Shiva said: " You know that most serious scientists would not consider a
single study by even the most reputable group to be evidence of anything,
now
don't you? Of course you do."

No, I do not. If the results of a study are not evidence, then what are
they? How can you state the above when you just gave a link for definitions
of "evidence"? Are you mixing up the concept of "accepted fact" and
"evidence"?

You may want to reexamine the following (please look for the appearance of
the word "evidence" in both links):
"The two links below address natural spread of RMV:
http://www.rdrop.com/~paul/tom_virus.html

and

http://www.goldcoastrose.org/pdf/clean-stock.pdf

This is what the U.C. Davis rose virus cleaning document states (the
goldcoastrose link above):
"The viruses that cause rose mosaic disease are most commonly spread through
propagation procedures such as budding an infected scion onto a healthy
understock, or a healthy scion to an infected understock. Disease symptoms
are not always obvious, which is why the use of virus-tested planting stock
is advantageous. There is some evidence that rose mosaic spreads in
commercial rose plantings. UC researchers are presently looking for possible
explanations.""

--
Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/