Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gates Foundation Funds "Altruistic Vaccine"

Posted by samzenpus on from the needles-with-a-heart dept.

QuantumG writes "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has awarded a $100,000 grant to the University of Queensland, Australia to develop a vaccine against dengue fever, a disease spread by mosquitoes. Unlike other vaccines, the 'altruistic vaccine' doesn't specifically protect the individual being bitten, but instead protects the community by stopping the transmission of the pathogen from one susceptible individual to another. The hope is to do this by effectively making their blood poisonous to mosquitoes, either killing them or at least preventing them from feeding on other individuals. Professor Paul Young explained how his work fell outside current scientific traditions and might lead to significant advances in global health — he said he could envision the vaccine being used around the world within 10 years, and it would be designed to be cheap and easy to implement."

61 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. A vaccine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  2. Is that really enough? by jasonmanley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    http://projectleader.wordpress.com
    1. Re:Is that really enough? by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

    2. Re:Is that really enough? by Elvis77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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????)

      --

      The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed (SK)
    3. Re:Is that really enough? by KibibyteBrain · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    4. Re:Is that really enough? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bill Gates != Microsoft

    5. Re:Is that really enough? by maccallr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Is that really enough? by Massacrifice · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bill Gates != Microsoft

      In VB6, it it might well be!

      --
      -- Home is where you eat your heart out.
    7. Re:Is that really enough? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Is that really enough? by pz · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      I 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.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    9. Re:Is that really enough? by elnyka · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

    10. Re:Is that really enough? by elnyka · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

    11. Re:Is that really enough? by techess · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
    12. Re:Is that really enough? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    13. Re:Is that really enough? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    14. Re:Is that really enough? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  3. And 20 years from now... by Solarhands · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:And 20 years from now... by eugene2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      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.

      --
      Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
    2. Re:And 20 years from now... by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:And 20 years from now... by eugene2k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
    4. Re:And 20 years from now... by oneirophrenos · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

    5. Re:And 20 years from now... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:And 20 years from now... by eugene2k · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      Simple: I misunderstood :)

      --
      Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
    7. Re:And 20 years from now... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just wait until Bill Gates releases those into the audience.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund this? by IAR80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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

    --
    http://ebgp.net/ccc/
  5. Isn't this what governor huey did.. by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    in Distraction?

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

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    1. Re:Isn't this what governor huey did.. by msimm · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      Quack, quack.
    2. Re:Isn't this what governor huey did.. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    3. Re:Isn't this what governor huey did.. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  6. Will this help? by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Will this help? by IAR80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

      --
      http://ebgp.net/ccc/
    2. Re:Will this help? by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      And besides, Sparrows are too cute to kill.

    3. Re:Will this help? by MjDelves · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Will this help? by unlametheweak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Will this help? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    6. Re:Will this help? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  7. Useless by matria · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Useless by flonker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Useless by moj0e · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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)

  8. Problem by __aarvde6843 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Problem by Your.Master · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Problem by JordanL · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think the worst case scenario is somewhere around here

      --
      FanFictionRecs.net
  9. The Giving Plague by Kaseijin · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    Hey, altruism is serious business.

    1. Re:The Giving Plague by xp · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  10. Teh horrors! by Yeti.SSM · · Score: 4, Funny

    Won't anybody think of the mosquitoes?

    --
    R Tape loading error, 0:1
  11. Wasn't there a Stargate episode like this? by michaelmanus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  12. Antitrust Vaccine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, I misread that.

  13. I hope it can be mixed in food by iamacat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  14. YIDRC by maccallr · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

  15. Repercussions? by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Repercussions? by meuhlavache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Repercussions? by Thiez · · Score: 3, Informative

      > 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.

  16. More on "altruistic vaccination" by Eukariote · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

    1. Re:More on "altruistic vaccination" by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  18. Lets call this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Service Pack 2.

  19. Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th by inca34 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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

  20. Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  21. Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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)

  22. Re:Can please have the one that does protect? by datababe72 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  23. Re:Why a 100K would be needed from Bill to fund th by againjj · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.