Meet the Scientist Who Injected Himself With 3.5 Million-Year-Old Bacteria (vice.com) 206
Press2ToContinue writes with this profile of Anatoli Brouchkov, a scientist who isn't afraid to take an extremely hands-on approach to science. Vice reports: "Anatoli Brouchkov is a soft-spoken guy with silver hair, and when he lets out a reserved chuckle, his eyes light up like he was belly laughing. If you met him on the street, you'd never guess that he once injected himself with a 3.5 million-year-old strain of bacteria, just to see what would happen. According to Brouchkov, Bacillus F has a mechanism that has enabled it to survive for so long beneath the ice, and that the same mechanism could be used to extend human life, too—perhaps, one day, forever. In tests, Brouchkov says the bacteria allowed female mice to reproduce at ages far older than typical mice. Fruit flies, he told the Siberian Times, also experienced a 'positive impact' from exposure to the bacteria."
So he's a crank? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Brouchkov, Bacillus F has a mechanism that has enabled it to survive for so long beneath the ice, and that the same mechanism could be used to extend human life, too—perhaps, one day, forever.
Nutter.
Re: So he's a crank? (Score:3)
Yup. Plus, he's making the story about himself rather than the science - it's pretty obvious he's had one too many screenings of The Fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So he's a crank? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Or mere exposure to the bacteria has potential beneficial effects, which would seem likely considering the results with mice and fruit flies.
Keep in mind that our bodies are roughly 97% bacteria by cell count, if only a few percent by mass, and we're only just beginning to understand the symbiotic benefits beyond digestion. Until quite recently we operated under the assumption that the bacteria that colonize us were primarily infectious parasites, and only recently have mainstream scientists begun to serio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further - there is none except our need to keep alive and for some to reproduce as much as the available vaginas hold.
Fuck dude, stay away from razorblades and balconies on tall buildings.
Re:Enough with the space shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Found the mopey goth teen who can't get laid.
Re:mopey goth teen (Score:2)
"Found the mopey goth teen who can't get laid"
Someone needs to introduce the Goths to the "I want to die" emo kids. Would be fulfilling for both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further
That is what all life does. Why should we be any different?
And why do you think it needs to have a purpose? It simply is.
Re: (Score:2)
You have failed the Agent K test.
Re:Enough with the space shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Enough with the space shit (Score:4, Insightful)
Low population growth typically indicates an educated populace, low infant mortality, and a high cost to rear children because of a high cost of living caused by a luxury economy.
More like population density without resource constraints [wikipedia.org].
In mice, and other animals who don't have either the means nor the motive to rationally plan their families.
Humans have rather different dynamics, and the GP's statement is correct. It's very easy to show that as infant mortality declines and wealth rises, parents choose to have fewer children and invest much more in them. This is why the first world is already at negative population growth. In some parts of northern Europe the population decline is becoming a problem, to the degree that, for example, the Danish government has been running an advertising campaign to encourage people to have children.
The population of the US would be shrinking, but immigration is keeping it growing by about 2M people per year. There are only about 1M immigrants per year, but first-generation immigrants tend to have larger families which props up the birth rate. However, the net growth rate is declining and assuming current trends remain unchanged the US will hit zero growth in about 30 years and then population will begin to decrease. The assumption that current trends continue is a pretty big one though, given the massive changes we have coming in that time frame, as automation increases dramatically. Climate change may have some effect as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never, NEVER forget the impact that the instincts have on the general behavior of the population. Everyone thinks that human beings are rational but in reality people are an entity 50% rationality 50% instinct, with variations in this proportion from one individual to another.
And yet, what is actually happening in real human populations follows the patterns I described, not the ones that develop in lab mice.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider China - they panicked about population growth, instituted draconian controls (the one child policy), and look where it's gotten them - into the same boat with Japan and South Korea, the latter of whose birth rate is so low that if it continued at that rate, the entire population of some 50 million people would dwindle to nothing by 2700. Granted, it's unlikely to go quite that far, but it's worth noting that the effects on the population are significant even in the short term, as th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Enough with the space shit (Score:2)
Even though you're right, a declining population is actually a 'good thing' overall except where you have a population expecting handouts from their government. The problem in European countries is that they don't have enough tax paying people to support the tax-based retirement establishment. Immigrants don't help much because the first few generations also rely on the taxes for their support and pay very little taxes in return and then they go on to mimic the natives in population growth when they do get
Re: (Score:2)
Long term survival of the species.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as I mostly remember my past and still capable of what I was in the past, i totally don't care about my genetic make-up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Enough with the space shit (Score:4, Funny)
We must be in trouble because the last time I viewed a video on human reproduction, the males were trying to reproduce in all the holes of the female.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should tell him... (Score:1)
...you can't live forever, unless you're frozen in ice.
Not a Real Scientist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, you need control and test groups to inject and monitor. Sample size of one is sure sign of a non-scientist, as is making the scientist a simultaneous test subject.
Re: (Score:2)
No, then your dead. More fully dead than most in fact, since all your cells have been ruptured by ice crystals rather than continuing their individual survival for a time.
And what super power did he get? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
He plans on moving to Japan?
Re: (Score:2)
I think I saw him as a stunt double in "The Force Awakens".
Russians (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Russians (Score:4, Funny)
No generalized health insurance, the NRA, limitless capitalism, sugar in nearly all processed foods, Trump, the Bushes - Americans really know how to take risks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hyperbole to lump George H. W. Bush and George W. in together. While there's no question that George H.W. had a leg up in life because of family connections, he is a combat veteran with a long and distinguished career in business and public service. I disagree with him politically, but if I ever met him I'd be honored to offer him my hand and thank him for his service to this country.
Re: (Score:2)
No generalized health insurance, the NRA, limitless capitalism, sugar in nearly all processed foods, Trump, the Bushes - Americans really know how to take risks.
Sheh.... You know it ALL started by a group of folks who took great risks, sailed across an ocean with their families and supplies, landed in some remote, inaccessible land they knew nothing about, hoping to make a better life for themselves and descendants. Ever since, it's been generally the same kind of folks who choose to come here. Risk takers, big thinkers, people who work hard to make things better for themselves and their children. So why are you surprised?
Re:America (Score:4, Informative)
No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't? Although I agree that congenital disorders should be
Why you should ? For two reasons: 1) You, too, may become the victim of a gruesome disease or a bad accident 2)Because it is a moral thing, for the stronger, to help the weaker.
the NRA - Like it or not, there are too many guns in the USA to get rid of them. Of you try, the police and criminals will be the only ones with guns, and that's certainly not a good thing. Also, the NRA's existence means we have great freedom of speech laws, unlike Europe, which is going the PC censorship route
This is a classic argument against change: "Proposed change is not perfect, so let's rather do nothing". Moreover, here in Europe, with strict gun regulation, indeed only "police and criminals" have guns, and we have no school shootings. As for the NRA's existence guaranteeing "great freedom of speech", I won't even bend over the edge of such bottomless stupidity in order to try and see a rational argument there.
Re: (Score:2)
When my time comes, my time comes. Simple as that - And the sooner modern society comes to accept that as a healthy attitude, the better we'll all do.
2)Because it is a moral thing, for the stronger, to help the weaker.
In order to make the strong care about the weak, you need to structure programs like universal healthcare to really offer universal healthcare. Oh, so tens of millions more Am
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. His argument is that the change makes things worse.
The argument that I should buy insurance because something might go wrong can be based on a number of falsehoods: misuse of statistics, failure to understand how insurance companies make money, ignorance of morality, and others. The morality issue is particularly galling: you assume that I am too cowardly to accept the risk for my own actions; you a
Re: (Score:2)
and paying for people's risky or chosen behaviours, like smoking
Which generates more tax revenue than it costs in healthcare
obesity related diseases
Which in some cases are out of people's control because :
injuries from sports
So you're against lack of fitness because its a burden on the system, but you're against fitness because it's a burden on the system? You just won the stupidest comment on the internet of the day award.
pregnancy or sex related disorders
*blank stare*
and so on
Oh no no no. Please go on. This through process you're following is truly amazing. Though the level of logic you're applying may be suggestive of some kind of brain defect. It's a
Re: (Score:2)
OK, your reply was funnier than mine...
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between universal health care for congenital disorders (which I said I supported, although I left out a word) and paying for people's risky or chosen behaviours,
This is where your whole segregation falls down, as your own list is pretty bad at idetifying bad behaviour.
like smoking or obesity related diseases,
This is where you're on safest ground, but where do you draw the line, and how are you determining that a disease was caused by smoking or obesity. Lung cancer is also caused by air pollution. Diabetes can be hereditary.
injuries from sports,
Sport that people play to stay healthy. Yes there is risk of injury but most agree that the risk is outweighed by the general health benefits.
pregnancy
You better hope that other people have chi
Re: America (Score:2)
Not to mention that obese people generally cost the healthcare system less, as they're (relatively) more likely to die at 60 from a heart attack than 90 from a long protracted battle with cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
If you buy in to universal health care, it is not up to the individual to decide what the health insurance shall cover. That is a political process (at least here in Europe), and hence such discussions are made by elected representatives, with support by experts. Your argument is does not take into account the collective good, only your ( (mis-)perceived ) personal benefit.
As to guns, you make another classic stance against improvement, be it tiny: "Won't work, can't work". Really ? Did you try it, in your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've thought that more than once - "the Americans are in a dead-end street with their 2nd amendment, and it would take amazing political courage and willpower to change that..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There should be two tiers of healthcare. One is what the government funds, which should be things that a person couldn't reasonably prevent, congenital/genetic disorders mostly, or diseases with unknown causes. For other things, people should be allowed to choose whether they want coverage or to take the risk, and insurance companies certainly should be able to choose to deny people with risky lifestyles (smokers, people who partake in extreme sports, etc.) That's a lifestyle choice, and it should not be supported by those who choose to take care of themselves by avoiding these things (as well as exercise frequently and eat well).
That is what we have in Europe **grin** sou you are implicitly conceding a point you were opposed to earlier in this discussion. You do make, however, an important conceptual error. "The government" does not fund healthcare - it is the citizens themselves who fund healthcare, with their own contributions. The state, at the utmost, fills up the deficit, should one arise. But then again, you seem not to realize that "the state" is not an entity outside of yourself. You yourself are a part of the state.
As to
Re: (Score:2)
That is diversion of attention from the main topic of discussion (gun control). You don't even address the point made. As rhetorically effective as a filibuster.
Re: (Score:3)
Here you are. [wikipedia.org] As an intelligent person, you'll certainly not fail to notice that, after most Central- and South American countries, the USA tops the list - by far.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to associate the private possession (and use) of firearms with freedom. How... odd.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to be polite, and answer you on your private email. However, after this reply, I'll do it in public. You merit it.
First as to my alleged cowardice. Although the insult doesn't hurt at all, I'm going to rectify this. I served for five years in the French Foreign Legion, in its toughest regiment: 2 REP ( 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment ), as légionnaire nr 173531.
I took part in operations in the desert in Chad, the Centrafrican Republic and on the Comores (where we kicked mercenary king Bob De
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree we're not going to agree. Probably not before the Earth's magnetic field changes polarity. And even then. I do appreciate the conversation, however. It gives me (some) insight into how otherwise perfectly normal people can defend a stance considered inacceptable in my culture / place / state. Conversations of this caliber (pun intended) are rare on Slashdot. And yes - the similarity in backgrounds is a nice example of the kind of irony one will only find in real life, not in a novel.
Re: (Score:3)
No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't? Although I agree that congenital disorders should be
Because you're a moral person?
Or you believe in a religion that says you should care for those less fortunate then you?
Or you are completely self-interest driven and are so full of yourself to be sure sure bad things can't happen to you but would prefer not to be mugged for money by someone who happens to be less lucky then you and is willing to risk his life to get enough cash to pay for his treatment?
Or because you believe in living longer. Here's a link to look at: http://theincidentaleconomist.... [theinciden...nomist.com] - sp
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what religions you're familiar with, but Christianity teaches that charity means giving of oneself, not using government to be Robin Hood.
Whether it's the church or government, once the scale of giving gets large enough you need a middle man to manage it. History has shown us that the govt works better than a church at this function.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Payment through the government of other people's medical expenses does not involve giving, it involves legalized theft.
Oh boohoo, if you don't like it, try living in Somalia or Afghanistan and see how much better no govt works out for you...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You will remember this one when you have an accident and have to go through a complex and really expensive surgery... My country is a general third-world shithole, but here anyone that have an accident like the one I have described will not be left to die on the hospital door because he could not pay.
Re: Russians (Score:5, Insightful)
America is doomed.
America can only be saved by the people who love it. People who cherish freedom and the ideals of democracy and who are prepared to defend it. Your political parties are two different arms of the same political parties. You are deluded if you think left and right politics even exists anymore.
Franklin predicted that the downfall of the American dream of democracy world come from the corruption of the people. This is not to say that the people are corrupt, even when many are. What it means is that the people have been corrupted (access to education, healthcare, employment, media) so they can be incrementally cheated out of the right to democracy, with their rights progressively converted to capital.
Your most dangerous enemies are your domestic enemies who control money and power. I hope you can sort it out, I miss the nice America.
Re: (Score:2)
That you do not understand that you've just combined two mutually incompatible ideas, is a symptom of our problem.
Re: (Score:2)
That you do not understand that you've just combined two mutually incompatible ideas, is a symptom of our problem.
Please explain? Why are freedom and democracy "two mutually incompatible ideas"?
Re: (Score:2)
That you do not understand that you've just combined two mutually incompatible ideas, is a symptom of our problem.
Since you deign not to come down from your mountain to explain your statement I can only conclude that your opinion is merely cynicism that is not grounded in any reasoning and therefore of little or no use.
Have you considered that because you are unwilling to explain your statement that you are a part of the problem you 'describe'.
Re: (Score:2)
But as bad as Obuma is, Hilary is pure evil. Just look at her eyes.
Yeah I think I have read all I need to to write you off as a nutjob...
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah I think I have read all I need to to write you off as a nutjob...
Dismissal and Ad-Hominum attacks instead of dialog, the sign of a true progressive. I don't like Trump and I think he'd be the worst president our country has ever seen. But at the same time, as a New Yorker, I can tell you that between HIllary Clinton and people committing welfare fraud, the later is a better use of US tax dollars. This woman literally accomplished nothing for her entire term in the New York Senate and the only time you'll see her name behind some committee or senate vote is after it has h
Re: (Score:2)
His first argument is that Hilary Clinton is evil because she has "evil eyes". You don't need to have dialogue with such a person, it is a waste of time.
You might be right on the rest, and unlike the AC you managed to make your point without resorting to superstition.
Re: Russians (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The recession is due mostly to Democrat-passed bills that Bush Jr. was unable to get repealed. We have not recovered from the recession; the statistics used to make the claim of recovery (e.g. unemployment rate) are not relevant to the actual end of a recession.
Bush Jr. did do things that made a bad economy worse, e.g. the bailouts and near-zero interest rates. Obama continued those policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well he did it incorrectly. Gamma ray exposure would be acceptable; for other particles one would have to place a spider in the beam and then get bitten by it. This has been proven by many Hulk and Spiderman remakes, and thus the truth I write is incontrovertible
Too unique (Score:5, Funny)
> If you met him on the street, you'd never guess that he once injected himself with a 3.5 million-year-old strain of bacteria...
Well, I wouldn't guess this for anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, I'd guess pretty closely if I met someone lurching towards me moaning "Braaaaiiiiinnnnnss"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, that's Donald Trump.
I haven't had flu in years either (Score:2)
I call bullshit. How could an extremophile that's highly adapted for cold temperatures not only survive in the elevated temperature of a mammal body, not only evade the mammal adaptive immune system that is so effective diseases have to be highly specialised to defeat it, not only have any kind of physiological effect, but a positive one too?
Re: (Score:2)
I call bullshit. How could an extremophile that's highly adapted for cold temperatures not only survive in the elevated temperature of a mammal body, not only evade the mammal adaptive immune system that is so effective diseases have to be highly specialised to defeat it, not only have any kind of physiological effect, but a positive one too?
I'd say that is what happened - but maybe he has qualifications that we don't. Maybe he will become a Russian super hero...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... and that's where it falls down. This might change the lifestyles of his bacterial commensal flora. But it's not going to change him because his eukaryotic cells won't take a DNA transfer from the prokaryotic cells of the bacteria.
Did you ever put diesel into your petrol car? Didn't work too well. Now try putting diesel into your AutoGas [wikipedia.org]car (propane/ butane mix) and you're getting
Re:I haven't had flu in years either (Score:5, Informative)
The bacteria in question is a strain of Bacillus Cerus [wikipedia.org]. Some strains of Bacillus Cerus cause food poisoning, but others are used as a probiotic to reduce the incidence of salmonella in farm animals intestines. We already know that the intestinal biome of animals can have a serious affect on the animals' health, so the idea that this strain could be beneficial is completely plausible.
As far as this bacteria being an extremophile? Not so much. Baccilus Cerus undergoes sporulation when conditions are unfavorable. Spores are difficult to kill. Leaving behind spores when you die so that a new generation can arise when conditions are more favorable isn't the same as thriving in an extreme environment. If it was, humans would have to be classed as extremophiles too because we can freeze an embryo and implant it later.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read there doesn't seem to be any strains of Bacillus Cerus that can survive in the bloodstream though, other than in immunocompromised patients. It may not be an extremophile, but an Arctic strain should have at least some cold adaptations.
Re: (Score:2)
Highlander: Origins (Score:3)
There can be only one.
Million-year-old bacteria is one thing (Score:4, Funny)
but how did he manage to inject exactly 3.5 of them?
Re:Million-year-old bacteria is one thing (Score:5, Funny)
He injected 3.5 million bacteria, each of them year-old. You are reading it wrongly.
I assume, crazily, it was a guy. (Score:2)
Can't he just rub his penis just to see what would happen, like everybody else?
Infect the rest of us? (Score:2)
A little voice in my head (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To disguise the fact that the rest of it is inconsequential shit...
Similar to Sirius Cybernetics Corp products - their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.
Re: (Score:2)
Anatoli Brouchkov is a soft-spoken guy with silver hair, and when he lets out a reserved chuckle, his eyes light up like he was belly laughing.
Why are we focusing on inconsequential shit?
because its like the cannibal who lives next door that no one suspected.... You don't expect a mild-mannered reporter to be Superman and you don't expect a soft spoken well educated affable scientist to be that nuts... Its inconsequential but relevant to our own wonder at why the hell would he take that step/risk.
If it gives him massive diarrhea... (Score:2)
If it gives him massive diarrhea...that would not be an inconsequential shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, this is not science. Science would be setting up controlled experiments and presenting the results in peer reviewed journals or conferences.
Re: (Score:2)
The control group is the other 5 billion people. "Peer reviewed journals or conferences" is not science.
There's more to science than just controlled experiments. Observing the survival (or death) of the bacteria in the blood or other parts of the body would have scientific value, as would before-and-after comparisons of cells that might be affected.
Get the science right! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
But the protons are.
That depends on where you find the proton. Protons in the lighter nuclei (below iron) probably do date back to the Big Bang since they come from ordinary stars and fusion generates proton-rich nuclei which decay by positron emission. However Supernovae, which create the elements beyond iron, are thought to create these elements by neutron absorption which creates neutron rich nuclei. The neutrons in these nuclei will then decay to protons via beta decay so some of these protons will have the same age as th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)