It took us four years before we were satisfied that we had sufficient  
evidence to publish.  As we went through the process, we added independent  
researchers, who helped us understand the IIV and Nosema.
 
Our paper appeared in October, 2010.  Those who disagree with Army's  
analysis put together their responses and sent them forward for publication  
since that date.  We've had some time to examine the Foster paper, we've  had 
little time to consider the other two.  
 
I'm from a different era.  It used to be that if a debate such as this  
occurred, the journal editor would provide the first authors a copy of the  
critique, ask the first authors to respond, and then publish both  comments 
together.  Now, we either get no notice, or we get a 24 hr  notice (and who can 
properly respond  overnight to a critique that took  some months to 
prepare?).  
 
We are working on a response to all three articles, and our  response is 
mostly complete.  It will take us some time to properly address  all of the 
issues, and then to get it published - remember, it  took them several months 
to prepare and get their critiques published.  
 
We should be afforded the same to produce a measured response,  working to 
keep the focus on debating the data and the methods.
 
Allen is correct about one thing, Army has unique proteomics software  that 
has not been available to the public.  That will soon change.  It  is my 
understanding that Army has licensed its software.  
 
Jerry
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm