Deacon Sweeney wrote, apparently in a huff:
> would you mind more thoroughally explaining the importance, as you
> understand it, of contact inhibition in the relevant pathway?
I'll leave that to expert commentators such as Aubrey.
> as I'm sure you've gathered from the research
> that you've done for the book which you so rudely decided to use me to
> plug. (is there really this much difference between 220+ and 300?)
I'll charitably assume an implied smiley at the end of that remark. But if
you actually did find my citation of your comment `rude', I apologise.
Is there a difference between 220+ and 300? Yes, a difference of nearly 30
percent. I find that interesting and encouraging, but it also means that the
rate of division hasn't somehow slowed over the last year. (The number of
divisions mid-year was at about 180).