Andrew S. Louka wrote:
> I tried that before I posted the original question! I heard that she(*) is
> no longer calling her theory "Danger", but something else. Either way,
> whether she is right (she proved everyone wrong once before) or not (right
> once doesn't mean right twice), I think she has a point in that we take our
> current theories as fact, too easily.
>> I also believe that it is important to discuss immunology, as by
> asking/answering even foolish questions, we can help to invite serendipity
> to each others work (a discussion may trigger a lightbulb with new ideas,
> interpretations etc.).
>> I am often dissapointed by how little _discussion_ there is in
> bionet.immunology. There is a great deal of potential for lively academic
> discussions of the basics of immunology between the expanse of expertise
> available.
>> Oh come on... When Mark Haynes wrote "Hey good for her!", he was being
> supportive! Respect isn't only a question of addressing someone correctly
I was being supportive. I've talked to her she's a nice person. and anyway
it is good when a scientist is in talked about inthe news. I'm really glad
that down-regulation in the immune response can be talked about and even
funded after the i-j story suppression was a bad word for awhile--if it
weren't for cytokines and the th0-1-2-3 story i dont know where we'd be.
markH
