 23 July 2008 UTCMaybe Tim could be the judge on what is the most suitable Just to clarify the error in VHW the omission of DQ22 DQA102 DQB102 was a small error the statement that DQA105 without DQB102 was a partial DQ2 is an error To understand why this is an error one has to read  which basically found that all DQA10501 previously type in Europe split 2 ways DQA10501DQB10201 and DQA10505DQB10301 I was scolded by a referee for not knowing this and not knowing DQA10505 and DQA10501were process to DQA105 DQA10505 is part of the DR5DQ7 haplotype therefore in assigning DQA105 without DQ2 it is a DQ7The neat plausible and wrong solution will only work up until DQ22 hits the reviewed literature then it needs to be dealt with At 4 of all coeliacs it may never reach that level of appreciation yap 2013

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
 23 July 2008 UTCMaybe Tim could be the judge on what is the most suitable Just to clarify the error in VHW the omission of DQ22 DQA102 DQB102 was a small error the statement that DQA105 without DQB102 was a partial DQ2 is an error To understand why this is an error one has to read  which basically found that all DQA10501 previously type in Europe split 2 ways DQA10501DQB10201 and DQA10505DQB10301 I was scolded by a referee for not knowing this and not knowing DQA10505 and DQA10501were process to DQA105 DQA10505 is part of the DR5DQ7 haplotype therefore in assigning DQA105 without DQ2 it is a DQ7The neat plausible and wrong solution will only work up until DQ22 hits the reviewed literature then it needs to be dealt with At 4 of all coeliacs it may never reach that level of appreciation yap 2013

