Talk:Immune network theory

Untitled
Someone ascribed credit to Jerne for the invention of monoclonal antibodies. That is incorrect. Monoclonal antibodies were invented by Georges Köhler and Cesar Milstein, with whom Jerne shared the Nobel Prize in 1984. I have corrected this. Signed, expert on immune network theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmannrungethailand (talk • contribs) 09:47, 31 December 2009


 * Thank you Prof Hoffman. Could you provide a source for the assertion that immune network theory can explain features of immunology that the clonal selection theory cannot? I know you know a great deal about this area personally, but writing in Wikipedia is like producing a literature review, since you can't put forward novel arguments and have to simply summarize what has been published on a topic. (see our policy on no original research). We need to do this since we have no way of verifying people's identities and expertise. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, could we please remove the mention of the company you are associated with? Unless this is particularly important in the history and development of Immune Network Theory, it seems out of place in an academic literature review (I couldn't find any papers on trials of this product, and only seemed relevant). Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis problem
The "synthesis" tag was added to the top of this article a while ago, so I'll try to explain the problem. Take for example the HIV section:

"The theory includes a model for HIV pathogenesis, that is based on the postulate that HIV-specific helper T cells are preferentially infected. That postulate has been validated."

Here, a prediction of a paper in 1994 is described as "validated" by a 2002 paper that neither mentions Immune Network Theory or cites the 1994 paper by Hoffman. In order for this to remain we would need a second source, such as a review, that comments on the fact that the prediction was validated and makes the link between the two papers. You might write for example:

"In 1994 Hoffman published an immune network model for HIV pathogenesis, that is based on the postulate that HIV-specific helper T cells are preferentially infected. In a 2005 review of Immune Network Theory Smith et. al stated that Hoffman's prediction has been validated by the publication in 2002 of the work of Douek et. al, who showed that HIV-specific CD$+ cells are more susceptible to HIV infection in vivo."

In response to Tim Vickers:

I have added context to the page by pointing out that immune network theory is not currently popular, in that it is not even mentioned in the textbook Kuby Immunology.

I have deleted the claim that the symmetrical network theory has a greater scope than the clonal selection theory alone, as requested.

I have deleted the statement that a postulate was validated, as requested. I have instead simply stated that a paper with a given title was published, which is an objective fact.

I have deleted reference to Network Immunology Inc. as requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmannrungethailand (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is looking a lot better already, thank you. Somthing that could be made a bit more accessible to the general reader is the "I-J paradox" section. Reading this I can't see any simple statement of what this paradox is or why this can't be explained by clonal selection. Can you add something dealing with this point? I think it would help the clarity of the article a great deal. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Immunocomputing
Should this article be combined with Immunocomputing? I was going to insert a reference to that other article, but am not sure that I understand that other term. Mrdavenport (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

unbalanced article
the article deals with an important immunology theory born in seventies but presently (2018) almost abandouned by the immunological community, with no clinical applications. This status should be clearly stated in the description or confusion arises in a reader It is necessary that the writers fairly balance the theory description with a resume of the criticisms so that a reader can understand its weaknesses too and why present medical community does not accepet it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto90967 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)