In article <87uieq$31m$1 at news.panix.com>,
iayork at panix.com (Ian A. York) wrote:
>> One major obstacle to gene therapy remains the immune response to the
> vectors or to the therapeutic protein itself. This suggests that the
> immune response does not require particularly serious damage to
induce a
> response.
Ian
First, I quote Thomas Kuhn, "…. the defenders of traditional theory and
procedure could almost always point to problems that its new rival has
not solved but that for their view are no problems at all."
That said, you are talking about "damage" and "danger" here. Is DNA a
normal constituent of the ECF? Is DNA a normal constituent of spilt
cells? Therefore, is it characteristic of "mess" or "disorder? A recent
paper suggests that dendritic cells see particular DNA sequences as
something that is to be cleared up.
>> Similarly, DNA vaccines can be injected intravenously, using
> tissue-specific promoters, and induce a response at a site distal to
the
> injection, so that even the injection trauma is presumably not
essential
> for the response.
>> ad nauseum .... summarize the immune system into a
> 25-word-or-less advertising jingle is foolish, and complaining that
one
> advertising jingle or another doesn't accurately explain the immune
system
> is angels-on-pinheads time.
This is an authoratitive dismissal! I assume you are referring to
MY "25-word advertising jingle". I guess that you will find, if you
think about it, that this "advertising jingle" is aimed at highlighting
the fundamental flaw in convention-think rather than trying to sum up
every facet of its function in as many words. I challenge you to do 2
things.
1) Put into 100 words or less your belief about the fundamental
features of how the system works. I can't accept the reply that it is
too complicated for that - history will be against you. It might seem
too complicated for that at the moment but in the future all will agree
that the fundamental principle is easily understood.
2) In the same number of words demonstrate that you have understood
what I am saying. Until you have done the second, authoritative
dismissals are little more than hot air. That, of course, would mean
that you would have to spend time assimilating it. Until you
assimilate it you won't understand it. Until you understand it, you
won't appreciate its importance. And until you appreciate its
importance you probably won't want to assimilate it.
Jamie
--
Waterside Health Centre, SO45 5WX, UK
Home pages
http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~greenprac/jamie/jamie%20main.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
