'antibodies' are may indeed be unclear. but that says nothing about the existence of them, specific substances are made by mammals to 'antigens', this is not at all in doubt.
🙏🏽