Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chemical Cocktail Can Keep a Heart Viable 10 Days, Outside the Body

Posted by timothy on from the with-very-few-exceptions-not-a-worm dept.

nj_peeps writes "Harvard professor Hemant Thatte has developed a cocktail of 21 chemical compounds that he calls Somah, derived from the Sanskrit for 'ambrosia of rejuvenation.' Using Somah, Thatte and his team have accomplished some amazing feats with pig hearts. They can keep the organ viable for transplant up to 10 days after harvest — far longer than the four-hour limit seen in hospitals today. Not only that, but using low temperatures and Somah, they were able to take a pig heart that was removed post mortem and get it to beat 24 hours later in the lab."

74 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Good morning... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Doctor Livingst... errr...Frankenstein I presume?

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    1. Re:Good morning... by Bieeanda · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's Fronken-shteen, you insensitive clod!

  2. As a biologist let me say... by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Neato. If this could be applied to human hearts, this could significantly open the options organ recipients have to save their lives. Perhaps even expand what kind of medical procedures that could be done on the human heart that may be limited by how long the heart can be kept viable outside the body.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:As a biologist let me say... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neato. If this could be applied to human hearts, this could significantly open the options organ recipients have to save their lives.

      I'm more interested in how this will effect the international market for organs.
      Usually you have to go there, or the donor has to come here.
      But if this translates to human physiology, organ trafficking will become a real problem.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:As a biologist let me say... by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And faster cars make it easier for criminals to get away from crime scenes.
      And cash make it easier for criminals to hide their tracks.
      And RFID embedded into the underside of the skull at birth would make it easier to track down criminals later in life.

      A lot of the technology we have available or will develop in the foreseeable future has the potential to be used in bad ways. That doesn't mean we should stop developing them.

    3. Re:As a biologist let me say... by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean we shouldn't also think about the bad side. I don't want to see rich countries buying organs from poorer countries, especially if those organs belonged to someone who died from a poverty related illness.

      But they can make a law against that. Woot! The most important thing is that this is going to be great and save lots of lives!
      That is if it works, they haven't put it back inside a pig and got it working yet, have they?

      --
      it's under construction
    4. Re:As a biologist let me say... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm more interested in how this will effect the international market for organs.
      Usually you have to go there, or the donor has to come here.

      That's not strictly true. The donor only has to be shipped to Mexico, say, for their organs to be used in the USA. So the "donors" can be shipped to a place with a low value on human life (the reasons for this reduced valuation are another conversation) and broken down for parts there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:As a biologist let me say... by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't want to see rich countries buying organs from poorer countries, especially if those organs belonged to someone who died from a poverty related illness. But they can make a law against that.

      If someone dies from poverty all the more reason to give a windfall to their family so that maybe they won't have to die too. "Making a law" would drive up prices, but mostly for the middlemen, who as criminals would be more ruthless in exploiting donors or in creatively sourcing organs through murder.

    6. Re:As a biologist let me say... by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

      If a life in the western world is saved every time someone in the rest of the world dies then what motivation do we have for helping them?
      It's inhuman and it suggests that our lives are somehow worth more because we can afford to pay for them.
      Not to mention the price would be as low as the market could stand, and that would be pretty low.
      If someone is starving and you offer them money to do something, that's the same as pointing a gun at their head. It's a joke to call it a choice.

      --
      it's under construction
    7. Re:As a biologist let me say... by lessthan · · Score: 1
      This isn't what you meant, but, technically, if I have more money than you, then I am worth more... Of course, I understand that "human life is precious" etc.

      If someone is starving and you offer them money to do something, that's the same as pointing a gun at their head

      You may not see it as a choice, but it is a choice. Would they make the right choice? Probably not. Doesn't mean that it isn't a choice.

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    8. Re:As a biologist let me say... by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

      Two arguments over semantics there.

      Yes you could say if someone held a gun to your head you had the choice to die or to do what they said.. but that would never hold up in court or under moral scrutiny and you know it.
      So why not address my points instead of meandering around the dictionary definitions of "Choice" and "Worth"

      --
      it's under construction
    9. Re:As a biologist let me say... by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      ...those organs belonged to someone who died from having their organs harvested.

      FTFY.

      --
      404: sig not found.
    10. Re:As a biologist let me say... by lessthan · · Score: 1

      Okay. You argue that this drug will make the third world our personal organ bank. After that happens, why would we send aid that might cut off our precious, precious supply of organs? The argument is silly, because organ recipients and those that do charity are not groups that overlap significantly. Why should one affect the other?

      There is already an organ market. It is illegal almost everywhere, but it still exists. This has not caused us to stop sending aid to places that need it.

      Talking about moral implications is boring. It is always the same. Yes, evil will do evil. Bad people will always treat the less fortunate as commodities. How is that new or different?

      --
      Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    11. Re:As a biologist let me say... by sjames · · Score: 1

      When the "choice" is do X or die, it's not really a choice. That's why you can't rob someone at gunpoint and claim it was a voluntary donation. If the 'gun' is extreme poverty and you are not somehow responsible for that poverty, you are in a slightly better moral position but in general society doesn't look favorably on taking excessive advantage of the misfortunes of others.

    12. Re:As a biologist let me say... by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

      I did not argue that. I didn't argue any of those things.
      All I said was this would be a possibility if we weren't vigilant.
      I agree it's ridiculous to worry about progress in case someone runs the wrong way with something.. but all that stops anyone from doing that is us being concerned about it. Look at the extra steps goggle have taken towards privacy this week... all because so many people are incredibly paranoid about 1984, and right to be, because it is 1984 in countries like China (where they're not allowed to read 1984 anyway!)
      But I don't think that will ever happen to us without violent oppression, because everyone is too educated about it and to terrified of it.


      Sorry that's off topic, but my point is, how unlikely these things are is irrelevant, what matters is that they're possible. And everything possible we need to watch out for, because a lot of horrible things are already going on in the world and lets not ad to that!

      --
      it's under construction
  3. Great. What's in it? by Valacosa · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe I fail at reading this late, but TFA didn't say what was in the stuff. Is this cocktail made of proteins? Inorganic compounds? "21 chemicals" sounds like "11 herbs and spices": marketing speak which doesn't actually say very much.

    Also, I couldn't help but notice this:

    o better understand if and how Somah preserved a heart, Thatte and his group harvested two female pig hearts and placed them in two different containers.

    Why would the gender of the heart donors matter?

    --
    "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    1. Re:Great. What's in it? by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would the gender of the heart donors matter?

      The question is, why wouldn't it? Do you know? I don't. Are you saying scientists should be less observant, record fewer details, ignore more facts? You might as well ask "Why bother mentioning that they were pig hearts, what would it matter?"

      Are you offended at the obvious sexism inherent in the selection of two female pig hearts? Bothered by the fact that reality may not be politically correct?

    2. Re:Great. What's in it? by trapnest · · Score: 1

      How is that sexism?

    3. Re:Great. What's in it? by Zebai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would imagine commercial interests? They may want to keep such things hidden from other research teams until they are themselves published or secured patents?

      One can also never rule out intentional hype prior to proven facts. Like this liquid i have here with 500 compounds in it, I neglect to mention all the rocks and dirt i just threw into a glass of water.

    4. Re:Great. What's in it? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Great. What's in it?

      Neck juice, you insensitive clod.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    5. Re:Great. What's in it? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Because Miss Piggy spent all her time thinking of Kermit?

    6. Re:Great. What's in it? by Valacosa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, way to read into my post, dude.

      Something most Slashdotters probably know is that science journalism is very derivative. Since a lot of journalists don't know squat about science, most of them just end up regurgitating stuff. Sometimes random irrelevant facts are added, sometimes important information is stripped out. Mentioning that both hearts are from sows without mentioning why seems strange. There could be a reason why, or it could have just been an extraneous fact that was included..

      Now, the sentence from TFA ("Thatte and his group harvested two female pig hearts and placed them in two different containers.") is very similar to a sentence in a cited source here ("The researchers harvested hearts from female pigs, stored them in one of the two solutions, then biopsied them at several points over the next four hours.") Was there an original story somewhere that said why sow hearts were preferable, or was it just a random detail that someone added without context? Unfortunately, I can't access what appears to be the original paper at the moment to find out either way.

      I have been paid to work in a research lab. I have also been paid to work for a newspaper. The interaction between science and the media fascinates me. And in my experience, there's a lot of truth to this comic.

      Why would the gender of the heart donors matter?

      The question is, why wouldn't it? Do you know? I don't.

      Yeah, I'm hoping for a response from someone who does know. Thanks for making gross, incorrect assumptions about me, though.

      --
      "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    7. Re:Great. What's in it? by RabbitWho · · Score: 1

      Men have bigger hearts... just physically, not metaphorically.
      There's a physical difference between male and female hearts, so they had to choose one or the other for consistency. It's probably interesting for some scientist or pig farmer somewhere to know which they chose.

      --
      it's under construction
    8. Re:Great. What's in it? by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      I'm speaking from imperfect memory, but, if you google 'grender-specific drug reactions', you'll find that differences in male/female metabolism are a concern. I remember that a decade or so ago it was discovered that certain widespread pain-killers were almost ineffective in women. The drug testing had been carried out only on male subjects, assuming that gender would have no difference on the outcome. I could look up references, but do your own research.

    9. Re:Great. What's in it? by GNious · · Score: 1

      [...]Thanks for making gross, incorrect assumptions about me, though.

      You must be new here

      (sorry)

    10. Re:Great. What's in it? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      whoosh!

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    11. Re:Great. What's in it? by sjames · · Score: 1

      sounds like "11 herbs and spices": marketing speak which doesn't actually say very much.

      Heart safe fried chicken at last!

  4. Another overblown statements in TFS today... by sznupi · · Score: 1

    First it's "inconceivable" that Acer will announce anything other than netbook, as their device for ChromeOS.

    Now...this...

    Science fiction is fraught with mad scientists who discover strange chemicals that can empower the human body or even reanimate the dead. Well, Harvard has come about as close to that scenario as anyone would want them to.

    We're nowhere near close, even with the cocktail from TFA. We should strive to be able of calmly taking a body involved in an accident (assuming neural system is almost undamaged), at first mostly to preserve it in appropriate state; repairing it (no rush) and "reanimating" at the end. Heck, why something so simple as decapitation or even total blood loss should be fatal?

    As a benchmark, we should strive towards the ability to reconstruct hot chicks only from part of their arm! ;)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:Another overblown statements in TFS today... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Funny

      "As a benchmark, we should strive towards the ability to reconstruct hot chicks only from part of their arm! ;)"

      I'm with you. They have two arms, so you could potentially end up with two hot chicks!

    2. Re:Another overblown statements in TFS today... by Protoslo · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a pretty tremendous advance, though it may apply just to the heart, which is unique among commonly transplanted organs in being a muscle. TFA is (predictably) not very clear on that issue.

      For my part, we will be "as close to [reanimation] as anyone would want" when we have advanced far beyond "reconstructing hot chicks from only part of their arm." That would only be cloning; screw that, we will certainly be there within a few decades. If we could reanimate (recently) brain-dead people and actually recover their full neurological function, that would be something to brag about. Right now, if your heart stops beating for five minutes, you're toast. We may be able to get your heart working again, but that isn't going to help anyone but the people your organs are donated to.

    3. Re:Another overblown statements in TFS today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You should have n^2 hot chicks! Just rinse and repeat.

    4. Re:Another overblown statements in TFS today... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the original, now armless chick.

    5. Re:Another overblown statements in TFS today... by phantomcircuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You should have n^2 hot chicks! Just rinse and repeat.

    6. Re:Another overblown statements in TFS today... by Admiral+Justin · · Score: 1

      But we need to make sure that if the new hot chick wants to travel, they have a pass that suits multiple purposes.

      Like some sort of Multi-pass.

      --
      You will be baked, and there will be cake.
  5. SO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    How does this affect bacon?

    Because that's what's really important.

    Bacon.

  6. THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN! by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    As Stephen King once claimed, "I seem monstrous to some, but I have the heart of a child.

    I keep it in a jar, on my desk..."

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN! by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      As Stephen King once claimed

      Just to maintain the high standards of Slashdot pedantry, it was Robert Bloch. Wonderful horror author, too bad people are starting to forget him.

    2. Re:THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN! by Chuk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Robert Bloch said it first.

      --
      chuk
  7. Re:Finally! by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    I think you're confusing it with the other soma.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  8. As a mad scientist let me say... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Lovely..

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:As a mad scientist let me say... by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new neck juice marinating overlords.

  9. Bad news for Chev Chelios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They've got me strawberry tart!

  10. What about chicken hearts? by sharkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    The chicken heart was kept alive, in a laboratory in a vat. Special solution: half blood, half sodium-salycilate.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:What about chicken hearts? by aastanna · · Score: 1

      Time to start smearing that jello.

    2. Re:What about chicken hearts? by anvilmark · · Score: 1

      So you're saying New York City isn't safe?

  11. Here's what's in it by Yergle143 · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the paper it's a modification of something called GALA solution.
    Compenent mmol/L g/L
    Distilled water, L 1.00
    Calcium chloride 1.30 0.191
    Potassium chloride 7.00 0.522
    Potassium phosphate (monobasic) 0.44 0.060
    Magnesium chloride (hexahydrate) 0.50 0.101
    Magnesium sulfate (heptahydrate) 0.50 0.123
    Sodium chloride 125.00 7.31
    Sodium bicarbonate 5.00 0.420
    Sodium phosphate (dibasic; heptahydrate) 0.19 0.05
    d-Glucose 11.00 1.982
    Glutathione (reduced) 1.50 0.461
    Ascorbic acid 1.00 0.176
    l-Arginine 5.00 1.073
    l-Citrulline malate 1.00 0.175
    Adenosine 2.00 0.534
    Creatine orotate 0.50 0.274
    Creatine monohydrate 2.00 0.298
    l-Carnosine 10.00 2.26
    l-Carnitine 10.00 2.00
    Dichloroacetate 0.50 0.075
    Insulin 10 mg/mL, mL/L 1.00
    pH is adjusted to 7.5 with sodium bicarbonate or Tris-hydroxymethyl aminomethane at desired temperature.

    Bunch of salts.
    These aren't complex proteinaceous molecules. I am interested in the presence of dichloroacetate because that was the anti-cancer molecule reported
    by slashdot just yesterday.
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/05/13/2117203

    Now all you hackers planning to preserve human hearts don't you use this formula without citing the good Doctor Thatte.
    Please mod me up for my chemical knowhow

    1. Re:Here's what's in it by cameljockey91 · · Score: 1

      Asking for the Karma kind of cheapens it...

      --
      "Human kind cannot bear very much reality" ~T.S. Eliot
    2. Re:Here's what's in it by LightPhoenix7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A bunch of salts... and amino acids, a sugar, a tripeptide, a full on protein, a nucleotide precursor, and organic acid. Not to mention a specific pH and temperature. I suggest improving your chemical know-how before karma whoring. As well all know, karma is a bitch.

    3. Re:Here's what's in it by timothy · · Score: 1, Informative

      Distilled water, Calcium chloride, Potassium chloride, Potassium phosphate (monobasic), Magnesium chloride (hexahydrate), Magnesium sulfate, (heptahydrate), Sodium chloride, Sodium bicarbonate, Sodium phosphate, (dibasic; heptahydrate), d-Glucose, Glutathione (reduced), Ascorbic acid, l-Arginine, l-Citrulline malate, Adenosine, Creatine orotate, Creatine monohydrate, l-Carnosine, l-Carnitine, Dichloroacetate, Insulin ...

      You forgot crushed red pepper, and dill.

       

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    4. Re:Here's what's in it by value_added · · Score: 1

      From the paper it's a modification of something called GALA solution.

      Sounds awful.

      I'd suggest they add garlic, and serve alongside a puree made with celeriac and apple. Or if they insist on using the feet as well, something like juniper berries might work.

    5. Re:Here's what's in it by Valacosa · · Score: 1

      Thanks! That was exactly what I was looking for.

      About the GALA solution, I saw that mentioned on this page -- an unrelated story, but it mentioned Helmant Thatte. Apparently GALA is also his work. You could probably find a link to a research paper from his profile page about it.

      --
      "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    6. Re:Here's what's in it by Yergle143 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Gosh, so sorry. Please please forgive me. It's just that whenever I don't have to assign the resonance frequencies of 5200 atoms in a molecule that wants to crash out if you look at it wrong I consider the molecule somewhat simple. 1200 MW to me is something you can leave on the shelf. If you notice the parent asked about proteins and so I too went in to see if there was some kinase, antibody, polymeric polyprotein, siRNA etc. that was the "secret". Obviously not. This mix is pretty complicated but it's basically a buffered media; far less complicated than that being used to grow mammalian cell culture on the lab bench next to mine. I hope this ends up doing a lot of good. I love simple things. I wish that the answer to cancer was something as completely trivial as dichloroacetate. And it is noticing that constituent in this solution and remembering the /. story yesterday I thought I might bring it to everyone's attention. So please forgive me. I promise that with the Karma for which I've long labored I will henceforth act responsibly. Meanwhile I'm kind of busy so if you could dive into the literature and find out for me if the presence of dichloroacetate is causing the heart tissue in question to switch from glycolysis to oxidative phosphorylation I would be very interested. Cheers.

    7. Re:Here's what's in it by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

      So... how many people are going to be hospitalized with poisoning symptoms after mixing large quantities of this in the hopes of drinking the elixir of immortality?

    8. Re:Here's what's in it by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Informative

      Another NMR guy? What are you working on? I share your pain - did way too much work on PrP for my own sanity, while I was still in academia. Not much fun when 95% precipitates during one experiment... Anyway, you are right, that medium is actually astonishing simple. As for the dichloroacetate, it usually stimulates the PDC, so it should stimulate the aerobic metabolism. It has been shown to protect tissue against ischemic damage (Peeling, et al. Protective effect of dichloroacetate in a rat model of forebrain ischemia. Neuroscience Letters. 1996; 208: 21-24) - so I guess this is its main role in keeping the heart alive in this setup.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    9. Re:Here's what's in it by Yergle143 · · Score: 1

      Integrins. Thanks for the link. That's a pretty intriguing chemical and the possible correlation between mitochondrial metabolism, cancer and apoptosis is what is so interesting to me tonight. Also I'm wondering about NO. Some things in the mix to maybe lower it. Cheers

    10. Re:Here's what's in it by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

      He also left out Sodium benzoate, and the usual allergy warnings; "Lab nut free, however cannot guarantee nut free", etc.

    11. Re:Here's what's in it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Uh... that reads like the ingredients list of instant noodles. Yuck!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Here's what's in it by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Only hearts can pump the fluid through themselves, so I'd imagine it is somewhat limited, but I'm just guessing here.

      That said, the first time I read this headline, I read "...can keep a head viable 10 days outside the body" and imagined something from Futurama....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:Here's what's in it by RockWolf · · Score: 1

      So... how many people are going to be hospitalized with poisoning symptoms after mixing large quantities of this in the hopes of drinking the elixir of immortality?

      Hopefully at least one.

      --
      February 9th, 2009 8:55pm: Slashdot becomes self-aware.
  12. At last the secret fluid from reanimator by physburn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reanimator,

  13. Hydrogen Sulfide by harley78 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Along with research done by Mark Roth with H2S, this could save lots of people.

    1. Re:Hydrogen Sulfide by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Informative

      Along with research done by Mark Roth with H2S, this could save lots of people.

      What's with the mods today? What exactly is redundant about this? Mark Roth is working about suspended animation using controlled oxygen depletion with H2S and CO, work which has shown quite some promise in various animal models. Interesting stuff that is completely on topic. The main problem with suspended animation, be it of whole organisms or of tissues, is oxygen damage. Mark Roth depletes the oxygen in a controlled manner, the work cited in TFA is based on adding dichloroacetate, which has been shown to prevent ischemic damage in tissue. Not sure how the two would complement each other, as I am not much of a metabolism guy. Anyway, someone mod up the parent, that downmod is undeserved.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  14. It's the 21st Century Cure. by benighted83 · · Score: 1

    So why care for these petty obsessions? Your designer heart still beats with common blood! And what if you could have genetic perfection, Would you change who you are, if you could? (Buying Zydrate from an unlicensed source is illegal)

  15. Re:Finally! by Bill+Currie · · Score: 2, Funny

    If it's liquid, it's drinkable. Now, the consequences of drinking it are another matter...

    --

    Bill - aka taniwha
    --
    Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

  16. Bejing Cocktail by dadelbunts · · Score: 2, Funny

    I always told everyone Crank 2 was based on factual events.

    1. Re:Bejing Cocktail by thedbp · · Score: 1

      You're damn right. That movie is a documentary.

  17. Re:Ringer's solution? by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ringer's solution is just Na, Cl, K, Ca in water. Oh, and lactate. So, the only commonality is 4 ions. And not even the same sugar. No, it's nowhere NEAR a tweaked Ringer's solution...

  18. Barbecue season by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Why would the gender of the heart donors matter?

    It may or it may not. But if you state it, other scientists can later choose to run a control to see if it does make a difference.

    The reason is probably something tediously prosaic - like female pigs past their peak breeding age are cheaper, or they just happened to have sows in stock for some other experiment.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. Re:Finally! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Most fluids are drinkable. At the very least once per person.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Blood by cbreak · · Score: 1

    Every time I hear about medical advances, new operations, transplantation, and get all those images into my head, I am happy that I went into computer science... And lose my appetite for a few hours.

  21. Dilbert is like the Science Channel? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    So, one PHB says to another PHB, "Cocktails anyone?".

  22. 2-4-5 Trioxin by thedbp · · Score: 1

    Oh my god they've actually done it. Quick, call the number stenciled on the side of the tank!

    1. Re:2-4-5 Trioxin by DryGrian · · Score: 1

      Return of the Living Dead! This story sounds like the premise to a bad zombie movie.

      --
      For optimal comment enjoyment, take red pill now.
  23. Seems that someone found herbert west archives ;-) by williamyf · · Score: 1

    sig added for the convenience of the slashdot preview filter

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!