In article <797lmn$9is at sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
Geoffrey M Thiele <gthiele at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>mechanism by which the cells are always taken up. It may be that the
>danger signal tags the apoptotic cell
>differently to induce the immune response.
I'd really like to see a *falsifiable* prediction from the "danger
theory". So far, as far as I can tell, whenever an observation is made
that appears to contradict the theory, a post-hoc explanation is provided
that squeezes it into the theory, and the observation is then adduced as
proof of the theory.
It's probably equally true of the "self-non-self" theory, of course; but
as I've argued before, I see no reason whatsoever to try to shoehorn all
of immunology into a 25-word-or-less advertising jingle. Sometimes the
immune system probably senses "danger", sometimes it probably senses
"non-self". Pointing to the problems with the "non-self" approach is
good; to my mind, trying to replace that inadequate paradigm with a
different, and probably equally inadequate, paradigm seems to be missing
the point.
Surely we're capable of accepting that a complex system doesn't *have* to
be encapsulated in a "paradigm".
Ian
--
Ian York (iayork at panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
