Slashdot Mirror
End To Blindness?
Kevin writes "For the first time ever, researchers from a company called Optobionics surgically implanted an artificial retina into three patients who are blind from retinitis pigmentosa. These highly-experimental prosthetic devices, made of silicone computer chips, are intended to restore ambulatory vision, thereby giving people the freedom to walk without the assistance of a cane or guide dog.
Researchers are begining to develop computer chips that might function in place of
damaged photoreceptor cells."
It's the year 2000, and people STILL can't get this right?
thats good to hear , as I have hope that if the retinitis pigmentosa I have every starts to degrade my vision I can look forward to this technology
I hope science can build some bug detecting retinal implants for the netscape developmnet team.
This seems like a pretty big deal, but I wonder what percentage of blindness it would actually 'cure'? I, for example, lost my right eye due to a vascular tumor when I was unborn. The tumor caused damage to the optical nerve, so this wouldn't work for myself or others in a similar situation.
..isn't silicone used in other, more uh, cosmetic prosthesies? You mean silicon, I hope...
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
e-Spleen!(tm) - Never knew you had one, never knew you needed one! Yet now, surf the 'net with your spleen! Although I do have to wonder, how sensitive are these suckers? I mean, couldn't theorhetically an EMP shatter your eye? I mean, I don't know much about photoreceptors, but that's just a thought...
Information is the catalyst for revolution
This is an interesting step toward integration of electronic technology and biology.
A similar device could, for instance, be used to enhance the vision of an already healthy eye. Maybe interfacing with another device to allow concurrent interpretations of multiple images.
I'm not sure if I am excited or scared.
The Borg tried to assimilate the humans, they should have let them assimilate themselves.
The List of Grievances with Slashdot.
Anyone got bets on a date to world domination?
I'd like to "see" this tech in action. I hope it's an improvement over the ultrasound ones I've seen. They look horrible; however, I've never really been totally blind, just mostly blind.
Something like this combined with a good wearable PC and I'll never need to enter meatspace again.
I heard that when they restore people's vision after they were blind their entire life, formerly blind people still can't "see" very well. The signals might be going to your brain again but it will take a while for your brain to figure out how to make sense of it all. This is better than nothing but if you really want to cure blindness you have to do it to very young people so they can learn how to use their eyes like everyone else.
I can see at 1600x1200 what about you?
You Like Science?
You Like Science?
You Like bottomquark.
-or, for the Ender fan in you-
And here all this time i've been drooling over the microoptical glasses mount display, Why bother when I can have a chip implanted into my eyeball and just use the hardware to directly superimpose an image on my field of vision.
I shudder to think how much the R&D costs for this are. 80% of all blindness is preventable with current techniques. The most common cause, cataracts, can be cured with a relatively simple operation Trachoma, the second most common cause, can easily be prevented with proper hygiene, and cured with inexpensive antibiotics. The third most common cause, glaucoma, is more difficult to treat, but vision loss can be prevented or minimised if it is discovered early. The point is, seeing as most of the worlds blindness can be prevented or cured at low cost, maybe resources would be better spent striving for this rather than pursuing newsworthy but extremely limited solutions such as these implants. -"Oh, THAT power button"
These won't cure all blindness - you need to be able to replace / repair the optic nerve. Anyone know of any of this actually being worked on?
/nick on yahoo mail can suck my cock...
Cyano
Oh yeah - whoever registered my
Don't like my sig? I don't either.
Diabetes-related Blindess is controllable if detected early.
Hands in my pocket
Now they'll have to be more selective about who they date.
The device is kinda neat. It is 40 microns thick and consists of solar cells (miniature) connected to stimulating electrodes.
Perhaps it is cooler that someone is simply attempting to cure blindness in such a way. The sensory periphery for audition and vision is amenable to implants - in vision, for example, the retina holds about a million nerve cells arranged in a nice topographic array. In the cochlea there are a few tens of thousands of hair cells in a nice spiral array. A company spawned from the Otolaryngology labs at UCSF makes the only US designed cochlear implants (Advanced Bionics).
Of course, the optobionics device will be out of focus since the eye focusses light on the retina and not on the silicon chip. But hey - it'd be amazing if they could simply get enough current out of their device to stimulate a neuron. You'd need at least 10 microamps. The upside is that you do not need a power supply or wire lead into the retina - a tricky engineering feat for other retinal implant designs.
They didn't report if any of their patients implanted in late June had any vision yet. Guess what - they would be seeing by now if the implant worked. So my guess is that the device is a bust. And unfortunately, you don't really get that many clinical trials to fail in your device, no matter how well capitalized you are.
The other difficult thing about retinal implants is the number of stimulating sites required. You can hear speech with 8 stimulating electrodes and very good temporal fidelity. For vision - temporal fidelity is not so stringent, but you need at least 100 stimulating electrodes, each capable of pushing 10 microamps (AC, for a brief brief period). The problem is that you need to power the chip, and to do that you need a cable running into the eye. That probably necessitates the cutting or at least paralysis of the eye muscles, and a very tricky connection through the cornea. So you can see the allure of the optobionics device.
These guys are, however, great at marketing and fundraising. There will be a flurry of such press releases and fund raising bouts, for optobionics and other retinal stimulation companies. The presidents of the companies will get rich. I just hope one of them recruits a decent engineer so that someone gets to see again too. It doesn't seem like their approach is hopeless - but it certainly needs modification.
My friend suffers from RP(retinatis pigmentosa) and is actively watching this research work. He noted to me that these new chips will be useful for him, but not for people who lost their vision from other causes. For example, children who were born blind, can probably not be helped with an artificial retina. In addition, those that have never known sight may not be able to process the images in their brain. This work does look very promising for RP sufferers. When this technology becomes a reality for him, I figure I'll take him on down to the strip club, since it has been a while.
Stuart Eichert
Stuart Eichert
..but isn't the thing they're fixing here just one of many reasons for blindness?
I'm not a doctor, but it seems to me that there's more than one way for a person's eyes to not, or stop, work(ing), simply by excersising a bit of common sense. I mean, it's like saying that breast removal "cures cancer". Not quite.. it fixes one FORM of cancer (or, well, it can).
More power to these guys if it helps even a fraction of the blind folks out there.. but without more information than a press release, I remain skeptical that this is going to help everyone that has an eye problem. All the information available indicates it only repairs a rather narrow brand of blindness.
I'd just be wary of labelling these guys gods. Minor deity's, perhaps, because the achievment is pretty major.. but it seems to me it's only one step in the entire staircase.
This just goes to prove a pet peeve of mine: not even quasi-scientific journalists can write a decent headline!
Title of actual article:
"Vision Researcher First to Implant an Artificial Retina in Humans"
I mean, c'mon: it's an artificial RETINA. It's a darn good thing it was a VISION researcher that did it first; just imagine the poor patients if a cutting-edge proctologist had done the implantation - no telling how THAT would "come out in the end" (proctology humor, sorry). And it's not even like the article is on some generic news site where they need to be extra-specific just to pander to the LCD (that's Lowest Common Denominator, not Liquid... oh nevermind). It's on blindness.org for cryin' out loud! I highly doubt they run a lot of stories about podiatry or stomach ulcer research...
</RANT>
We've seen for a long time how people who lose the use of one part of their body can remap the nerve cells that control that part for other purposes. Brains are, after all, just literally big neural networks, and it's remarkably easy to reshape that network when changing a few constraints. All it takes is some relearning and motivation, which these people have.
-- Anne Marie
Just interesting to note that this page is not readable by machines that help the blind surf the web. They have not added any extra code to help their audience receive this information.
This is a gross mistake on the part of blindness.org. How do they intend to help if their audience can't read their page?
Ugh.
What would happen if some guy with the silicon eye implates stares at some chick's silicon brest implants? Gotta be careful... don't want him going off on his own and, um, making himself go blind all over again! =)
Date: 2006
This just in:
With all the new optical eye companies abounding there seem to be 2 main choices:
1) IBM PCEye -- You get very fast refresh rates but it costs significantly more for a more "true color" version of the optical eye.
2) AppleEye -- You get perfectly true color and are able to see the world in ways few people do. The problem with this, though, is that the current refresh rate is 3 times per second -- and it costs a QUITE significant amount of money to purchase an optical eye that has a better refresh rate.
Back to you George. . .
At least the chronic ones, that is. Most heart disease can be prevented by proper diet and exercise. Most colon cancer can be prevented by proper diet. Most lung cancer can be prevented by not smoking (right, nicotineman? ;-).
Even many infectious diseases can be prevented with cheap stuff you can find around the home. Most STDs can be prevented by cheap latex barriers. Most malarial diseases can be prevented by proper screens and nettings. Most intestinal parasites can be prevented by proper sewage disposal.
The question you have to ask yourself, though, is can a buck be made by handing out this free and sensible advice? Most problems could be solved at lower cost by addressing these causes directly instead of treating their symptoms, but it's not as sexy and it runs contrary to human nature.
-- Anne Marie
Sure, we may never be able to find the answer. Try asking one of these patients what color a flower is. If it wasn't instilled in their mind, they wouldn't know.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
wasn't this reported on a few months ago? or is this a different technology? i also rember another experiment where they implanted fetal retinal tissue into damaged maculas to try and have it regrow naturally being a sufferer of damaged retina myself i like to hear about this stuff
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
The story description for this that is posted on /.s main page looks to me like the first paragraph from the story it links to. Although the link points to the original work, you seem to be crediting the submiter of the story for that (apparently) copied paragraph. You might want to update that. =)
yeah last year sometime there was soem hub-bub about those things being able to see through clothing under certain conditions in the nighttime setting... not like you'll get much detail... you're better off going to the mall with one of those "x-ray" glasses
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
AppleEye -- You get perfectly true color and are able to see the world in ways few people do. The problem with this, though, is that the current refresh rate is 3 times per second -- and it costs a QUITE significant amount of money to purchase an optical eye that has a better refresh rate.
However, the good news about the Apple version, is they'll be able to daisy chain other sensory functions off of the eyes. Experiments are being right now, to see if this is a viable solution to male impotence.
Why would you even want to say this is the case? I think a headline like "Further progress made restoring sight" would have been just as exciting and not at all a letdown when I read the actual article. Why claim miracles when simply describing current technology is amazing enough?
I recall a story in one of the Oliver Sacks books about someone who had "motion blindness". There are parts of the brain that process motion, and the patient could see things that were still, but could see them in motion. It wasn't a tracking problem, it was a perception problem. The patient literally couldn't perceive objects in motion.
By the way, anyone who is interested in how the brain works and the nature of perception, concousness and reality should pick up some of his books. They are absolutely fascinating. Any of them will do. Sometimes the best way to see how the brain works is looking at the various ways it can malfunction.
One last story: he had a patient how could only percieve things on the right side of her, but not on the left. She was perfectly rational. Her vision was perfect. She simply couldn't percieve it. When she ate, she would have to eat from the right side of her plate, then turn the plate around. Then eat half of that. Then turn it around again, etc until there was nothing left.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The beauty of this, is that as we improve our miniaturization technologies, we can pack more photosensors on the same bit of silicon. Eventually, if we can refine the techniques enough, it might get to the point where the resolution could be nearly as good as the human eye. Plus, since we are dealing with something digital, we could allow for the modification of the image based upon active filtering. Just think: you're playing a game of hide and go seek, and you order the controller to search the image for all pixels that match the color of your prey's shirt.
Pax Digitalia
Don't forget that much of what we see is through our brains. Our eyes simply capture "bitmaps" of the world and our brains make sense of what we see i.e., columns of neurons in our brains parses these bitmaps into lines, contours, shapes, depth, etc. The problem with people who have been blind for a period of time is that these neuronal columns do not get stimulation. Neurons that do not get stimulated shrink and die off. The eyes may be able to send pictures to the brain but the brain won't be able to make sense of it.
The brain is known to be able to mallable and it has been known shift functions from damage areas to other areas. However, current literature suggests that recovery will be minimal given the complexity of the visual system.
These type of restoration will probably only help those who have recently become blind.
This page (a primer on photodiodes) has a chart of Photodiode Responsivity. You start to get reasonable response out of them around 600nm, which is actually before the infrared range, which begins at 750nm. Interestingly enough, this page also have a chart which compares their Series E photodiode to that of the Human Eye.
In any case, you could almost certainly tune one of these suckers to let you see into the IR range. I'm not sure you'd want to, if you had ever had normal eyesight, but it is an interesting idea. Certainly if you could embed them as seperate entities, AND turn them on and off, then you could selectively see into the infrared range in a selective manner without seriously compromising your natural vision.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When prosthetic eyes are better than the standard eye, people will be ripping out their good eyes to get 'enhanced' eyes.
This would also lead to the manufacturer putting non-ignorable advertisements in your vision!
Imagine the type of virtual billboards you could have!
Oliver Sacks wrote about a man whose sight was restored but who was left nothing but confused. It wasn't the experience you'd expect. It wasn't even a net positive for him, as it destroyed his adaptive behavior and gave him nothing to replace it with.
--
There's a crucial period in which the brain must be exposed to light and visual stimuli. As it gets exposed, neural pathways are trained to pave the way for visual attention and visual capability in general. The crucial period, IIRC, is the first several weeks to months after the child is born. Children who are unable to see during that period for whatever reason never seem to be able to, even if there is no damage to their optical "stuff" (to use the technical term).
--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Unfortunately this posting describes retenitis pigmentosa, a relatively rare from of blindness. By far the most common is macular degeneration which occurs mostly in those 55 and older. The numbers of people affected by this disease are staggering; one in six in this age range experience the affects. The fact that this technology may be useful in cases of AMD is exciting news indeed - it has been estimated that as many as 10 million 'boomers' may go blind due to AMD.
I'm curious about something and I think the follow-up discussion will be interesting:
How do people that have been blind their entire life visualize things?
I don't mean to imply that they can't visualize, only that I'm wondering about the extent of their ability to create mental images and how they differ from my own (FYI, I am not blind). That is, it seems as thought they could feel an object and create some sort of wireframe-like thing in their head. Maybe a more appropriate question would have been directed at what they visualize. Most my visualization consist of a combination of things I've perceived with my eyes, not to mention issues associated with color.
Well, there's my potentially ignorant question that's probably only answerable by either blind people or someone who has close contact with them.
Educate us.
I've been blind in one eye (left) since birth. My sight in the other one is okay, but as you can imagine my depth-perception is not what most people are used to. I've adapted quite well i think, and can estimate distance pretty well...but what really attracts me is the possiblity of having a more powerful eye implanted where my left one is doing nothing now.
Maybe i can get one so i can see infrared!
i'd want to be able to turn that off occasionally tho....
hey, something is better than nothing!
Okay, this subject touches a nerve with me, because my best friend has RP. She's only 20 now, and is almost totally blind. She is also the nicest person I know.
"People need to take genetic self responsibiility by not injecting their defective DNA into the genepool!"
Well...sorry....but sometimes, a disability makes for a better person. I, personally, wouldn't mind if the whole world were infected with her DNA. Sure, we might not be able to see, but it would be a hell of a lot better place than it is now!
She's in a regular college right now, taking regular classes. She doesn't want to be treated different than anyone else. She works much harder than a normal person to do the same things. I, for one, hope she has lots of kids just like her--even if they have RP, like i said, the world will be just a bit better.
Moral of the story: usually people with something that doesn't make them 'normal' perform better personally, sociably, and at work. Most assholes are just 'normal' people.
God was my copilot, but then we crashed on the top of a mountain and i had to eat him...
> Well...sorry....but sometimes, a disability
> makes for a better person.
You wont get any argument here. A very good friend of mine has a genetic disorder - I forget the name but his body muscle mass is severely decreased.
Nicest guy I ever met. Very intelligent.
However - I do think that it is wise for people with such disorders to not breed. I don't mean to say that a person who has had offspring is bad for having done it - its a personal choice, but -you get good people without genetic diseases too.
Personally, I have reservations about breeding myself (my father and I were both born epileptic - its treatable and mine went away around age 15 - but his never did). I don't know that I would feel comfortable having a child, knowing that there is a pretty good chance that they would have to live with that (even if it goes away - it means an entire childhood on drugs like dilantin and tegretol)
If other people can do it thats fine with me. I just don't feel right about forcing a person into a life like that.
Of course - I would unilatterally encourage everyone to stop breeding anyway. Theres plenty of humans now. We can cut back on production now.
-Steve
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
It works pretty good, but it gave me a horrible case of red-eye.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
Program Intellivision!
And this story is different from what we heard in July how? Oh, except for 5 months passing an no substantive update as to how the people with these devices have turned out.
Nah ... You'll be better with IDEYES !
--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
Marginally off-topic, but losing your sight through cataracts makes you worry about retinal detachment. I should know, I have two such implants.
Anyway, did you know Harold Ridley came up with the idea for implantable lenses after pulling bits of cockpit plastic from the eyes of Royal Air Force Spitfire pilots, and noticing that the plastic didn't irritate?
Oh yeah, definitely. Infrared vision, zoom, freeze frame, split screen (well, not exactly screen) ... and other nifty features would be schweet. Ohh, and a linkup to a storage device so you can record what you see or take still snapshots.
:(
Sadly I can't see this kind of technology coming along in any of our lifetimes
This gives me some hope. Maybe within a few years they'll have something I cann attach to my brain so that I can tell the fucking difference between green and yellow.
- Justin
Retinal replacement or transplantation does not address one big issue: the visual pathways in the brain. Contrary to some people's beliefs you are not born with the ability to see, you learn to see and differentiate between objects and surfaces through EXPERIENCE. The brain essentially has a Darwinian approach to sight where connections that are active are retained and those that are inactive degenerate. People blind since birth haven't gone through this process and so there visual cortex is mainly a random mess (there would be some organization to help them visualize spaces and surfaces). If you suddenly give these people sight it would be like walking around with keliedoscope glasses on at the circus - a confusing mess. Indeed patients who had a monochromatic form of color-blindness that was repairable surgically found that the colours would simply float in space and not be contained within the objects to which they belong! Note that many of the patients requested that the process be REVERSED. Just remember that retinal transplants are not a panacea.
-ShieldWolf
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Not every genetic aberration is apparent before a someone injects their defective DNA into the genepool. Who are you to judge their "defects"? Some people might question how defective your DNA is.
So what's the analogous dispute here? Rallies of deaf folks complaining that blind kids shouldn't be given the specious "gift" of sight? People protesting that braille shouldn't die as a language? From the perspective of someone who isn't deaf or blind, it's hard to imagine...
Could this help people with detached retinas?
;-)
Back in March, April, and May, I had sugery to reattach my retina after I got hit by that drunk driver. (I had surgery two or three times to do that!) What I'm wondering is, if it gets really bad, and they can't do anything for the retina, will one of these help? And would it help me ride a motorcylce again?
-- jason, who's so looking forward to riding again.
Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.
-- haaz.
The end of the article mentions that the researchers are thinking about implanting a chip in the tissue of the visual cortex. Imagine, a Geordi LaForge-like sensor/visor prosthesis that can be removed, upgraded, customized, etc., because it sends its information to implanted receivers that are hard-wired to the brain. This would bypass the nerves that connect the retina to the visual cortex, possibly opening up this technology for use with a much wider range of degenerative diseases. As long as the visual cortex is intact, the technology could be applied.
Or, for the more paranoid among you, it could also be something The Man would implant into navy SEALs and Mossad agents... sure, they look like normal humans, but when they put on their special visors, they get UV, IR, RF vision, and with the built-in wireless WAN, what Sgt. Smith sees, everybody in the unit (and back at the base) sees in a little popup window.
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
Val was a lucky SOB to see Mira Sorvino nude in that movie. Lucky bastard. That's what I want to see if I ever got blind and make a recovery.....P.
I think this carries a larger message: large-scale change - even for the better - is terrifying to people and to those who wield authority or power under the old regime. Even though it seems farfetched, I would not be at all surprised to find out that the blind will be exhorted to remain so by some of their leaders and self-appointed advocates. All in the name of group identity.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Ever go to a hardware store and proclaim loudly that you really need black caulk? Its hilarious... Then we go to the compressor supplies department, and insist on buying a pair of 3/4" nipples. We nearly got kicked out of the store...
The sad thing is that we actually needed these things.
Stimulation of visual cortex for a visual prosthesis for the blind is not a new idea. It was first done back in the 60's (I think) by Brindley and Lewin. There even used to be a neural prosthetics division working on stuff like that over at the NIH, but I guess the consensus was that there needed to be more animal testing done first. Stimulating primary visual cortex is going to be a lot trickier than the retina, though. First of all, it's huge--you would have to get a large portion of it in order to have any real sight, plus it's subdivided on a microscopic level into cells that get input from one eye, ones that get input from both, ones that see certain colors, ones that are tuned for orientation of a contrast boundary, ones tuned for temporal and spatial frequencies, ones for spatial phase, etc. etc. etc. It's not as easy as the retina, where the optics make things a lot more obvious. I'm guessing that within our lifetime there will be prostheses for primary visual cortex that will allow people to see the same way cochlear implants allows people to hear; that is, well enough to function, but not as well as a normal person.
Flamebait? It was HUMOR, asshole.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
It really isn't. Tiny blood vessels begin growing in the back of the eye, in front of the retina. They are not terribly strong, and, aside from obscuring vision (they're in *front* of the retina now), tend to break off and float around in the eye. Eventually, the 'floaters' obscure vision entirely in the affected eye. Laser treatment can destroy some of these new growths, which can delay blindness.
The *other* mainfestation of retinopathy in diabetics, where the existing blood vessels break open and leak blood into the vitreous humour, is also treatable with laser surgery.
Laser surgery in both cases is little more than triage, preventing blindness temporarily. Both conditions can be temporarily reversed through a surgical process called vitrectomy, where the vitreous humour is extracted and replaced with clear fluid (saline? I can't remember...). The root cause of the blindness is *not* corrected by vitrectomy, however.
The DCCT (diabetes complications and control test) showed that a pattern of low glycosylated hemoglobin (sp?) results (in th 5.5-6.5 range) can delay complications for a significant period of time. But in the end, if the other complications of diabetes don't kill the diabetic first, blindness will probably come a' knockin'.
wasnt it selfish of your mom not to have one but 2 kids with this genetic disease?
Well, no. I'm glad to be here. So is my brother. With this disease, you get more quackery than anything. Everytime I see an opthamoligist, they ALWAYS want a photo of my retina, they ALWAYS want to look in there. It's so exciting for them to see a case of it. One guy sugested that I wear some kind of device to shrink the field of vision in front of me, then look around it when I want to see somthing.
I think you asume that all people have a good understanding of genetics, while you do not. Before my mom there is no family history of it. None. I've talked to leading reasearchers in retinal degeneration about the genitics of it. It's kind of bafeling of why I got it. The disease looks to be X linked recessive. If that is the case, none of my children would be effected with it. Any daughters I that may have would be a carrier. Any sons that I may have would be un-effected. In that case my mom should not be effected. If it is just recesive, then my mom's first husband (my brother's father) and my dad would have to both have the recesive trait. The odds of that with this disease are nill.
I think that the RP has helped me in some ways. There is no way for me to play sports effectivly. I was already intrested in science, and for about a decade, computers. I've probibly devoted more time to computers than I would have. I'd say that it is time well spent, I think that it's fun. I also had some learning disabilities when I was younger, should I not put my children through that? I have an above average inteligence level, and just had trouble learning that I learned to cope with. It becomes a matter of learning to cope. For RP, that means that I look around a lot, rely less on sight to navigate than most people do, and trying to avoid dark situations. I don't think that saying "don't breed" is a good thing. Isn't that what the Nazi's goal was? A master race with no genetic flaws. It'll never work.
I am glad to be here, losing site or not so don't call my mom selfish because I have trouble seeing.
--Josh
There are exactly 42,935,718 letter sized sheets in a square mile.
it has been estimated that as many as 10 million 'boomers' may go blind due to AMD.
So how many will go blind due to Intel?
Will I retire or break 10K?
mmm...didn't mean to connect her being a nice person and her having RP. my father is disabled, and he's an asshole. :-)
God was my copilot, but then we crashed on the top of a mountain and i had to eat him...
I agree...there are too many humans!
God was my copilot, but then we crashed on the top of a mountain and i had to eat him...