Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Biotech Science

Gates Foundation Funds "Altruistic Vaccine" 259

Posted by samzenpus
from the needles-with-a-heart dept.
QuantumG writes "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded a $100,000 grant to the University of Queensland, Australia to develop a vaccine against dengue fever, a disease spread by mosquitoes. Unlike other vaccines, the 'altruistic vaccine' doesn't specifically protect the individual being bitten, but instead protects the community by stopping the transmission of the pathogen from one susceptible individual to another. The hope is to do this by effectively making their blood poisonous to mosquitoes, either killing them or at least preventing them from feeding on other individuals. Professor Paul Young explained how his work fell outside current scientific traditions and might lead to significant advances in global health — he said he could envision the vaccine being used around the world within 10 years, and it would be designed to be cheap and easy to implement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gates Foundation Funds "Altruistic Vaccine"

Comments Filter:
  • A vaccine? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14, 2009 @03:49AM (#27948417)

    Is this a vaccine that prevent you from getting infected with that anti-captialist altruistism?

    Is this yet another attempt for Microsoft to destroy the Free Software movement?

    • The Giving Plague (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kaseijin (766041) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:22AM (#27948581)

      Is this a vaccine that prevent you from getting infected with that anti-captialist altruistism?

      Hey, altruism is serious business [davidbrin.com].

      • For those who find Brin's writing style tiresome to wade through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Plague [wikipedia.org]

        On another note... my first thought about Bill + "Altruistic Vaccine" was the same as the GP's --- that he's probably attempting to vaccinate against altruism. At least on some subconscious level. On a conscious level, he probably just thought, "Well, if I can't DRM software yet, I'll DRM people."

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      I really hoped I could make it at least past at least the first post in this thread without someone bashing Bill Gates for the COMPLETELY UNRELATED practices of his software company.

      But, since we're on the subject, what the fuck has the heroic Steve Jobs or Linus Thorvalds ever done for poor villagers in Africa? Gates is at least giving these people vaccines and drinking water (en masse), while all the idealists do is give them a few (very few) laptops.

  • by jasonmanley (921037) <jman@math.com> on Thursday May 14, 2009 @03:53AM (#27948427) Homepage Journal
    I don't want to sound ungrateful or anything but is $100K really all that much considering how expensive it must be to do this kind of research?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I don't want to sound ungrateful or anything but is $100K really all that much considering how expensive it must be to do this kind of research?

      I could presume it is enough money to pay for the salary of the one researcher that was awarded this grant. It's not a lot of money, but Microsoft has spread their grants to other researchers working on other projects as well.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Elvis77 (633162)
      It's not much money really but the media attention that it's going to bring (not too mention the slashdot effect) will bring in a heap of money. "If Bill's funding it it must be good" (Like Vista????)
    • by KibibyteBrain (1455987) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:40AM (#27948661)
      The Gates foundation tends to give results-driven grants, so they will probably get more if they come up with something promising.
      • by jellomizer (103300) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @08:44AM (#27949799)

        Exactly,
        Unlike other grants such as the NFS, the Gates foundation is very results driven. In essence Bill Gates is using the money just like in a business with the only exception the goal isn't to make more money to to have the best effect on humanity. So 100k grant to do some research (And this guy probably has other money, Money from the university that pays his salary and facilities) The 100k pays for tools and grad students (Who work cheap) to help with his research. Now with further study if it shows more of a success then he may get more. But if it is a dead end research the Gates Foundation is only down 100k vs. More.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by maccallr (240314)
      You have the money for a year (so $100k is quite a lot) and then, IIRC, if you can prove that your big idea has worked, there is more money to follow.
    • by jw3 (99683)

      The BMG is giving out trucks of money to people investigating diseases. If this project got 100k, then most likely it is not worth more.

      j.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Yvanhoe (564877)
      $100K intelligently spent can produce a lot more results than $100M distributed by a public committee.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pz (113803)

      I don't want to sound ungrateful or anything but is $100K really all that much considering how expensive it must be to do this kind of research?

      I feel somewhat qualified to answer this accurately as I've been in the throes of grant proposal writing over the past six months, and have put together 4 large proposals, along with 6 smaller ones, all with budgets. I would not refuse $100k if someone were to offer the sum; far from it, as I would accept $100k with grateful humility. However, that does not mean it's a very large amount of money.

      $100k of direct costs gets you almost nothing. It's a pittance. It will cover the salary of one researcher for

      • Actually, it's $100k for first round, and the researcher can get another $100k in 6 months (up to 2 100k grants per year). That should be plenty to pay a researcher and his lab and overhead costs for a year. If his work shows promise, then he can recieve much more the next year. It's results driven.

    • by techess (1322623) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @01:00PM (#27952903)

      Really he should up this to 640K. That should be enough for anybody.

  • by Solarhands (1279802) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:02AM (#27948489)
    We will have new, super mosquitoes, who's bite is deadly to humans.
    • by eugene2k (1213062) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:25AM (#27948595) Homepage
      On a more serious note, though. Some time from now, if this vaccine is developed and becomes widespread, the mosquitos will adapt to the poison in it (this is what evolution is all about), and we'll have mosquitos that are resistant to the poison.

      Of course it is also possible that evolution will take another path and mosquitos stop feeding on humans and switch to animals, but not any more possible than the prospect of mosquitos becoming vegetarians.
      • by Carewolf (581105) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:58AM (#27948737) Homepage

        I don't know, mosquitos has many other food sources than humans. Resistance to humans might not be important enough to give potentially immune mosquitos an evolutionary advantage.

        • by eugene2k (1213062) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @05:19AM (#27948815) Homepage
          Problem is, for mosquitos to stop feeding off humans would mean developing some sort of mechanism to differentiate between a human and an animal. So far they don't. So the more probable evolutionary path would be for mosquitos to feed and die until only the ones that survive after feeding off humans are left.
          • by fabs64 (657132)

            Considering the rate at which mosquitoes breed and die anyway I'm with the gp in that it wouldn't be a big enough advantage for natural selection to win out.

          • by JamesP (688957)

            They can do that a million ways: body temperature, smell, etc, etc

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Abcd1234 (188840)

            Problem is, for mosquitos to stop feeding off humans would mean developing some sort of mechanism to differentiate between a human and an animal.

            Uh, how did you infer that was the goal from the GP's post? The point isn't that mosquitos will evolve to avoid humans. The point is that they probably *won't* evolve a resistance to this "vaccine" because it won't act as a sufficient evolutionary pressure to select mosquitos with that resistance, as the ability to feed on humans isn't sufficiently advantageous.

            • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

              by eugene2k (1213062)

              Uh, how did you infer that was the goal from the GP's post?

              Simple: I misunderstood :)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        On a more serious note, though. Some time from now, if this vaccine is developed and becomes widespread, the mosquitos will adapt to the poison in it (this is what evolution is all about), and we'll have mosquitos that are resistant to the poison.

        This is probably true, as it is with antibiotics and bacteria. But just like we can't stop prescribing antibiotics for certain infections, we can't just not explore the possibilities of this vaccine.

      • by Nazlfrag (1035012)

        Yeah, but we will have poisonous blood! Next on the project wishlist: radioactive spiders.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Hatta (162192)

      Just wait until Bill Gates releases those into the audience.

  • by IAR80 (598046) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:06AM (#27948499) Homepage
    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Hélder CÃmara
    • by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @05:33AM (#27948875) Homepage
      "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
      -- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766
      • by Ihlosi (895663)
        "In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, ..."

        A whole two of them.

        • England, Scotland, at least two states (then separate countries) ... I make that more than 2?

          • England and Scotland merged into the United Kingdom as of 1707, so they were a single state with one government and Parliament. They're still separate countries, though - Scotland's banks even issue their own currency, the Scottish pound. I believe they're perfectly legal tender in the rest of the UK, but you get funny looks from people anywhere much past north England.

            • by mike2R (721965)

              I believe they're perfectly legal tender in the rest of the UK, but you get funny looks from people anywhere much past north England.

              That isn't entirely correct, although in practice that is pretty much how it works. From here [bankofengland.co.uk]:

              Are Scottish & Northern Irish notes legal tender?

              In short 'No' these notes are not legal tender; only Bank of England notes are legal tender but only in England and Wales.
              The term legal tender does not in itself govern the acceptability of banknotes in transactions. Whether

              • Yeah, could be. I know I've paid for drinks at bars in Leeds and York with Scottish pounds and not had it be a problem, but was told (by a Scottish friend) not to try it further south.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by inca34 (954872)
        Yeah, cause those poor beautiful people in Sweden are... so... poor... because they lack the infinite bliss that is what, Baconnaise(TM)?

        Actually, I'm pretty sure Benjamin was talking about "public provisions made for the poor" and not merely public provisions made for the commonwealth.

        http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225113&title=the-stockholm-syndrome [thedailyshow.com]
        http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225126&title=the-stockholm-syndrome-pt.-2 [thedailyshow.com]
      • by drsquare (530038)

        I don't see why people give so much credence to the opinions of the 'founding fathers'. These were ultra-wealthy politicians who lived in their own world. Of course they didn't want things done for the poor, then the poor wouldn't have to work from the age of five to death in the mills and factories for just enough money to keep themselves alive.

        • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @10:56AM (#27951155)
          You do know that Ben Franklin was a self made man. He did not inherit any wealth. He left Boston and went to Philadelphia, where he built his wealth through hard work (not by exploiting connections, except for those he made on his own). So Ben Franklin didn't "live in his own world".
          A reason that the Founding Fathers get so much credit is because there was another group around the same time with similar ideas who launched a revolution and set up a government based on those ideas as well. That group didn't work out so well (it was the group behind the French Revolution). So, the Founding Fathers of the USA obviously had some insight or something that the leaders of the French Revolution didn't.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by againjj (1132651)

            So, the Founding Fathers of the USA obviously had some insight or something that the leaders of the French Revolution didn't.

            They had an existing working local government that never was destroyed. The American revolution got rid of the authority of a non-local governmental entity, but by and large left the day-to-day governance intact. The French revolution did not. There, the whole of the government was destroyed, leaving a power vacuum that was not truly filled until Napoleon managed to get a firm enough grip to keep the country together.

    • by b0r0din (304712)

      Yeah I think 100K is a pretty weak figure. I think 640K should be enough for anyone.

  • by 3.5 stripes (578410) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:08AM (#27948513)

    in Distraction?

    Made genetic modifications to the humans to make their blood poisonous to the mosquitoes..

  • Will this help? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Z00L00K (682162) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:09AM (#27948519) Homepage

    Because if it won't help against infection it's little consolation that you won't spread the fever.

    Of course - it's better than nothing, but even better would be to figure a way to take out diseases like Dengue Fever completely.

    Many diseases are spread by mosquitoes and if you can take out them from the equation it may help against several diseases. Pheromones are one important factor when the mosquitoes are mating and if you can attract the males to a trap you can either kill them or replace them with genetically modified ones that are less able to spread diseases. The modification may range from sterile offspring to offspring that aren't able to work as a carrier or even offspring that are shunning humans as blood source.

    • Re:Will this help? (Score:5, Informative)

      by IAR80 (598046) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:15AM (#27948555) Homepage
      Mosquitoes certainly have their role in the ecosystem and killing them will certainly have unforeseen consequences. More like in the Mao and sparrows story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sparrow_Campaign [wikipedia.org]
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Mosquitoes certainly have their role in the ecosystem and killing them will certainly have unforeseen consequences. More like in the Mao and sparrows story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sparrow_Campaign [wikipedia.org]

        And besides, Sparrows are too cute to kill.

        • Re:Will this help? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by unlametheweak (1102159) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:40AM (#27948663)

          Mosquitoes certainly have their role in the ecosystem and killing them will certainly have unforeseen consequences. More like in the Mao and sparrows story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sparrow_Campaign [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]

          Humans are part of the ecosystem, and not allowing natural checks and balances to occur on the human population also has devastating effects on the environment. I'm not advocating culling humans however.

          • by IAR80 (598046)
            Me neither, but I am strongly advocating for the reduction of our impact on the environment. Otherwise we will cull ourselves by famine, due to destruction of fertile land, disease, caused by pollution lack of water supply and ultimately genocide. WAIT! We are already doing that! http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/eps/rwanda/rwanda1.htm [utoronto.ca]
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by elrous0 (869638) *
          They're not so cute when they crap on you.
        • by Z00L00K (682162)

          Sparrows are mainly seed-eating, but Swallows are insect-eaters.

          http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/558300/sparrow [britannica.com]

          http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/576163/swallow [britannica.com]

          Mosquitoes are only one type of insect that they may feed on, but the amount of nourishment in a mosquito is lower than in a fly, which means that they are more likely to select flies for food.

          But the point is more to adjust the mosquitoes than to eradicate them.

          As for diseases keeping humanity under control you should note that the w

      • Mosquitoes certainly have their role in the ecosystem and killing them will certainly have unforeseen consequences. More like in the Mao and sparrows story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sparrow_Campaign [wikipedia.org]

        Unlike you, I am perfectly willing to take my chances with life in a world in which mosquitoes have been eradicated. Unfortunately for me, I seem to hold a minority opinion on this. It seems to me that if malaria and other mosquito borne diseases were a bigger problem in North America and Europe that people wouldn't be suggesting that eliminating them might be a bad idea but instead would be focused on killing them all.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        Sparrows kept their insect prey in check; eliminating the sparrows caused an increase in insect population.

        Mosquitos keep their human prey in check; eliminating the mosquitos would then cause an increase in human population. Isn't this the intended consequence?

    • Because if it won't help against infection it's little consolation that you won't spread the fever.

      In a population of 100 with one infected individual this approach is 1% worse than a treatment which cures the disease in all individuals.

      On a personal note if I was infected but could prevent infecting my family that would be a big advantage for me.

    • Re:Will this help? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MjDelves (811950) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:28AM (#27948611) Journal
      Well actually yes this strategy is very sensible. I think you're not quite understanding the research. The vaccine doesn't stop you being bitten by mosquitoes, but would be designed to stop the virus infecting the mosquitoes. This breaks the cycle of infection and prevents many other people being infected. Yes that's little consolation for you, but in the long run, less people being infected does have a direct benefit for you.
  • Useless (Score:5, Interesting)

    by matria (157464) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:10AM (#27948529)

    This won't do much good unless all warm-blooded suppliers of the mosquitoes are so treated. A handful of humans killing/disabling a few thousand mosquitoes every year won't put a dent in the total population. This kind of thing tends to have unfortunate side effects as well. A similar treatment for dogs and cats to kill fleas has been around for years, and I don't see any reduction in the flea population. I have had a couple of really sick animals as a result of the treatment before I gave it up, though.

    • Re:Useless (Score:4, Insightful)

      by flonker (526111) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:22AM (#27948579)

      If every human with dengue fever is so treated, the mosquitoes will not have a chance to spread the fever any further if they do bite you. I don't understand the disease, and the article itself was light on detail, but if the disease spreads from ...mosquito->human->mosquito->human..., you would be removing the human->mosquito leg of the cycle.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by moj0e (812361)
      Actually, mosquito control isn't useless. I grew up in Brazil where there was a dengue outbreak in the 80's. They worked hard at making sure the mosquito didn't have an environment to grow and until this year, I hadn't heard of any dengue outbreaks. My concern with this method is that people who are infected by dengue might be transmitting the disease (through the mosquito) before they even realize that they are sick. If this is the case, the infection cycle wouldn't be completely broken. Unfortunately,
    • by Kelbear (870538)

      It may be impractical or implausible to vaccinate a major city. However, it may be possible to 100% vaccinate the populations of isolated villages and towns. With fewer people to locate and administer the drug to, the vaccinations could result in a dengue free-area!

      While it would be possible for mosquitoes with the disease to come in from other areas, most species (though not all) don't migrate very far and tend stay close to their food source.

  • Problem (Score:2, Interesting)

    by masterfpt (1435165)

    I believe that for this to work, a very, very high % of the population would have to be inoculated.

    I hope we are not risking creating a "strand" of mosquitoes that can "smell" the poisonous blood from a human and prefer to feed on the next one that is safe.

    • Re:Problem (Score:5, Informative)

      by Your.Master (1088569) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:52AM (#27948701)

      You can eliminate it if you hit the herd immunity threshold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity [wikipedia.org]

      That requirement is essentially the same as for regular vaccines.

      As for risking mosquitoes evolving to smell the poisonous blood -- isn't that a best-case scenario? Where the immunity to spreading the disease is converted to an immunity to getting the disease because the vectors avoid the innoculated.

      The worst-case scenario basically leaves us back at square one with no loss and only a temporary gain.

  • I don't know about you, but if you're going to vaccinate me, it sure would be nice if I was protected too. It might even provide an incentive for the not so altruistic.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by datababe72 (244918)

      Well, the problem is that people have been trying for years to make standard vaccines against Dengue, and failing. If I remember properly, there are several different subtypes of the virus, and protecting against all is difficult, while protecting against only some has turned out to do more harm than good (Dengue is a disease that is more likely to have serious consequences the second time you get it, and an incomplete vaccine was found to function like a first infection in this regard).

      Yet Dengue is a very

  • by Yeti.SSM (869826) <yeti...ssm@@@atlas...cz> on Thursday May 14, 2009 @04:45AM (#27948673) Homepage
    Won't anybody think of the mosquitoes?
  • Oh yeah - Poisoning the Well [wikipedia.org].
    An enzyme is developed to make the wraith (blood sucking aliens) get sick and die when feeding off humans injected.
    I know this makes me the worst kind of nerd for knowing this offhand...
    • I own a comic book/gaming store and spend all day serving nerds of one stripe or another, and trust me, neither you or I are the worst kind of nerd...
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Oh, I misread that.

  • by iamacat (583406) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @05:02AM (#27948749)

    Typically there are many more animal than human hosts, since the former usually do not go to hospitals or use cloth/house/DEET to protect themselves from mosquitos. So your altruism will likely protect a chimp or an antelope rather than another human. But mass vaccination of wildlife through baits dispersed from planes can really make a difference.

  • Repercussions? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by grasshoppa (657393)

    I'd be terrified of the possible repercussions from this. In the more immediate, what does this do to your liver? Longer term, what impact might this have on other insect populations? And will this impact negatively effect human populations?

    This approach is dangerous.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by meuhlavache (1101089)
      I'm agree... Kill insects, without any knowledge of what it's involve, to protect us agains't a disease is really dangerous... 'hope they'll think twice about that.
    • Re:Repercussions? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Thiez (1281866) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @07:45AM (#27949459)

      > In the more immediate, what does this do to your liver?

      Well I guess that is what the research is for, right?

      > Longer term, what impact might this have on other insect populations?

      Well, since mosquitos can also feed on animals, most of them will never come in contact with the poison. I don't know how this will affect their natural predators (eating multiple poisoned mosquitos might have a negative effect on them, depending on the poison), but I assume they will investigate that too before they start handing out the stuff to everyone everywhere.

      > And will this impact negatively effect human populations?

      Well I guess that is what the research is for, right?

      > This approach is dangerous.

      Maybe. If we don't research we'll never find out. The whole thing would be dangerous if we were to give this stuff to everybody before having some idea to what the answers to your questions might be. But since thas hasn't been the way to do these things in science for some decades now, your whole post seems somewhat overrated, this last bit in particular.

  • by Eukariote (881204) on Thursday May 14, 2009 @05:28AM (#27948861)
    Watch the following video to learn more about the "altruistic vaccination" that the Gates Foundation is engaged in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7_xfUV4kSo [youtube.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      Since a lot of people think the whole mercury and autism thing was invented out of whole cloth because their government told them so, you might also talk about how in order to receive any vaccinations from the Gates foundation you have to provide patent protection to pharmaceutical companies. No IP law? No vaccinations. This would not be true if they were genuinely trying to stamp out certain diseases; you can't stamp them out as long as you leave ground unstomped.

      • by Abcd1234 (188840)

        Since a lot of people think the whole mercury and autism thing was invented out of whole cloth because their government told them so

        No, it was invented out of whole cloth because the guys propounding the theory have no evidence backing their assertions, while all studies in the topic have demonstrated there is no such connection.

        you might also talk about how in order to receive any vaccinations from the Gates foundation you have to provide patent protection to pharmaceutical companies. No IP law? No vaccina

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          No, it was invented out of whole cloth because the guys propounding the theory have no evidence backing their assertions, while all studies in the topic have demonstrated there is no such connection.

          Today is my lucky day, and yours too. go here [sitestat.com] and you can read "Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence".

          Perhaps someone else will come in and cover the other claim, I've done it before here but I'm not a subscriber, so I don't have access to my full posting history, so I'd have to find it with google.

          • by Abcd1234 (188840)

            Today is my lucky day, and yours too. go here [sitestat.com] and you can read "Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence".

            Hint: environmental, elemental mercury sources are not the same thing as thermerasol.

            Meanwhile, study after study has eliminated the link between vaccinations and autism. I'd provide citations, but it's clear you've already consumed the kool-aid.

            • by Eukariote (881204)

              Hint: environmental, elemental mercury sources are not the same thing as thermerasol.

              Hint: Thimerosal contains approximately 49% ethylmercury. The mercury is only weakly bound the the ethyl, and becomes readily physiologically available in elemental form.

              Meanwhile, study after study has eliminated the link between vaccinations and autism.

              Firstly, there are studies that support both the harmless and harmful hypotheses. Hence, "eliminated" is a vast overrepresentation of reality. Secondly, given the endem

          • by swillden (191260)

            Today is my lucky day, and yours too. go here and you can read "Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence".

            Why, then, have autism rates continued to increase as thimerosal has been removed from vaccines?

            http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/65/1/19

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Service Pack 2.

  • iamlegend tags??? no T-Virus tags?!?! am i on slashdot or has the zombie uprising already begun?
  • then Dengue does. The reason that I say that, is that I now suspect that there are MANY other virus that are transmitted with that bite. I am guessing that these are helping to transform us slowly across time. IOW, the virus that we have not detected at those that do not bring a symptom with them. We probably pick up new snip-its not just from other humans, but from other animals. What Gate's Foundation is looking to do, is wipe out the mosquitoes that bite humans. Any that learn to not bite humans, will
  • I dislike it when humans mess with nature like this. It's pretty simple and I'm surprised that people who are smarter than I am can't see it - you make your blood poisonous to mosquitoes => mosquitoes get poisoned => mosquito gets eaten by predator before it dies => predator gets poisoned => evolution takes over. Do we know how the mosquitoes will evolve in order to adapt to the poison? No. Do we know how mosquito predators will evolve to adapt to the poison? No. Do we know the impact on the env
  • If you are very lucky, it may fund a PhD student for 2-3 years, but that does not include any lab or experimental costs.

We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.

Working...