Gates Foundation Funds "Altruistic Vaccine"

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."

Comments

A vaccine?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:A vaccine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope

It's more like that wrath vaccine from StarGate Attlantis.

If memory serves that one was refined so that it killed "only" 1/3 of those inoculated, made another 1/3 seriusly ill and killed any wrath who fed on them.

Re:A vaccine?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read it the same way because of the unnecessary and stupid quotes around "altruistic vaccine"

Re:A vaccine?

[DrgnDancer]

If you read, even the summary, much less the article you'll see that the quotes have nothing to do with the fact Gates is involved The "altruistic vaccine" works in a fundamentally different way than a "normal vaccine" and the quote are being used to highlight the difference. It's a perfectly acceptable grammatical structure.

Re:A vaccine?

[elrous0]

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.

Re:A vaccine?

[Anivair]

Not to mention the fact that I can't see anything gates touches being cheap and easy to implement. I don't know about you, but I'm not taking a vaccine from the guy that is to blame for the blue screen of death. I don't want to know what my biological equivalent is, but I can't reboot myself.

Re:A vaccine?

[sys.stdout.write]

It's so unfair how the thumbnail for Microsoft stories is evil Bill Gates, but the thumbnail for Bill Gates being benevolent is a heart.

Re:A vaccine?

[HTH NE1]

It's more like that Wraith vaccine from Stargate Atlantis.

Yes, use your own people as poison bait to kill off the Wraith/mosquitoes and just hope there are more of you than there are of them. What's the population of mosquitoes compared to humans in the infected areas?

"You see, Killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down." -- Zapp Brannigan

This is what started...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. the first zombie hoarde.

Re:This is what started...

[Anonymous Coward]

A zombie hoard?

Is that like a really big pile of mushy brains or something?

Re:This is what started...

[SoVeryTired]

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.

Sounds like this is a vaccine *against* a zombie horde.

Is that really enough?

[jasonmanley]

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:Is that really enough?

[unlametheweak]

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:Is that really enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

If you have a problem with that, buy Microsoft products.

- This message has been sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation -

Re:Is that really enough?

[MichaelSmith]

This message has been sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

There goes another five bucks.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Elvis77]

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????)

Re:Is that really enough?

[KibibyteBrain]

The Gates foundation tends to give results-driven grants, so they will probably get more if they come up with something promising.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates != Microsoft

Re:Is that really enough?

[tiggertaebo]

it might not be "enough" to fully fund the work they are doing but it is certainly a substantial chunk of cash and if the work shows promise they might continue to fund it? Also it will raise the profile of the work which might lead to further donations from other parties.

Re:Is that really enough?

[maccallr]

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.

Re:Is that really enough?

[jw3]

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:Is that really enough?

[Yvanhoe]

$100K intelligently spent can produce a lot more results than $100M distributed by a public committee.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Runaway1956]

In another time and place, egotistical bastards forced slaves to build huge pyramidal structures, for the purpose of immortalizing the egotistacal bastard's name.

In this time and place, egotistical bastards steal billions, then spread around a few thousand here and there, with the purpose of immortalizing the egotistical bastard's name.

We really haven't progressed much, have we? Gates is as worried about some malaria like fever as I am worried about the sun going nova. The money's purpose is NOT to cure dengue fever. The money's purpose IS to make a bunch of gullible chumps say "Oh, isn't Bill WONDERFUL?!?!"

Re:Is that really enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

$640K should be enough for anybody.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the people suffering from dengue fever are going to care where the money comes frome, and unless Gates somehow stole some of your money, neither should you.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Massacrifice]

Bill Gates != Microsoft

In VB6, it it might well be!

Re:Is that really enough?

[cyssero]

Well, it may not seem like a lot at first, but the Foundation is giving out $100,000 to over 81 different projects. Combined, it is a massive sum of money. You can read more about it here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5275381/Bill-Gates-pours-thousands-into-unconventional-health-research.html

Re:Is that really enough?

[jellomizer]

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:Is that really enough?

[pz]

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 one year (with benefits) and have just enough left over to cover nominal laboratory costs (paper, pens, reagents, supplies, etc.) without any large equipment purchases to speak of. Often a given grant-writing researcher gets their salary paid off of more than one grant, so $100k might be stretched to 2 years of support if there is another source for salary.

Now, normally the institution where the researcher works charges what is called overhead or indirect costs on a grant. This is a form of taxation that allows the institution to fund the infrastructure, keep the janitorial staff paid, the lights on, the phones on, the internet service on, the administration paid, etc. It typically runs 60-75% -- so when you talk about a $100k grant, the granting agency actually pays $170k to the institution, the institution takes $70k for overhead, and the researcher gets $100k to spend. Some foundations limit the overhead rate (also called F&A or Facilities and Administration) to 5% or 10%. I'm not familiar with what the Gates Foundation pays. But, quite often when a granting agency wants to boast about how big a grant is, they include the overhead costs. That probably isn't the case here, but if it is, $100k is even smaller in terms of what makes it to the researcher.

Seriously, $100k in direct costs is an amount barely worth applying for given that granting rates are around 5-10% these days, and it takes at least 2 weeks, more likely 4 or 6, to generate a proper application. If it takes 4 weeks per application, and you spend one year doing nothing but applying for grants, the expected value needs to be well above enough to pay for 1 year of effort since you'll need to write more grants and have new results on which to base the new grant applications. If as a researcher, you are doing nothing but writing grants, you'll probably get 10 applications out the door per year. At a 10% success rate, that's one funded grant per year. That one needs to be enough money so you can take enough time off from writing grants to perform some research to get results before starting the grant writing cycle again while still having enough time to pay your salary while playing the 10% success rate game.

Everyone in academic science hopes that things are going to get better under the Obama administration, we're all holding our collective breath actually, but the recent past has been the absolute worst time to be a researcher in the last 100 years.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Nazlfrag]

He may as well be, what with Paul Allen barely ever mentioned. Seeing as about all he's done with his wealth is buy a bunch of sport teams... oh and establish a foundation for his charity work years before Bill ever did.

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

1.) Did he steal billions? From whom?

2.) Assuming that he really doesn't care about malaria? So what?

Do you actually know what it is to live in poverty? With malaria and other infectious diseases around you? I HAVE. If help (medical or monetary) were to come my way, however little and in whatever form, I would accept it. I would not care the ulterior motives.

Now, as for you, as you feel so grand and awesome for the diatribe against the evil Bill, what are you doing? If you are so disdainful of what you call 'false charity', what are you doing about it? I mean, besides posting provocative posts, what sort of tangible help are you producing for those who might be on the receiving end of evil Bill's charitable money?

You really want to feel like you are achieving something, then do something. Talk is cheap, and if that's the only way for you to feel like a just and accomplished dude, then more power to you.

Re:Is that really enough?

[TheLink]

If this results in a cure for malaria or dengue, then yes this is a big improvement on building pyramids.

FWIW I don't like Bill Gates or Microsoft much, but they haven't done even half as much damage to the world/USA as a few people in the US Gov or even in the finance industry.

Re:Is that really enough?

[man_of_mr_e]

You exhibit the common symptoms of an idealog. This is probably something that someone should invest some money into curing.

Whether or not you believe Microsoft did not earn their money (i.e. stolen it) is irrelevant to the money in Bill Gates personal fortune. His money came from sales of stock, which are all completely legitimate. Yes, those sales were based on the performance of Microsoft stock, but the stock sales themselves are completely above board.

To put this another way. Let's say a football team spent years overcharging their fans to get in the door. They forced them to buy overpriced concessions, and buy overpriced merchandise. One could make an argument that much of that money could be "stolen".

However, you can't take that argument and claim that the guy that makes a fortune betting on the outcome of the game "stole" his money too because the team stole theirs.

Re:Is that really enough?

[man_of_mr_e]

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.

Re:Is that really enough?

[geekoid]

It needs to go through phases. You don't fund a product like this all at once.

Especially when phrase like this are being uttered:

"Professor Young says these may be "off the beaten track," significantly radical in conception, and daring!"

His published studies are interesting, and hopefully this grant will help get his ideas vetted.
There good ideas, but that doesn't mean they will pan out.
If someone is interested in this type of work, I suggest reading his studies involving NS1.

Re:Is that really enough?

[geekoid]

No it can't.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Alex Belits]

Without Bill Gates keeping science and engineering from developing, those people wouldn't be poor in the first place.

There is at least a decade of progress (on average in all human activities) lost thanks to Windows and retarded mode of thinking it imposes on its users -- and progress in some areas won't restart until Microsoft's dominant position is gone.

Nothing Gates can do (or anyone can do with all his money) is sufficient to compensate for that. He will be remembered as a monster, just like all other billionaires who tried to buy a place in history by throwing some of their ill-gotten money at high-profile "causes".

Re:Is that really enough?

[ZouPrime]

You're batshit crazy.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Bowling Moses]

I think you're mistaken. I'm applying for one of these grants right now, and the way I read it was that you must spend all the cash in one year, but if you've got a bit left over then you can get up to a six month extension to spend the remainder. The only extra funding is the $million if your work is really promising after the first year. And as others have pointed out even for a typically underpaid postdoc $100k in a year will only cover salary, benefits, and looking at my last grant application about $35k left over for chemicals, supplies, and etc. I would personally need somewhere in the range of another $30k-50k a year to cover my chemicals, supplies, and user fee costs. Not that I wouldn't be jumping up and down for about a week if I got one of these grants.

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

Uh, how the hell does one decade of *supposedly* windows-related loss of productivity (which is only localized to the 15-20% of the population in the developed world) have anything to do with the established and entrenched centuries-old poverty that grips the rest of the world?

I know that you are trying to find for a cause to rally and be angry and display some angst and shit. But if you really want to have a true cause, go where poverty is and do something... and let me know how you quantify that poverty in the majority of the world in terms of Windows usage in the cozy and warm world you grew up in.

Re:Is that really enough?

[sabt-pestnu]

Without Bill Gates keeping science and engineering from developing, those people wouldn't be poor in the first place.

Please, go on. Tell me precisely how market dominance in a desktop computer operating system has kept the desperately poor of Africa from becoming "not poor". Perhaps it has to do with increased electrification of the African countryside? Brought computers and wireless connections to those people?

Or perhaps stymied some advancement in energy or food production, for lack of which the economies of the 3rd world nations have been stunted?

How about Windows' effect upon ethnic strife, racial, religious, economic, or otherwise?

Please, illuminate us with your wisdom, as I see absolutely no connection between the two.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Runaway1956]

Did Bill steal money and intellectual rights from other people? See my sig for one glaring, irrefutable example. A mountain of excuses won't wash away that one stain on his character, or Microsoft's reputation. And, that is only ONE example.

As for what I do, personally? You expect me to roll out everything I've ever done for the poor, the hungry, and the destitute, and beat my chest over those achievements? No thank you - that isn't my styly. Nor am I qualified to do much that has any real impact beyond my own neighborhood, and circle of acquaintances.

But, I will point to Boinc and Rosetta. Go to the distributed computing sites sponsored by Boinc, and search for my nic. Maybe it isn't much, but I demontrably contribute SOMETHING to science, and have been for years.

Meanwhile, don't expect me to worship the Gates, Carnegies, and other philanthropic entities established to enshrine those ruthless enough to build fortunes, mostly at the expense of Joe Sixpack.

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

That's what happens when disdain for past Microsoft monopolistic tactics turn into drooling hate towards Bill which in turn becomes just complete irrational and idiotic diatribe.

It's amazing how Alex Belits (and people like him) will make just about any form of argument, however infantile and illogical, just to make just one another chance to bash Bill, or whoever happens to be the target of his lunatic rage.

See Alex, if you have to resort to incredibly stupid shit that cannot be substantiated with logic and objective observations to support your beliefs or points of views, then those beliefs and point of views were never valid in the first place.

You are in a geek-related site, so I will assume you have a degree in engineering or science (or at least have completed some course work.) So I'll suggest you dig up your old science and logic books and get some refreshment in logical thinking.

Oh, and I'm really looking forward to see your logical explanation on how Windows dominance during the last 2 decades have been a factor in the continuing, centuries old poverty of developing nations.

I can't wait to tell my grandma and uncles back in Nicaragua that the poverty they (and their ancestors) have been living is due to Windows.

Holy crap, Bill Gates found a time machine, went back in time and made my ancestors dirt poor!!!!(10+1)

Re:Is that really enough?

[techess]

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

Re:Is that really enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

It's part of the grand challenges exploration that the foundation runs. It's $100k to demonstrate any progress and then the foundation will follow up with some serious $$$.

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

OMG, still crying for the AARD? Old News!!! How exciting!!!! Not even Caldera cries as they got a $ettlement. I remember when I used to get all rabid on that when running lynx to check billwatch.net every other hour of the day, swearing that I would change the world with my latest copy of Slackware. Good lord I grew up out of that one.

Nobody is asking to worship Bill. Nobody is asking to evaluate Bill on the altruistic work he is doing. Actually, no one is asking you anything but in being objective in judging the value this specific contribution might have for people who suffer from Malaria in 3rd world countries.

And yes, I would expect you to roll something more than some idle CPU time to a computational endeavor. How comfortable of you.

I would expect to, I dunno, once in a while give money to charity, or help in a feeding table for homeless, or donate a few hours of your time to the IT department on a hospital or non-for-profit org. Things that matter. Things that have an actual impact. Not some shit that you let run without much consequence or effort on your life.

I would expect you to do so, because that would be the only way for you to point fingers at contributions like the one you are demonizing. Lead by f* example.

OMG, please someone look at my sig, at my cause and at old news.

Do you actually believe that people who might see some good in this contribution (and who would find your antics pretty much retarded and juvenile) to be MS-fanbois?

Are you that e-tarded?

Re:Is that really enough?

[Runaway1956]

Sarcasm noted. Would you be comforted to know that I have given time to the Boy Scouts of America, as well as the Girl Scouts of America? 8 years of documented service in positions of leadership, not to mention undocumented time spent helping individuals. Would it make any difference to know that I was registered as an EMT almost 30 years ago, and that I have helped a number of people around the country - NEVER paid for my services, but always strictly volunteer?

Back to Bill. Let's say you grew up with someone who was a known thief. Over the years, you read of him being arrested multiple times for theiving. At the end of a long life, the guy has more thefts to his credit than anyone can count. But, he's RICH!!! You meet him, and he offers to share a little dab of his wealth with you. Do you accept his money? Do you suddenly forget that he's a thief?

Bill is a crook, plain and simple. The man digusts me. And, the charades put on by these charitable organizations make me sick. Any time someone attempts to put Bill into a good light, I WILL remind them that Bill is a crook, and he got where he is by being a sneaky vicious bastard.

Thank you for your time - I'm finished here.

Re:Is that really enough?

[bhtooefr]

Whether that's true or not (I'm leaning towards not, but it's irrelevant to my reply,) the people in question have no fucking clue what Windows, or Mac OS, or Linux is. They may not even know what a computer is. They've got much more immediate needs, and they aren't poor because of Windows.

Re:Is that really enough?

[oktopyrates]

To the project as a whole definitely not, but it is a good amount to initiate what will hopefully be good results. If the work progresses at what might be considered a stable or sufficient rate, other foundations and even Microsoft will probably further invest into the cause.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Zibblsnrt]

Without Bill Gates keeping science and engineering from developing, those people wouldn't be poor in the first place.

You heard it here, ladies and gentlemen: Bill Gates' marketing tactics in the eighties and nineties are the cause of catastrophically-botched decolonization in the sixties and seventies.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Alex Belits]

Please, go on. Tell me precisely how market dominance in a desktop computer operating system has kept the desperately poor of Africa from becoming "not poor". Perhaps it has to do with increased electrification of the African countryside? Brought computers and wireless connections to those people?

Basically, Windows design is so poisonous, it rots brains of people who are trying to advance science and technology whenever they try to build anything that has to work under Windows and therefore they have to internalize this insane design. With progress in technology being slowed down and misdirected, the whole world does not get benefits of better technology, medicine, infrastructure development, art, etc. that would be developed if Windows did not exist.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

you fucking dumbass nerd take your low-id and go fuck yourself

Re:Is that really enough?

[Alex Belits]

It does not matter, what "those" people know. If engineers' and scientists' minds are damaged, "those people" don't get a chance to use discoveries and inventions that mankind would develop otherwise.

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

See, you keep getting back to Bill. Obsessive compulsive FTW.

You choose to fixate yourself on the crook, rather than on the money that has been donated, regardless of the reason, for a cause that might have positive implications for those in need.

You are twisting the fact of a researcher accepting money for a potential medicinal cure desperately needed by the 3rd world into a hypothetical of you accepting a gift from a rich thief.

False dichotomy.

False analogy.

This is a more appropriate analogy: if a rich thief offers you to give you a tool for free, a tool that you can use to save the lives of a whole bunch of people that live in misery, in a remote part of the world completely disconnected by the cosmic dungeons-n-dragons drama of M$ thievery, what would you do?

Would you refuse because you are standing on some moral soap box?

Or would you accept it in the hopes you can actually save those lives?

At the end of the day, this is not about you. The world does not move around you. The money is not being given to you FOR YOU. Stop making it about you or how you feel about M$ business practices.

When I was in Honduras, I did actually get help, in the form of food and used clothes (and one of my sisters got a pair of glasses, also as donations.) Would you think I would have had objected such help when living in dire need if I know it was given by someone like Gates? Would some fucker living in the comfort of the developed world had a right to judge the acceptance of that type of donation?

Oh boy, you are such a good boy scout. And yet, you still don't know what you are talking about.

In the end, regarding this topic, and on Gates making donations. It. Is. Not. About. You. Or. How. You. Feel.

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

That is stupid. This is what you said:

Without Bill Gates keeping science and engineering from developing, those people wouldn't be poor in the first place.

Your last post hasn't answered the question: how did Windows domination has caused these people (we are talking 3rd world people) to be poor?

Poverty in malaria-affected areas (Africa, Latin America, South/South East Asia) have been poor for centuries. Their poverty predates this technology you so much malign. Their ethnic strife, male/female dynamics, social casting, and all the other variables that created and perpetuated the cycle of poverty have predated the Windows dominance of the last 2 decades.

So forgive me if I don't see a cause/effect relation in this. Somehow it does not make sense chronologically.

* This is not to mention the fact that Microsoft Research is a leading entity when it comes to science, and even facilitator of improvement on quality of life in developing countries (ref. to their work in India.)

So answer the question or shut up.

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

Well, he's a fucking teen. He cannot possibly know that the world existed in the sixties and seventies, much less during the colonial wars of 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Alex Belits]

Your last post hasn't answered the question: how did Windows domination has caused these people (we are talking 3rd world people) to be poor?

It did not make them poor, it prevented them from ceasing to be poor. The same way how Catholic Church kept European peasants poor over Middle Ages -- by shitting up and suffocating all scientific development.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Alex Belits]

Actually I am 39, and I have spent most of my life doing engineering and software development. Engineers underwent a massive shift in the very basic approach to the thinking process after Windows became a "you have to develop for this system!" environment.

All problems now should be approached as tinkering with a broken system that can not be possibly repaired or understood. Underlying infrastructure must be treated as a collection of specific pieces, each performing the complete piece of functionality without any chance of generalization. Ideas, creativity, search for better solutions are replaced with endless perma-debugging cycle. People no longer study to develop a consistent system of knowledge -- they search for tiny morsels of informations that supposedly can be glanced from supposedly incomprehensible books. Humans are afraid of using their brains and analyzing each other's work in fear that they will encounter yet another wasp nest of inconsistencies that will push them too far toward insanity.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Zibblsnrt]

While the idea of those Windows-induced problems traveling back through time to, say, influence King Leopold II's management style or spawn any of the other eleven gazillion and three problems that Africa has had over the twentieth century is, honestly, kind of awesome in a horrible way, I'm skeptical that that's how it actually happened.

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

answer the question

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

Seriously, you are 39, and an engineer to boot, and you still claimed that poor people in malaria-affected countries wouldn't so poor if Windows had come into existence?

I refuse to believe you are 39. I'm 39 myself, and an engineer as well. And I know plenty of the same. I've never seen a 39-year old engineer talking such a stupid thing.

You spent your last post making a whole bunch of red herring shit that has no bearing to the claim you made. By the way, I do agree that there has been a deterioration on the quality of software engineering due to an emphasis on Windows.

But, based on experience and observation, I will counterclaim that 1) the deterioration is, in greater part, to the inordinate focus on Java and C# in education to the detriment of C/C++, Assembly and Pascal-like languages, and 2) this is minimal considering that the overwhelming amount of development is first and foremost in embedded environments and that most of the target platforms are Unix-like, not windows.

So all your babbling is non-sequitor.

Stop weaseling your way out via red herrings and answer the question.

Re:Is that really enough?

[elnyka]

So, 2 decades of non-windows usage would have had reversed centuries-old poverty?

Explain me the economics of it, IN DETAIL, not with slogans passed as hypothetical.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he wasn't fool enough to try getting the last word in. He walked off, and left the woman nattering!!

Re:Is that really enough?

[Alex Belits]

Seriously, you are 39, and an engineer to boot, and you still claimed that poor people in malaria-affected countries wouldn't so poor if Windows had come into existence?

Of course. Regardless of the other circumstances, overall progress in technology always had greater impact on the world population's living conditions than anything else. Messing with development of technology and culture as a whole is the easiest way to keep people poor. What do you think, keeps people poor, insufficient amount of green paper?

But, based on experience and observation, I will counterclaim that 1) the deterioration is, in greater part, to the inordinate focus on Java and C# in education to the detriment of C/C++, Assembly and Pascal-like languages

If Java didn't have to work under Windows, it would be able to expose Unix-like file descriptors to all its interfaces. Since Windows is the only OS that refuses to support them, Java had to develop layers upon layers of interfaces that work in an equally retarded manner with Windows and everything else.

C# is mostly an attempt to conceal Win32 under a less stupid-looking interface, combined with yet another attempt to produce a usable descendant of OLE/DDE (after COM, DCOM, etc.).

Both violate the very basic principle -- you can't improve a poorly designed system by adding stuff to it. The fact that those languages tend to place the programmer into a whole isolated environment, based almost entirely on language designers' idiosyncrasies, is a problem, too, however they would never be developed into this direction if not desperate need to use them as a new layer over the rotten foundation of Windows.

and 2) this is minimal considering that the overwhelming amount of development is first and foremost in embedded environments and that most of the target platforms are Unix-like, not windows.

What? Over the whole 90's the mantra was "Abandon Unix at any cost!". People were taught that they should never touch anything Unix-like, that it's a weak, doomed system that will be soon destroyed by mighty Microsoft. While this trend was reversed recently, the damage that was done is immense. Only few percents of the programmers I have encountered, seem to have any idea what interfaces and what functionality is provided by the OS (as opposed to other applications, specific libraries and languages' runtime). Even fewer can describe or recognize any of the most fundamental principles and definitions used in Unix-like systems, despite the fact that usually this very functionality is directly applicable to the development they are working on. And those people are software developers. None of the hardware engineers I have seen, has a development system that is not Windows-based -- even if they develop hardware that never touches Windows, and all functionality they use is available on Linux with much more straightforward and transparent interface.

Their minds, their methods, their whole approach to engineering and software development is shaped by Windows, it's all magic smoke, impenetrable black boxes at every corner, poorly learned formulas and vast amounts of endlessly cut-and-pasted code. Exceptions are few and far between.

Stop weaseling your way out via red herrings and answer the question.

I have already answered it -- if not Windows, progress in technology would inevitably pull developing countries out of poverty.

Re:Is that really enough?

[RightSaidFred99]

I find your laughable inaccuracies and misunderstanding of, well, everything to be hilarious. Please continue on with your kook's rant.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Alex Belits]

That phrase would work better if there was any reason to suspect that you can back up your assertions.

Now go, prove it.

Re:Is that really enough?

[Alex Belits]

So, 2 decades of non-windows usage would have had reversed centuries-old poverty?

Of course. In the rest of the world it already happened at various points in history, so there is no reason to expect that it wouldn't be the same in Africa. We see it as "centuries-old poverty" only in comparison with our own societies' conditions, however not long ago our societies were at the same level, just without a point of comparison to make them look this bad.

Explain me the economics of it, IN DETAIL, not with slogans passed as hypothetical.

The whole study of economy is basically a set of slogans, so I would rather omit it altogether and focus on things that are comparable and measurable. Each and every country that is now seen as "developed", at some point went through the same process, however as I mentioned before, most did it early enough to have no reference point to emphasize the poor living conditions before this change. Europe and US did it at the time of Industrial Revolution, however the same process continued later, and its speed corresponded with development of technology. Technology development in 80's-90's was mostly concentrated around entertainment and comfort, so it was of little use for such a process. I see Microsoft as one of the primary reasons why development of technology was shifted toward tinkering and mental masturbation.

Re:Is that really enough?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Please, illuminate us with your wisdom, as I see absolutely no connection between the two.

You must be new here.

Re:Is that really enough?

[sabt-pestnu]

What? I thought my user ID was private! Oh, the shame!

Quarantine

[biocute]

Is this like quarantine without isolation?

And 20 years from now...

[Solarhands]

We will have new, super mosquitoes, who's bite is deadly to humans.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[eugene2k]

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.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Carewolf]

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.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to take off and nuke the mosquitoes from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[eugene2k]

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.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[oneirophrenos]

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.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[fabs64]

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.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[ijakings]

I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[mokus000]

Whether they develop a resistance or not, if enough mosquitos that bite infected humans die in the short term, it seems that could have at least the potential to cause extinction of the dengue fever virus. If the chance of spreading the virus is low enough for long enough, it just might work.

If the timeframe is short enough, or if the vaccine's usage is modulated on a decade-scale frequency to keep the virus population down but let the mosquito population "forget", perhaps the mosquito-immunity scenario could also be avoided (if it's a serious risk in the first place).

Does the virus have any non-human carriers? Can we mosquito-poison the other hosts' blood too?

oblig. disclaimer: IANA practitioner of whatever discipline this falls under.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Some sort of mechanism... like smell?

Re:And 20 years from now...

[JamesP]

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

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Viridae]

Virology and population genetics for a start.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Anonymous Coward]

You people need to revisit your high school biology...female mosquito's do not use blood for sustenance, they use it for its plasma content which is used for the laying of their eggs.

Male and female mosquito's 'feed' on plant nectar and other plant secretions.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Nazlfrag]

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

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Anonymous Coward]

s/human and an animal/human and another mammal/

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Abcd1234]

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. The corollary is precisely the opposite of what you're inferring: similarly, the vaccine wouldn't act as a sufficient pressure to select mosquitos that would avoid humans in the first place.

On the flipside, I'm not sure I buy the argument. Human populations are non-trivial in size, and it may be that they act as a significant food source for mosquitos in large parts of the world.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on a lot of factors. If a large percentage is naturally immune, this project is doomed to fail.

However, if only a small percentage is naturally immune, say 1 in x-thousand, and 'vaccination' is done fast enough, odds are that the mosquito population will be thinned out enough that they won't survive the population bottleneck.

Killing most of a species is enough to kill all of them.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[eugene2k]

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

Simple: I misunderstood :)

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Hatta]

Just wait until Bill Gates releases those into the audience.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Anonymous Coward]

I could imagine it a mosiquito might be an easier target than some pathogens.

That may happen. If the develop a vaccine with specificity to the mosquito that carries the pathogen the odds go down. Make a toxin that targets exposed mosquitos and kills them and the odds go down even further.

Or take the HIV multiple mutation route and attack transmission with multiple anti mosquito antigens so that more than one simultaneous mutation is required

This is a smart Idea, IMO.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[mellestad]

That is also assuming evolution was somehow a directed thing that always provided a useful mutation. If I started poisoning everyone in my neighborhood with arsenic, I doubt we would see babies being born with an immunity, even if we waited a few hundred years.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Thaelon]

Or the only ones that survive are the ones that just happen to never feed on humans for one reason or another.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[ukyoCE]

Becoming immune to the poison is certainly a possibility. But as Carewolf suggests, there are ample alternative food sources.

It's likely that the quicker "solution" is that mosquitos who find humans unappetizing will become the bulk of the population.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[geekoid]

But then we will ahve a vaccines that turns us into Zombies, and thus mosquitoes won't be interested..

Re:And 20 years from now...

[2obvious4u]

Am I missing something about evolution? As I understand it entire species can be wiped out and become extinct. Extinction is a type of natural selection. Also if this vaccine works what is to stop us from using it on livestock? Would it also work for malaria?

Re:And 20 years from now...

[sgt scrub]

If we could merge mosquito DNA with firefly DNA there would be a mechanism. Blink+Splat=Human

Re:And 20 years from now...

[Bowling Moses]

You're mistaken. Mosquito species can show marked preferences for what poor critter they like to get a blood meal from. For instance Anopheles gambiae almost exclusively feeds off of humans, and also is a major vector in the spread of the malaria pathogen. Others have their own preferences to varying different extents. Interestingly, all mosquitoes exclusively feed off of warm-blooded animals. They're also ancient, dating back around to when dinosaurs were walking around. Might have fed off them too.

You're right on one point though: evolution of resistance to the vaccine is probably inevitable, just a question of how long it will take and what we can come up with while it buys us some time. In the tropics you can have IIRC up to 25 generations of mosquitoes in a single year. Multiply that by the huge population size and you can get some pretty rapid evolution. That's increasingly a problem for insecticides (not just for mosquitoes) and there's increasing interest in the development of new ones these days.

Re:And 20 years from now...

[SoupGuru]

Mosquitoes are actually mostly vegetarian to begin with. They eat sugar based meals, mostly nectar. The females only need one blood meal to get the iron and protein necessary to develop eggs. So says wikipedia.

Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund this?

[IAR80]

"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

Isn't this what governor huey did..

[3.5 stripes]

in Distraction?

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

Re:Isn't this what governor huey did..

[MichaelSmith]

in Distraction?

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

Maybe Bill is really looking for a new angle on multi threaded software.

Re:Isn't this what governor huey did..

[msimm]

I'd rather they made my blood poisonous to lawyers.

Re:Isn't this what governor huey did..

[perryizgr8]

but lawyers don't suck people's bloo...wait!

Re:Isn't this what governor huey did..

[maxume]

You got the joke!

We are all excited for you.

Re:Isn't this what governor huey did..

[perryizgr8]

hey! i was just trying to get the 'comedian' achievement.

Will this help?

[Z00L00K]

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?

[IAR80]

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

Re:Will this help?

[MichaelSmith]

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?

[unlametheweak]

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

And besides, Sparrows are too cute to kill.

Re:Will this help?

[MjDelves]

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.

Re:Will this help?

[unlametheweak]

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]

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.

Re:Will this help?

[IAR80]

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

Re:Will this help?

[unlametheweak]

Without reading through your link (first), I thought it would be appropriate to note that War and human conflict in general is probably going to be a significant impact in reducing the human population over the next decades or centuries. Nuclear weapons and dirty bombs combined with disparate and varied terrorist groups would likely be the cause of the more widespread and dramatic lowering of the human population. Easy to manufacture biological agents would have a lesser impact. Censorship of the Internet (the vast storehouse and dissemination media of information) and the outlawing of strategic chemicals would likely only have a positive psychological effect on the masses. There are interesting times ahead. I am anticipating a more medieval world.

Re:Will this help?

[Runaway1956]

Pakistan. The religious zealots are only 60 miles or so from capturing nuclear warheads. There is a full blown war being fought in that country right now, and if the "freindly" government falls, it doesn't look real good for Israel, and western civilization. The apocalypse COULD BE only a year away.

Re:Will this help?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

oh bullshit.

I don't live in the USA, and I don't live in Israel. If they "got ahold" of some nukes, how many does Pakistan have? Last I read, about 60, and they aren't all on missiles, and the military people in PAK have enough sense to no let these lunkheads get access to the codes. So, they would have to use them as something put on a boat and floated into a harbour. Let's pretend that they do get some missiles with nukes, do you think they're going after Western Civ first? No. They'll go after Western Civ's proxy, India (IND). Let's further pretend that they get as many as 20 (roughly 1/3 of the stockpile) in usuable order on missiles, which AFAIK, is extremely unlikely even for PAK today.

So, they use some nukes on IND first. Bombay, New Dehli, a few other big cities disappear. Grossly wounded, there are still hundreds of millions of Angry Indians left, and they collectively march across the border and commence slaughter, with the approval and sanction of the UN. Game over. Did Western Civ end? No.

So, let's say they go for another Western Proxy, Israel. Let's say they dump all 20 on Israel, somehow (even though they don't have a delivery system). What happens? A devastated Israel responds with its own nukes and it has dozens more than PAK and PAK is reduced to a glowing parking lot. Game over. Did Western Civ end? No.

So, let's say they go for the gusto, and somehow get all twenty - fuck it - ALL SIXTY nukes into the USA and set them off. The USA military responds and with one submarine turns PAK into a glowing parking lot. Millions die, in the USA and PAK. But not in Europe or Japan, or Germany or France or Italy or Finland or Russia. Did Western Civ end? No.

So, kindly quit with the fear mongering bullshit.

The apocalypse is NOT a year away. There will be no apocalypse. There is way too much money to be made and too much power to grab for something as self-absorbed and self-indulgent as an apocalypse to occur.

The USA is bankrupt, and will have to retreat from unipolar status fairly soon. When that happens, it will become less of a target.

Re:Will this help?

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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

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.

Re:Will this help?

[elrous0]

They're not so cute when they crap on you.

Re:Will this help?

[Hatta]

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?

Re:Will this help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Advocating the action of "checks and balances" on human population growth is effectively a culling.

If you want to talk about population control, lets start with your fat-ass first world family. If you are an average family in the first world, you are consuming roughly 200x the resources of a similar sized family in the third world. Eliminating you and the rest of your first world fatso consumer-kind would free up more than enough resources to feed all of Africa and then some.

So next time your family needs medical care, perhaps they should be withheld so that natural checks and balances don't get disturbed.

Re:Will this help?

[Z00L00K]

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

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

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

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 western world have survived the fact that most mosquito-borne diseases have been eradicated.

Re:Will this help?

[geekoid]

IMPORTANT NOTE:

"and the military people in PAK have enough sense to no let these lunkheads get access to the codes. "

Half of the Pakistani army is sympathetic to the Taliban.
Seconf, those are only launch code. If someone gets a hold of it they just need to replace that piece of hardware with there own and they are good to go.

No, it won't be the end of the world, and no the US probably would not retaliate with a nuclear weapon. Conventional would be better.

If they do take the city, I wouldn't be surprised if India moved in, which could be interesting. If done correctly, it could do a lot to relieve the India/Pakistan tension in the long run.

There is also the risk that if they do replace that launch control mechanism and launch at India, India will respond in kind.

Plus I actually don't think Pakistanis missiles can actually reach the US.

Re:Will this help?

[Runaway1956]

You assume the "bad guys" are stupid, yes?

Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that Osama's buddies capture all 60 nukes that the Pakistani's own. Now, you assume that the particular bunch of baddies who capture them will use them, directly. I figure, someone with brains is going to already have a plan. He inventories those that are in good working condition. He inventories those that are unusable, either through being "locked", or parts missing, or whatever. THOSE, he sends to Iran, for reverse engineering and reconstruction. Suppose they have ten warheads that are "usable". They will be divvied out, to high value targets, that offer the most bang for the buck. Two to Israel, two to India, one or two to the UK, and the rest targeted on the US of A.

Delivery? Phhttt. There is so much contraband crossing our borders already, you can't POSSIBLY believe that a one ton package will be stopped. Tons of drugs cross our borders every week, in packages large and small. There is no NEED to figure out how the missile works, or to target a missile, or to subject the warhead to satellite/radar tracking in flight.

A lack of imagination my prevent you from seeing possibilities. That doesn't mean the possibilities aren't there, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean the bad guys aren't looking for them.

Meanwhile - it is my position that the US, UK, and France were damned fools to assist various "freindly" countries aroung the world to develop nuclear technology. When the Paki's nukes are safely out of the country, and in the possession of a safe country, THEN you can fart off the potential for disaster. Til then, you're talking from the wrong orifice.

Re:Will this help?

[sgt scrub]

How ironic. I was going to suggest testing on birds to see if it kills off bird biting mosquitoes.

http://www.dem.ri.gov/news/2000/pr/1002002.htm

Re:Will this help?

[sabt-pestnu]

I find a number of your assumptions questionable.

Game over

Hmm... no pakistani partisans anywhere but the "glowing parking lot that Pakistan becomes"? Perhaps you haven't learned the lessons of "conventional terrorism" that Pakistan, Iraq, the Phillipeans, Ireland, and elsewhere have taught over the years:

Terrorists are not restricted to territory they hold and exclude the accepted government from. Using indiscriminate weapons against them MIGHT (only might) kill those terrorists you know about. They WILL kill innocent civilians, though. Which act has a good chance of recruiting any surviving relatives of those civilians. Heck, we have enough trouble telling whether we killed terrorists when we have people on the ground, directing where conventional bombs are going.

Nuclear weapons are a great way of knocking down trees and killing lots of people in a close area. What they aren't so good at is immediately killing folks in bunkers, caves, or The Next Valley Over. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities, recall. The places you'll find terrorists hiding in Pakistan might be the cities, sure. But likely not the majority. And if what leadership there is thinks throwing nukes around is a good idea, do you think they'd remain anywhere they thought would make a good target?

So at what point did you think that a nuclear counterstrike would be an effective idea?

But that segues into the next item:

Millions die, in the USA and PAK. But not in Europe or Japan, or Germany or France or Italy or Finland or Russia.

Assume that Pakistan IS turned into a parking lot. Let's be optimistic and say 60% casualties. All that radioactivity going to stay there? Or will it float around on the prevailing winds? Do you know? What of global weather impact?

I doubt we're talking "end of civilization as we know it", but to blithely imply "no impact" is as irrational as "the end is coming".

Re:Will this help?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

don't change the subject.

what I was responding to was what you wrote: There is a full blown war being fought in that country right now, and if the "freindly" government falls, it doesn't look real good for Israel, and western civilization. The apocalypse COULD BE only a year away.

And NONE of what you mentioned in your pathetic retort refuted my point. THERE WILL BE NO APOCALYPSE, at least one sparked by a bunch of idiots in south central asia. you want apocalypse? Continue Capitalist Industrial business as usual until the clathrates melt. THEN you'll have an apocalypse, albeit, one that will take a few thousand years to come to an ugly fruition.

You're a typical fear-mongering American who thinks that when the people you've butchered, ripped off and abused for decades finally grow some cajones and kick back, it's suddenly the end of civilisation. Moron. Piss off.

RS

Re:Will this help?

[Runaway1956]

Practice bigotry much? You're an America hater? Fine, hate me. Personally, I'm not "typical". I've been badmouthing and arguing America's worst practices for a long time - 20 years plus.

Meanwhile, will you deny that the Taliban are a bunch of religious zealots? Will you deny that the Moslem extremists sometimes make irrational moves? Are you implying that those same Moslem extremists represent all the rest of the world outside of the US/UK/British Commonwealth?

BTW - you have rather limited scope in your diatribe. The butchery, abuse, and exploitation have been going on for CENTURIES, not mere decades. Of course, that is not a purely one-way street. There has been plenty of butchery, abuse, and exploitation to go around for all races, nationalities, religions, or whatever other division you wish to classify humanity by.

I stand by my assertion: if the religious zealots in Pakistan get hold of those nukes, the apocalypse COULD BE as near as a year away. Not "has to be" or "will be", and not necessarily "likely to be", but COULD BE. Religious nuts are dangerous, whether they be Christian, Jew, Moslem, or whatever. They ALL expect to be rewarded in heaven for whatever atrocities they might perform here on earth.

Now, can you really say that it would be a "GOOD" thing for the Taliban to capture even ONE NUKE?????

Re:Will this help?

[bugi]

I've often wondered, just what role do mosquitoes have in the ecosystem?

Here's another idea for Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

You could focus your research into viral structures by directly modifying disease vector's DNA. Instead of codes being contained within a chain you delegate it to a DNA Registry. This would effectively cripple these pernicious viruses with all kinds of stability issues.

Useless

[matria]

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

[flonker]

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:Useless

[moj0e]

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, this year we did have an outbreak and I got Dengue :/ (very painful). I was actually back in the US before I realized that I had dengue. Anyway, those are my 3 cents (please account for inflation)

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

mosquito A feeds off human 1 picks up a disease, feeds off human 2 & transfers disease.

mosquito B feeds off human 1 picks up a disease but dies before having another chance to feed thereby stopping the spread to humans 3, 4 & 5.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you not noticed any reduction in Fleas because you are still infested? I would say that is a problem of too smaller sample size rather than there being no reduction in flea population.

Re:Useless

[Kelbear]

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.

Re:Useless

[geekoid]

Since it works, clearly there is a reduction in flea population. Not much overall, but 100% reduction in my house.

"I have had a couple of really sick animals as a result of the treatment before I gave it up, though."

IS there any studies showing a causation here?

Problem

[__aarvde6843]

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

[Your.Master]

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

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.

Re:Problem

[__aarvde6843]

You are totally right.

The worst-case scenario would be for the mosquitoes to quickly develop immunity over the "poisonous" blood.

Re:Problem

[JordanL]

I think the worst case scenario is somewhere around here

Re:Problem

[perryizgr8]

i think only people who are infected will need to be vaccinated for this to work. and thet won't be difficult at all. here dengue is a big concern but still there are only about 5 cases annually.

Re:Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone turns into nigh immortal supermen? What's the down side?

The Giving Plague

[Kaseijin]

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

Hey, altruism is serious business.

Re:The Giving Plague

[CarpetShark]

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

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."

Re:The Giving Plague

[shawse]

A good reading of the story can be found @ EscapePod.

Re:The Giving Plague

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

What a legacy. You might think he had invented dynamite or such.

Re:The Giving Plague

[xp]

Um. I think I'll wait for version 3 of this vaccine.
--
Slow Poke

Re:The Giving Plague

[Hurricane78]

3.11 to be exact. And for Workgroups too.

Re:The Giving Plague

[Adriax]

Wouldn't the workgroups version just make it easier to transmit the vaccine to others?
Only way to easily do it would be via bite...

Holyshit, gates is working on the zombie virus!

Re:The Giving Plague

[Randle_Revar]

That was the first thing I thought of.

Re:The Giving Plague

[ElectricRook]

What I don't understand, is how "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" sponsoring NPR programs helps in the goal to "solve malaria".

Re:The Giving Plague

[grcumb]

Wouldn't the workgroups version just make it easier to transmit the vaccine to others?

Only locally. Version 3.11 isn't routable.

Autism?

[kramulous]

This one will definitely cause autism.

Quick! Develop it but don't dare use it!

Can please have the one that does protect?

[syousef]

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:Can please have the one that does protect?

[maccallr]

Add to that the widespread distrust of Western medicine in many parts of the world and you'll have big problems getting the take-up you need.

In Australia, however, it might work (there have been some dengue outbreaks there).

Re:Can please have the one that does protect?

[maxume]

Well, what if that vaccine is 50 times harder to develop, or is less effective?

I don't see where the poison blood stuff is even coming from, the summary writer is reading the article differently than I am or maybe the link was switched out. It isn't a terrible inference to make from the posted article, but there are lots of other things that could be done (and it sounds pretty far out on the edge of vaccine research, not like something that is being 'developed for use').

Re:Can please have the one that does protect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Live polio vaccine is arguably more dangerous (more likely to cause side effects) than the alternative, but it can creates secondary immunity in people you are in close contact with. This is not very different. The public health approach is better for the individual when executed effectively sometimes.

The reason malaria does kill people in Florida, is the "right" mosquito is not there. So, I don't see how attacking the vector isn't a good solution sometimes.

Even if we had a vaccine. This is clearly a good vector. We should weaken this vector while minimizing ecological damage. Its only common sense. Other diseases could use this vector.
Human biomass is increasing. We are an excellent habitat for some creatures.

Re:Can please have the one that does protect?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this incentive: if you don't accept the altruistric vaccine, then you're deported to an island with everyone else who refused it.

Re:Can please have the one that does protect?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Well, look at it this way. Even though it doesn't directly protect you, you kill the mosquito that gave it to you, and any others that try to feed off you. Heck, I'd get this vaccine in Maine (where no such diseases circulate) just to get even with the little bloodsuckers. *Insert Evil Laugh Here*

Re:Can please have the one that does protect?

[geekoid]

SUre, but they isn't possible now, and may not be possible.

OTOH, if people have this, then you are protected becasue the mosquitoes can't pass it to you.
fewer people have it and the risk is lower.

Re:Can please have the one that does protect?

[datababe72]

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 painful disease and one that causes a lot of harm in the regions of the world in which it is endemic. So a new approach is worth looking into.

Teh horrors!

[Yeti.SSM]

Won't anybody think of the mosquitoes?

Wasn't there a Stargate episode like this?

[michaelmanus]

Oh yeah - Poisoning the Well.
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...

Re:Wasn't there a Stargate episode like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you're not alone .-p

Re:Wasn't there a Stargate episode like this?

[Ginger Unicorn]

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...

Re:Wasn't there a Stargate episode like this?

[Q-Hack!]

The real question is... How will they vote, once its discovered that the vaccine starts killing off half the population?

Re:Wasn't there a Stargate episode like this?

[anotheregomaniac]

And it just made them angry so they started wiping out any humans throughout the galaxy that might have been inoculated. Aren't mosquitoes already angry enough?

Antitrust Vaccine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I misread that.

I hope it can be mixed in food

[iamacat]

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.

Re:I hope it can be mixed in food

[Gerafix]

Humans are animals so saying there are more animal hosts than animals is silly. /pedantic

YIDRC

[maccallr]

From http://www.grandchallenges.org/Explorations/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Initial grants of $100,000 are awarded two times a year. Successful projects have the opportunity to receive a follow-on grant of $1 million or more.

Repercussions?

[grasshoppa]

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:Repercussions?

[meuhlavache]

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?

[Thiez]

> 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.

Re:Repercussions?

[jameskojiro]

Bah, even if we kill off all insects, as long as we don't kill off the roundworms they evolved from they will eventually return anyways.

Little buggers are really hard to kill, has there ever been a insect that has gone extinct due to humans?

Re:Repercussions?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my first thought. Turn my blood into a poison? WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

Re:Repercussions?

[geekoid]

I don't know what is more stupid, your post of the fact you got modded 5 interesting.

If you are actually terrified of someone doing research in a new way to stop a disease, you need profession psychiatric help.

"This approach is dangerous."
What.The.Fuck. does that mean? it's research. He is seeing if his theory holds water. He isn't just slapping crap together and injecting people with it.

I read post like yours and wonder if you are thankful that the people that help advance civilization didn't force your luddite ancestors to stay in the trees.

Re:Repercussions?

[meuhlavache]

Lot of insects are endangered due, in lot of case, to humans, especially those exposed to wildfire.
If those vaccin have some unforeseen effects on mosquitoes this would be catastrophic!

What next? Kill birds because they shit on us?

Re:Repercussions?

[HTH NE1]

Little buggers are really hard to kill

And there's nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito.

Re:Repercussions?

[grasshoppa]

At what point did I say this research shouldn't continue? Any sane person would be scared of this approach; there are simply too many variables for us to track reliably.

The approach they are taking IS dangerous. Maybe it'll pan out, and maybe it won't, but to dismiss it entirely would be to ignore vast amounts of data we have regarding bad science being done.

Try removing the stick from your ass and actually comprehending a post.

Way to go Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates Foundation budget: US$800M
This story: US$100K
------------------------
There's another 8000 possible headline stories!

(more seriously, US$100K is objectively a drop in an ocean. In medical science, if you stretch it, you can probably fund ONE grad student for 2 years with it.)

More on "altruistic vaccination"

[Eukariote]

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

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[Abcd1234]

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 vaccinations.

You might... if you actually had evidence backing your assertion.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[drinkypoo]

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 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.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[Abcd1234]

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.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[swillden]

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

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[Eukariote]

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 endemic corruption of the medical publishing industry (take for example the fake peer-reviewed journal set up by Elservier for Merck), all medical studies should be viewed with suspicion.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[drinkypoo]

Sorry, that study will take twenty years and twenty million dollars. Make checks payable to...

P.S. The American Medican Association is not to be trusted. Only 15-19% of America's physicians even belong to the thing.

When allopathic medicine chased off naturopathic medicine the two were roughly equally effective at combating illness. The AMA was the champion of the first; the second had no champion, and is now mostly lost to us in the West. Unfortunately, the best approach is probably some combination of the two; naturopathic for prevention and maintenance, and allopathic for insult.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[ChromeAeonium]

How did such anti-science drivel get modded up on Slashdot? Listen, unless you count the made up ones, there is no connection between vaccines and the disease of the day. Wakefield, the vaccines cause autism guy, fabricated data. No other well done study ever, and I mean ever, found a link. We dropped the supposed cause, and nothing happened. So now people claim something else causes disease, like aluminum or formaldehyde or antifreeze (which isn't even in vaccines). Science is not about continuously shifting the hypothesis to fit an a priori bias, but that's what the pro-disease/anti-vaccine folks are doing. also, there is no global conspiracy to be evil by making you healthy, and when people start thinking that, guess what happens? Polio comes back after being on the edge of being wiped out. Don't believe me, look it up, some imans declared that vaccines were a western plot, polio came back, and it happens everywhere. Look at measles in the UK.
 
Just because you don't understand science doesn't mean its out to get you. Vaccine denialism is scientific illiteracy at this point, and not only that, but it is dangerous. It is pretty well documented that decline in immunization rates correlates with a rise in disease outbreaks, and by not vaccination you put everyone at risk. And all over some imaginary fears? Carl Sagan was right when he said that an unscientific population living in a scientific world is a recipe for disaster.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[ChromeAeonium]

The mercury-autism thing was pulled directly out of Wakefield's ass.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[ChromeAeonium]

Natural fallacy medicine and conventional medicine were roughly equivalent because, before the scientific method was used, they were both based on superstition. Actually, natural medicine worked better because conventional was actually harmful back then, and a placebo is better than a poison. Now that they're based on science, natural fallacy medicine is fairly useless. That's not to say that herbs or whatever can't have an effect, but they have varied levels of the active ingredient along with other compounds, hence the reason we purify them and package it as real medicine (like aspirin, made from willow bark compounds). No surprise, life didn't suddenly decide to spend the past couple million years evolving to be medicine. Say, speaking of the scientific method, have you ever noticed any non-'allopathic' (a bullshit term for medicine with a measurable effect, by the way) adapt when new scientific data come in? Have you ever seen an alternate medicine discredited by its practitioners? Science works, superstition doesn't.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Let me see if I get your argument:

1. Constant exposure to environmental mercury for ones entire childhood increase the risk of autism by a small amount
2. Therefore any amount of mercury, no matter how small, in intermittent injections, must be a cause of autism
3. Despite no correlation being found in any study, it must be the vaccines
4. Even though we have been progressively removing mercury from all vaccines but the flu shot for the past decade or so, and autism rates continued to rise, it's still the vaccines

Why latch on to vaccines? There are a number of things we could be doing to reduce mercury exposure, in far more significant ways (e.g. better capture of mercury from the industrial processes and power plants that your own study shows to increase autism). Lowering mercury emissions would have a twofold effect: it would reduce exposure in the immediate vicinity, and it would reduce the level of mercury in the food chain, and therefore in our diet. Given that we've already removed mercury from every vaccine but the flu shot (which isn't mandatory), you'd think you'd move on to other causes. What fixates you on the vaccines so much?

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[drinkypoo]

Natural fallacy medicine and conventional medicine were roughly equivalent because, before the scientific method was used, they were both based on superstition.

The amusing thing is that the medication part of allopathic medicine is largely based on naturopathic medicine: I've read estimates that as much as 80% of the medication in the USA is either a plant extract or derivative or a synthetic version of the same. But the 25% that comes directly from plants would be compelling all by itself.

If you think that naturopathic practitioners are incapable of learning, there's not much I can do to change your mind, such as it is.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[geekoid]

"Since a lot of people think the whole mercury and autism thing was invented out of whole cloth "

it was, look it up.
There is no, none, zippo evidence there. In one study it showed the opposite:however, unlike the anti-vaccine crowd(i.e. the "We want your kids to die crowd"') it is understood that might be an anomaly.

There is no correlation OR causation between mercury in vaccines and autism. None, What. So. Ever.
When removed from vaccines, the autism rate did not change.

Take your fear monger, lies, and ignorance elsewhere.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[geekoid]

First, to ahve a negative effect fro mercury, it requires either an extremely large dose, or constant contact. neither of which occurs here.

Clearly you know nothing about mercury poisoning.

"Firstly, there are studies that support both the harmless and harmful hypotheses. "
There is no good study that shows any harmful effect. None.
Add to that the rate of autism DID NOT CHANGE after removing mercury; which has been out of most vaccines for quite some time. This has been looked at in many other countries.

SO, there is no know biological way for this to happen, and when removed there was no change in autism rate.
No correlation, no know causation, nothing but ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and fear.

There is not endemic corruption, and all single studies should be viewed with skepticism.
All Studies, every where.

Yes some companies set up a fake paper. Yes it's wrong but that doesn't make it endemic.

You people with no fact, knowledge, and lak of understanding about how to review a study are KILLING CHILDREN.

Don't even think about playing the 'Big Pharma' card.
There fucking bastards in the anti-vaccine crowd are well funded as well, lie on papers, spout ignorance, refuse to believe clear evidence, and when shown to be wrng fall back on ad homs instead of sshow evidence.

What they do is cherry pick, or back none blinded studies.
Hell when they where involved in a study that clearly showed they where wrong, they backed out and fought to have there name removed.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[swillden]

Sorry, that study will take twenty years and twenty million dollars. Make checks payable to...

Bullshit. Your attempt to avoid the question is as lame as it is transparent.

Data on vaccine thimerosal content is freely available, as are statistics on childhood innoculation rates and autism diagnoses. If thimerosal causes autism when given to young children, then not injecting thimerosal into kids should reduce autism. If autism continues to increase, then there's some other effect at work, which seriously brings into question whether or not thimerosal ever made any contribution. If it did, the effect was clearly small and dominated by something else.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[swillden]

If you think that naturopathic practitioners are incapable of learning, there's not much I can do to change your mind, such as it is.

Sure there is. Provide some evidence that it has happened. Show a naturopathic practice that was once widely used, then found to be ineffective and therfore discarded.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[Mal-2]

> Show a naturopathic practice that was once widely used, then found to be ineffective and therfore discarded.

Bloodletting.

Mal-2

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[Eukariote]

Oh my, such venom and so many broad sweeping statements without data to back it up. Let's get specific. The following study shows that thimerosal is metabolized to inorganic mercury: "Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, et al. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed to methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environ Health Perspect 2005;113:1015-1021." Therefore, toxicity data for inorganic mercury is relevant.

The following paper reports on a fivefold fetal death rate on Thimerosal exposure: "Itoi M, Ishii Y, Kaneko N. Teratogenicities of antiviral ophthalmics on experimental animals. Jpn J Clin Ophthal 1972;26:631-640."

One of the effects is decreased fertility: "Goncharuk GA. Experimental investigation of the effect of organomercury pesticides on generative function and on progeny. Hyg Sanit 1971;36:40-44."

I suggest you watch the video of the presentation I linked before, rather more references are given there.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloodletting isn't naturopathic, genius. It's a great example of the big ebil real medicine adapting via the scientific method.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[swillden]

> Show a naturopathic practice that was once widely used, then found to be ineffective and therfore discarded.

Bloodletting.

I've never heard of bloodletting as a "naturopathic" remedy. As far as I can tell, it was a "scientific" remedy, based on the ancient Greek theory of "humours". Science showed it invalid and abandoned it in the late 19th century.

Do you have some evidence that it was used by naturopaths after medical science abandoned it?

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[Abcd1234]

And yet, none of this matters because, once again, autism rates haven't declined in the wake of the removal of thimerosol. Period. That's the nut of it, and you've danced around that fact once again.

Is it possible thimerosol may have had other unpleasant side-effects? Perhaps. I don't know. But it doesn't matter, because the issue at hand is the link between vaccines and autism, a link that clearly does not exist, based both on experimental study and real-world experience.

Re:More on "altruistic vaccination"

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe everything you read, you shouldn't read. I could post links to stuff like studies showing that the theomirsal scare was bullshit (surprise, when someone makes something up on the spot, odds are it's wrong), but instead I'll just post this and this because they have all the citations at the bottom. It isn't worth the time to post anything else because vaccine fear makes about as much sense a germ theory of disease denialism at this point.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[DNS-and-BIND]

"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

Lets call this

[Anonymous Coward]

Service Pack 2.

maybe not so dangerous as it seems

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this idea is as dangerous as it seems. Killing or disabling the mosquitoes to pass on dengue fever is not an act meant to kill the population of mosquitoes but rather to kill or disable the ones who has the disease.

However with any vaccine comes there is danger of evolving the disease, hurting the one getting the vaccine, and this case we have the added risk of hurting the mosquito population.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Anonymous Coward]

"When I ask how to use Unicode, they call me an ignorant"

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Ihlosi]

"In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, ..."

A whole two of them.

For 100k?!

[nitroyogi]

This looks like a moderately expensive PR campaign by Gates Foundation!

Nothing much here.

Re:Antitrust Vaccine? MODDY UPWARDS

[Anonymous Coward]

OLOLOLOLOLOL!!!1 :DDD

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[mokus000]

If everyone that expects the government to make everyone do something good just did that good thing themselves, I wonder where we'd be.

(I'm serious. For some reason when I say stuff like this people seem to think I'm being sarcastic.)

what? no?

[nimbius]

iamlegend tags??? no T-Virus tags?!?! am i on slashdot or has the zombie uprising already begun?

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[JasterBobaMereel]

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

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[inca34]

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
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225126&title=the-stockholm-syndrome-pt.-2

I wonder if that will harm humanity more

[WindBourne]

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 instead survive. This may slow the evolution of man while other species continue.

Re:I wonder if that will harm humanity more

[Gerafix]

With such a large population if Homo sapien was really concerned about "slow evolution" then our species has the ability to introduce artificial genetic drift. If it was a problem, build a space colony, send up lots of smart people and keep them completely separate from Earth. Let them build their own culture, language, etc. Smaller populations generally "evolve faster". Although I suppose they would be space faring post-Homo sapien, which is pretty cool anyway in my book.

Re:I wonder if that will harm humanity more

[geekoid]

"I am guessing that these are helping to transform us slowly across time."

What the hell does that even mean?

You do not really understand evolution.

It's not a race, it's not a goal, it's not a path, or a trees. At best it can be described as a chaotic bush.

Re:I wonder if that will harm humanity more

[Bowling Moses]

Maybe not. Host:pathogen interaction is already pretty tricky, which is why it's a big deal when you get something that jumps the species barrier (even the name's suggestive). Now you're going vector:pathogen:host which makes it much more complicated. Some mosquitoes are vectors of some diseases, some are vectors for others. The mosquito we use in my lab, Aedes aegypti, can carry the dengue fever virus, yellow fever virus, and chikungunya virus, but not the malaria pathogen (a protozoan, not a virus).

Mosquito proof houses

[Anonymous Coward]

Some belive in mosquito proof houses. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_ewald_asks_can_we_domesticate_germs.html

Messing with Nature

[whisper_jeff]

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 environment as predators/prey habits change? No. Do we know how this very simple little poison will impact nature, on a much larger scale? No.

And, if anyone thinks that such a small thing cannot possibly have a drastic effect on nature, I recommend you look up the impact that the simple introduction of rabbits to Australia had on the entire continent. 24 rabbits and a continent has been devastated, to put it mildly. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia )

If we can't see the long term impact that something is going to have on nature, we should stop fucking with it. To me, this is such a horribly bad idea...

Re:Messing with Nature

[geekoid]

Do you dislike when ants create a new hole becasue they are messing with nature?

They fact that they are smarter then you might mean you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

"evolution takes over. "
ah, clearly you don't know what evolution is.
Or studies. and you didn't read the article.

Australia is devastated? what, a lone cop fighting off Mohawked evil doers is all that's left?

Yeah, it's a problem, but watch the hyperbole

Go back and live in the trees, moron.

Re:Messing with Nature

[FooRat]

Yes we seldom put enough thought into what we do, but on the other hand, it's how we learn. Rabbits in Australia were a disaster, but we learned a lot.

Emerging Market?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously it's a cruel scheme to keep those poor third worlders alive so he can torture them to death with Windows.

Hey! Good idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

What if antivirus programs did the same: not really avoiding virus but rather allowing for an efficient avoidance of transmission?

I'd like this to... heh, wait a minute... !

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Anonymous Coward]

"In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, ..."

A whole two of them.

What that US and Canada?! (When I came to the US first time I was amused to seeing little companies with "Global Head Quarters" where the globe would be composed of US and Canada! :)

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[drsquare]

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.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Anonymous Coward]

That was just a typo. It should've been 'counties' instead of 'countries'.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Reality Master 201]

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.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[b0r0din]

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

100k is peanuts

[gweihir]

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.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Anonymous Coward]

But but but, they're the Founding Fathers!

People have to burn joss sticks to them, or they'll come down and smite us all!

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[mike2R]

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:

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 or not notes have legal tender status, their acceptability as a means of payment is essentially a matter for agreement between the parties involved. Legal tender has a very narrow technical meaning in relation to the settlement of debt. If a debtor pays in legal tender the exact amount he owes under the terms of a contract, he has good defence in law if he is subsequently sued for non-payment of the debt. In ordinary everyday transactions, the term 'legal tender' has very little practical application.

bad idea

[wstrucke]

Isn't this exactly what humans did to the wraith on stargate atlantis?

We all know how that turned out.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Reality Master 201]

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:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

"poisonous to mosquitoes"

[bcsix]

Why not just drive mosquitoes to extinction?

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

And yet they risked it all by committing treason against the Crown. Had the colonies lost their war of independence, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, et al would have been hanged or shot for their actions. Seems your American history classes must have left that out (or you willfully chose to ignore it)

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[mellestad]

Which is why Sweden has such a huge problem with poverty?

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

The negative people are out in force this morning! Is it because it involves Bill Gates? An exploratory grant of 100k can be the difference between a project failing and sticking around for a major advance, and then it can get full funding. And for everyone whining about how useless the whole idea is....how many of you are lead researchers in this field? I am guessing....zero.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[gtall]

Ben was also ambassador to France...well, given the stories, it appears he was more ambassador to French women, but officially it was to all of France. About 20,000 attended his funeral, no word on how many were French women.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[geekoid]

England, Scotland, France, Ireland, States which were independent countries at the time.
Also, it wasn't like he flew to these countries, he had to travel over land and water; which mean he say a lot of people and country side.

Possible more countries, those are just the ones that came to mind.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[forgot_my_username]

Yeah...Yeah... but my favorite franklin story and quote goes like this:

French lady: Sir! What would you say if you saw that belly on a french woman?!

Franklin: Madam, what would you say if I told you that not half an hour ago it was!

cue drums... badda boom!

-----------------signature-----------------
Where is that ****ing signature file...
refinancing

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[geekoid]

SO they were separate countries, just like the original poster said.

Also he went to France and Ireland.

Re:what? no?

[geekoid]

No, there is no Zombie uprising. what are you, crazy...now bring that delicious brain over here, I got a secret to tell you.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Reality Master 201]

Well, one, states aren't countries and vice versa - they're still separate countries, but part of a single state. Second, they unified 1-2 years after Franklin was born, so it doesn't really count.

Form of vaccine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the vaccine take the form of a sticky clear fluid you rub on the back of your neck?

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[SwordsmanLuke]

Um...kay. Or it was just assumed that everyone understood that because it's bloody obvious.

Whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[Anonymous Coward]

what? no "Whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag?

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[againjj]

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.

Stop. You're making me cry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, other stuff is transmitted by mosquitoes. Malaria. Yellow fever. Stuff like that.

If mosquitoes are discouraged from biting humans, I'm all for it.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Attila Dimedici]

That is certainly a valid argument. However, there are other people who believe that the success of the Founding Fathers owes a lot to the differences between their thinking and that of the French Revolutionaries. One could make the argument that part of the reason that the French local government was destroyed was because of some of the differences in viewpoint of the French Revolutionaries (I don't think I would want to make that point, but I would, also, at this point, not want to argue against it).

Its not an altruism vaccine its a vengence vaccine

[random coward]

And I want it! I want every mosquito that bites me to die. I want vengeance on those nasty mosquitoes. Don't keep it only to the third world. I want it now! I want evolution to work to my advantage so that those vermin evolve to not bite people! Faster please!

Gates... who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates... wasn't that the guy who created some weird environment that caused the proliferation of rampant viruses world wide? All sorts of disasters, economic loss, etc. Guaranteed safe, as long as you didn't use it or know anyone who did... I think it was called Windows.

Safety Dance

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally someone has devised a way to protect the innocent U.S. Americans from dangerous altruism.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Ihlosi]

England, Scotland, France, Ireland, States which were independent countries at the time.

The quote is from 1766. Benjamin Franklin didn't visit France until one year later.

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Ihlosi]

Ben was also ambassador to France...

Yes. But that was a decade after the quote in question (which is from 1766).

Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th

[Ihlosi]

England, Scotland, France, Ireland, States which were independent countries at the time.

The quote is from 1766. Franklin visited France for the first time in 1767, and Ireland in 1771.