There appears to be a contradiction. If something is “self- evident , as an example, then the word “self-evidence” does not need to be repeated all the time does it; it can be uttered only once, or twice at the most, or even thrice or more, you no doubt see the point here, less it devolve to verbal mendacity, an arcane academic lingo that never reflects reality and whose main purpose is to lead to flawed conceptualization, or as so often the case, duplicitous scientific jargon masking ignorance. Certainly detractors would argue the inverse of this though the point would likely be obscure. Ironically, seldom has the question been raised, often couched in sentimentalist vs. animalistic words and syllabi, respectively, rarely more obvious than as with expression in macrophages throughout the reticulo-endothelial system, the possible exception being eulogy ensconced in political vilification, which arguably would be off topic here, at least as regards determinants of the biological response to ENPs. I believe a review of the material presented would lead one with critical perspective to just such a conclusion regarding the meta-gene issue, as I am sure you would no doubt agree, irregardless (look it up in your Funk'n Wagnell) of source, the wide spread assumption among free thinkers being that the concepts behind these flowery words must be taken, as alluded to, as something self-evident. What are your thoughts on this? ...