On 14 December 2010 02:08, RussellMc wrote: > > This paper is interesting and thought provoking in its claims - even > though it's probably essentially wrong [tm] *. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commenta= ries/article.php?id=3D46 > > http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&view=3Dar= ticle&id=3D10184&catid=3D1&Itemid=3D17 I'm please to note (thanks Jack) that the big guns are already responding to that paper: http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&v= iew=3Darticle&id=3D10223&catid=3D1&Itemid=3D17 A guide as to his conclusions can be deduced from his starting few sentence= s: He says: I think that your uncritical and unbalanced presentation of a non-peer reviewed analysis of the role of genes in diabetes, by total scientific unknowns with an agenda, was a great disservice to your audience. Genetic analysis will not tell us all about the causes of diabetes but it is putting in place a very important piece of this multi-piece puzzle. The statements made in this article are blatantly false for both types of diabetes, but especially for Type 1, where genetic analysis has been a resounding success. _____________ That said (and quite a lot more) he does help set the proper context of the original paper and note that it's not wholly without merit but a potentially useful data point "on the journey". Russell ___ --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .