Viruses can be spooky
www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-end-viral-diseases-with-dracos#/
Mr. Skeltal approves, virus can hurt bones
| |
www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-end-viral-diseases-with-dracos#/
Anonymous comments allowed.
46 comments displayed.
#23 to #21
-
desacabose (10/15/2015) [-] "Local researcher suffers accidental death after getting tangled in plastic and landing in a river after attempting to blow out a candle and setting their research facility and housing on fire"
#1
-
kiaserzerg (10/14/2015) [-] great idea. but, we kinda need viruses and diseases to kill off people. i love the positive thought, but... humans shouldnt be reaching for immortality until after we get off this rock.
#2 to #1
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (10/14/2015) [-] I hope you die of a viral infection that could have been easily prevented.
#6 to #2
-
kiaserzerg (10/14/2015) [-] careful, get any edgier with that bland comeback, Gillette might try to sue.
#7 to #6
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (10/14/2015) [-] I was kind of going for irony. Allow me to restate.
It is genuinely saddening that you think overpopulation is a possibility, and that we should live short lives to prevent it.
It is genuinely saddening that you think overpopulation is a possibility, and that we should live short lives to prevent it.
#8 to #7
-
kiaserzerg (10/14/2015) [-] nah, not overpopulation, greed. theres a reason nestle thinks water shouldnt be a basic freedom, and if people like that live long enough... well, **** .
#9 to #8
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (10/14/2015) [-] People aren't as bad as you cynically believe. Companies will try to sell anything.
#10 to #9
-
kiaserzerg (10/14/2015) [-] normally theres a person in charge of selling products that cause malnutrition in thrid world countries, and in charge of deciding that water shouldnt be a free commodity.
#11 to #10
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (10/14/2015) [-] Nothing but poor agricultural land causes under-nutrition in the third world. Water cannot be a free commodity in the modern world, the infrastructure required to provide it is too expensive.
#12 to #11
-
kiaserzerg (10/14/2015) [-] look up nestle and their infant formula scandal. hell, in a lot of places collecting water that falls from the sky is illegal. why is it illegal to collect something that literally falls from the sky?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.html
#13 to #12
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (10/14/2015) [-] Rain is very important to the land, if people collect it in large enough quantities it could cause a drought or destroy crops etc.
#14 to #13
-
kiaserzerg (10/14/2015) [-] and yet studies showed that almost 97% was being evaporated. and less than 3 percent made it any where near streams. collecting it would be far more beneficial to the crops, because now it doesnt have to be portioned or restricted if it literally falls from the sky only to dissapear.
#15 to #14
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (10/14/2015) [-] It does not disappear, it flows into the groundwater which nourishes soil and forests and stops the area from being a desert. This is literally year 1 **** , the water cycle.
#16 to #15
-
kiaserzerg (10/14/2015) [-] and the places that are already a desert? that have already massively altered the water cycle? like the phoenix desert? or california that is already drought stricken? Not because of rain collectors but because a river is drying up due to sheer number of people, from further up the country.
#17 to #16
-
platinumaltaria ONLINE (10/14/2015) [-] So people are taking too much water upstream, and you want to take more of it. The point is to stabilise the amount of water being removed.
#18 to #17
-
kiaserzerg (10/14/2015) [-] wow, mark twain was right, dont argue with an idiot, or they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
if no matter what happens, the water that is collected is still ending up in the system, considering you still piss it out and use it, on the side of a damn ocean isnt doing **** , why do you agree its okay to tell people basic human rights isnt allowed? seriously, you remind me of Waco, TX.
if no matter what happens, the water that is collected is still ending up in the system, considering you still piss it out and use it, on the side of a damn ocean isnt doing **** , why do you agree its okay to tell people basic human rights isnt allowed? seriously, you remind me of Waco, TX.
#22 to #18
-
lathyrusvii (10/15/2015) [-] Kiaser! Hell, I need to read names more often; I bet I missed like half your posts; I've seen that shygirl's ass like everywhere.
I must be blind. How are you?
I must be blind. How are you?
#44 to #32
-
lathyrusvii (10/15/2015) [-] It sucks! No work, ton of debt, and a warrant out for my arrest.
Fun stuff.
Fun stuff.
#31 to #7
-
thatommygun ONLINE (10/15/2015) [-] Are you ******* stupid? Do you not know understand what overpopulation is?
Can you not see resources being used up and pollution affecting our environment ?
If a mother and a father makes 3 babies in their and live to 70 (rare cases 100+) and their kids continue the circle in this way.
If we assume roughly this is what everybody is doing and subtract accidents and killings then we a surely en our good way to a claustrophobic future.
Lets add to the factor that they are immune to all kind of diseases.
Dumb people that can't take care of themselves and kin will multiply like wildfire. Congratulation 1/3 way to eliminate Darwinism. "We don't need the brightest for the future anyway, lol."
Don't get me wrong it sad and all, some don't deserve it, a lot do. But this is the way nature operates, and nature often do right.
Can you not see resources being used up and pollution affecting our environment ?
If a mother and a father makes 3 babies in their and live to 70 (rare cases 100+) and their kids continue the circle in this way.
If we assume roughly this is what everybody is doing and subtract accidents and killings then we a surely en our good way to a claustrophobic future.
Lets add to the factor that they are immune to all kind of diseases.
Dumb people that can't take care of themselves and kin will multiply like wildfire. Congratulation 1/3 way to eliminate Darwinism. "We don't need the brightest for the future anyway, lol."
Don't get me wrong it sad and all, some don't deserve it, a lot do. But this is the way nature operates, and nature often do right.
#24 to #1
-
theruinedsage (10/15/2015) [-] First off, I really hope you get that humans have a finite lifespan due to cell degradation, removing things that kill us won't make us live forever unless we solve that absolutely huge problem.
1. We can easily go for much larger populations. We already have the technology to create urban farms that can sustains billions aeroculture . The only reason why we aren't doing it is that it's expensive (huge amounts of electricity compared to just letting things sit in soil), as well as create drinkable water from seawater, which again is only expensive because of large energy requirements. If only people would get over their fear of nuclear power
2. As a society, we put a freaking huge amount of resources into every single person before they reach adulthood, if they die from a disease that could have been prevented before they repay that money to society there is literally no upside for society.
3. Natural selection isn't a thing in human society anymore. It's sad, but it's true. If we want to "bring it back", we need to do it with gene manipulation, not by letting people die of preventable diseases.
1. We can easily go for much larger populations. We already have the technology to create urban farms that can sustains billions aeroculture . The only reason why we aren't doing it is that it's expensive (huge amounts of electricity compared to just letting things sit in soil), as well as create drinkable water from seawater, which again is only expensive because of large energy requirements. If only people would get over their fear of nuclear power
2. As a society, we put a freaking huge amount of resources into every single person before they reach adulthood, if they die from a disease that could have been prevented before they repay that money to society there is literally no upside for society.
3. Natural selection isn't a thing in human society anymore. It's sad, but it's true. If we want to "bring it back", we need to do it with gene manipulation, not by letting people die of preventable diseases.
#29 to #27
-
theruinedsage (10/15/2015) [-] Culling would never be accepted in a democratic society, and frankly it's a enormous waste. Gene manipulation is the way to go.
#5
-
anon (10/14/2015) [-]
this could be turned into a weapon though, what if someone made it swap from looking for viruses to working on parts of your body? suddenly you have everyone in a city getting a heart attack with no trace of a virus or disease
#25 to #19
-
subejio (10/15/2015) [-] Let me make that slightly... not stupid.
Anon's worried about something like this research being utilized to attack parts of the body we like. Such as utilizing it to activate the kill switch in normal, non-infected cells. Or utilizing it to target specifically myocardium cells.
That said, the fact that it might be used for a weapon is not reason enough to not go forward. Everything can be utilized as a weapon.
Anon's worried about something like this research being utilized to attack parts of the body we like. Such as utilizing it to activate the kill switch in normal, non-infected cells. Or utilizing it to target specifically myocardium cells.
That said, the fact that it might be used for a weapon is not reason enough to not go forward. Everything can be utilized as a weapon.
#39
-
suckthesack (10/15/2015) [-]
I had a friend die from pneumonia at the age of 17 due to misdiagnosis. I think it would be nice if she didnt have to die from a preventable disease
#45
-
Namezone ONLINE (10/15/2015) [-] I know it's pretty late on, but this will not cure all viruses, though it is EXTREMELY useful for MOST viruses and the most dangerous ones. Many are made of DNA and short RNA, which will not be harmed by this method. So it's an extraordinarily useful tool, but will not eliminate viral disease.
#36
-
anon (10/15/2015) [-] I'm a bit skeptical.
Double-stranded RNA may be the most common in viral infections, it's the DNA virus that give the big chronic infections.
This is because a DNA virus integrates into the hostcell and lay dorment for decades because a normal cell will never do anything to harm DNA. But RNA is used, consumed, and ditched.
Herpes, Hepatitis B, HIV, to name just a few of the kind of viruses that can give long and chronic disease or resurface at any moment, are all DNA viruses. Well, not entirely true. HIV is an RNA virus that fools the hostcell into making it's RNA strand into DNA.
The point is that dealing with double-stranded RNA viruses is certainly an amazing feat. This would certainly not deal with all the viral infections we know of.
And that is assuming these clever little bastards do not find some kind of trick to bypass this as viruses, RNA viruses in particular, are very mutation prone. Also not clear if this would work on a single-strand RNA virus.
Something that concerns me is who would get the license? So we crowdfund an anti-viral drug, and then it ultimately gets swept up by big farma who will put big profit margins on this drug as they say "thanks for taking care of the risky part of the investment".
Double-stranded RNA may be the most common in viral infections, it's the DNA virus that give the big chronic infections.
This is because a DNA virus integrates into the hostcell and lay dorment for decades because a normal cell will never do anything to harm DNA. But RNA is used, consumed, and ditched.
Herpes, Hepatitis B, HIV, to name just a few of the kind of viruses that can give long and chronic disease or resurface at any moment, are all DNA viruses. Well, not entirely true. HIV is an RNA virus that fools the hostcell into making it's RNA strand into DNA.
The point is that dealing with double-stranded RNA viruses is certainly an amazing feat. This would certainly not deal with all the viral infections we know of.
And that is assuming these clever little bastards do not find some kind of trick to bypass this as viruses, RNA viruses in particular, are very mutation prone. Also not clear if this would work on a single-strand RNA virus.
Something that concerns me is who would get the license? So we crowdfund an anti-viral drug, and then it ultimately gets swept up by big farma who will put big profit margins on this drug as they say "thanks for taking care of the risky part of the investment".
#38 to #36
-
thegiantmidget (10/15/2015) [-] theres also a lot of things not mentioned, like will these RNAs need a vector? RNAs degrade rapidly hence the issues RNA interference has had as a viral treatment. also without an expression vector just how much is needed to stop the infection? how to the dracos reach the right cells? etc etc
