Types of Immune Cell Receptors 

or jlp

No that arrogant man just does not comment as he thinks it is beneath him.

I was just thinking that

Uci open has an immunology playlist. It may go to far for what you are needing.

Get this guy in a pod cast with Eric Dubay both have "intellectual perspectives"

Rocket science is harder, biology is mostly rote memorization

@@Y.M... biology is rote memorization... Joke of the year😂.. you don't read real stuff i guess... Ever heard of mathematical biology, biophysics, Mechano biology etc If biology is rote memorization why do you even study it.. lol we do have storage devices.... Rocket science is hard but it doesn't mean biology is rote memorization...

@@Y.M... so you can understand immunology ?🤔

@@jackyjack9660 you list the exceptions that one meets on some very narrow and specialized fields. There's maths in *some* biology, sure. But there's maths in *most* rocket science.

@@Y.M... no its not... its real biology... I didn't considered childish biology to be biology...this is what one starts with biology... i have been in IITs for biological science course... so I know what's What... Their are plenty of things in biology which is maths... Mathematical biology is common in physiology, evolutionary and developmental biology... Cellular biology also comprises of maths... Molecular biology (I don't need to tell you this)... "Their is some maths in biology"... Yeah but ever wondered why?... Because things are not isolated and gets complex... The biology we see today is not developed like Physics and maths... We are far behind in this field... And so these new branches like quantum biology, computational biology, bioinformatics etc are appearing because we now know maths is necessary component to explain things in biology... Rocket science is hard in sense of what? Just because its consists of very hard maths which many understands and no i don't understand the core rocket Physics because its not my field i am a biophysicist (i have mbbs degree and msc in biophysics, currently doing m.phil) not a rocket scientist...yeah its hard but not impossible... Biology mysteries are complex and sometimes impossible...take for example cancer biology (seems hard and complex)... And i will not compare the two fields because Scientists know that Every field has its own unique complexity and mysteries to find... Their are plenty of fields in biology that involves maths for example... Rheology in biological systems involves same Physics concepts... Mass transfer from transport phenomena (taught in chemical engineering) is used in physiology... Genetics which is based on maths and was developed by a mathematician... Using fick's law to explain diffusion in biological system... I can challenge you just show me where you need to mug up in physiology... Its based on biophysics and is a conceptual subject... Immunology which professor Dave explained is basic and undergraduate level immunology are basic... In masters you can yourself look for mathematical immunology... Biology for you i guess is rote learning and these things are highly specialised but for me these are in masters level and some are also in undergraduate level... At m.phil and PhD level things get more mathematical and complex...

Check out Simulated Sun from my featured channels list!

yep check the immunology playlist

Not today, pulling back a little for the summer.

Seriously, is this a trap question? How the heck would you expect someone to study a thousands year subtle science and do a decent credible job of debunking it? I don't know much about Ayurveda but I do not it is not one thing you could easily debunk. I recall recently watching an exchange between Sadguru and a western scientist who was inquisitive and skeptical. There was an acknowledgment that as western instruments improve western biology achieves greater understanding. There was also a reference to the many thousands of reports about the experience of people doing meditations. Sadguru's response was along the lines of You have statistically significant reporting, why must you disregard this because your measuring instruments are no precise or sensitive enough to confirm what is being reported? Likewise, I say that "science is always a work in progress. It is a best guess. In 50 years much of what we think we know and teach now will be wrong." Take for example gravitational cosmology. 350 years ago Newton identified and name gravity. 300 years ago science agreed that gravity was the organising principle of the universe. At that time they didn't know anything about plasma physics. They didn't know that plasma existed, that it is electrically active or that electricity is 36 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. They came up with a cosmology based on gravity but 300 years later we are learning that was a mistake.

@@villagemediainfo What are you talking about? Plasma cosmology has been irrelevant for decades

@@cookieman2028 Is that your opinion or fact? I've followed the development of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology for 20 years. There is so much predictive value in this approach. Hard to imagine how or why you would claim Plasma Cosmology to be irrelevant. Perhaps you just don't know?

No, that's not how bone metabolism works. Real life Wolverine is not possible.

@@johansen9224 OK