Francis Collins: We need better drugs — now

Francis Collins: We need better drugs — now


Translator: Joseph Geni
Reviewer: Morton Bast So let me ask for a show of hands. How many people here are over the age of 48? Well, there do seem to be a few. Well, congratulations, because if you look at this particular slide of U.S. life expectancy, you are now in excess of the average life span of somebody who was born in 1900. But look what happened in the course of that century. If you follow that curve, you’ll see that it starts way down there. There’s that dip there for the 1918 flu. And here we are at 2010, average life expectancy of a child born today, age 79, and we are not done yet. Now, that’s the good news. But there’s still a lot of work to do. So, for instance, if you ask, how many diseases do we now know the exact molecular basis? Turns out it’s about 4,000, which is pretty amazing, because most of those molecular discoveries have just happened in the last little while. It’s exciting to see that in terms of what we’ve learned, but how many of those 4,000 diseases now have treatments available? Only about 250. So we have this huge challenge, this huge gap. You would think this wouldn’t be too hard, that we would simply have the ability to take this fundamental information that we’re learning about how it is that basic biology teaches us about the causes of disease and build a bridge across this yawning gap between what we’ve learned about basic science and its application, a bridge that would look maybe something like this, where you’d have to put together a nice shiny way to get from one side to the other. Well, wouldn’t it be nice if it was that easy? Unfortunately, it’s not. In reality, trying to go from fundamental knowledge to its application is more like this. There are no shiny bridges. You sort of place your bets. Maybe you’ve got a swimmer and a rowboat and a sailboat and a tugboat and you set them off on their way, and the rains come and the lightning flashes, and oh my gosh, there are sharks in the water and the swimmer gets into trouble, and, uh oh, the swimmer drowned and the sailboat capsized, and that tugboat, well, it hit the rocks, and maybe if you’re lucky, somebody gets across. Well, what does this really look like? Well, what is it to make a therapeutic, anyway? What’s a drug? A drug is made up of a small molecule of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and a few other atoms all cobbled together in a shape, and it’s those shapes that determine whether, in fact, that particular drug is going to hit its target. Is it going to land where it’s supposed to? So look at this picture here — a lot of shapes dancing around for you. Now what you need to do, if you’re trying to develop a new treatment for autism or Alzheimer’s disease or cancer is to find the right shape in that mix that will ultimately provide benefit and will be safe. And when you look at what happens to that pipeline, you start out maybe with thousands, tens of thousands of compounds. You weed down through various steps that cause many of these to fail. Ultimately, maybe you can run a clinical trial with four or five of these, and if all goes well, 14 years after you started, you will get one approval. And it will cost you upwards of a billion dollars for that one success. So we have to look at this pipeline the way an engineer would, and say, “How can we do better?” And that’s the main theme of what I want to say to you this morning. How can we make this go faster? How can we make it more successful? Well, let me tell you about a few examples where this has actually worked. One that has just happened in the last few months is the successful approval of a drug for cystic fibrosis. But it’s taken a long time to get there. Cystic fibrosis had its molecular cause discovered in 1989 by my group working with another group in Toronto, discovering what the mutation was in a particular gene on chromosome 7. That picture you see there? Here it is. That’s the same kid. That’s Danny Bessette, 23 years later, because this is the year, and it’s also the year where Danny got married, where we have, for the first time, the approval by the FDA of a drug that precisely targets the defect in cystic fibrosis based upon all this molecular understanding. That’s the good news. The bad news is, this drug doesn’t actually treat all cases of cystic fibrosis, and it won’t work for Danny, and we’re still waiting for that next generation to help him. But it took 23 years to get this far. That’s too long. How do we go faster? Well, one way to go faster is to take advantage of technology, and a very important technology that we depend on for all of this is the human genome, the ability to be able to look at a chromosome, to unzip it, to pull out all the DNA, and to be able to then read out the letters in that DNA code, the A’s, C’s, G’s and T’s that are our instruction book and the instruction book for all living things, and the cost of doing this, which used to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, has in the course of the last 10 years fallen faster than Moore’s Law, down to the point where it is less than 10,000 dollars today to have your genome sequenced, or mine, and we’re headed for the $1,000 genome fairly soon. Well, that’s exciting. How does that play out in terms of application to a disease? I want to tell you about another disorder. This one is a disorder which is quite rare. It’s called Hutchinson-Gilford progeria, and it is the most dramatic form of premature aging. Only about one in every four million kids has this disease, and in a simple way, what happens is, because of a mutation in a particular gene, a protein is made that’s toxic to the cell and it causes these individuals to age at about seven times the normal rate. Let me show you a video of what that does to the cell. The normal cell, if you looked at it under the microscope, would have a nucleus sitting in the middle of the cell, which is nice and round and smooth in its boundaries and it looks kind of like that. A progeria cell, on the other hand, because of this toxic protein called progerin, has these lumps and bumps in it. So what we would like to do after discovering this back in 2003 is to come up with a way to try to correct that. Well again, by knowing something about the molecular pathways, it was possible to pick one of those many, many compounds that might have been useful and try it out. In an experiment done in cell culture and shown here in a cartoon, if you take that particular compound and you add it to that cell that has progeria, and you watch to see what happened, in just 72 hours, that cell becomes, for all purposes that we can determine, almost like a normal cell. Well that was exciting, but would it actually work in a real human being? This has led, in the space of only four years from the time the gene was discovered to the start of a clinical trial, to a test of that very compound. And the kids that you see here all volunteered to be part of this, 28 of them, and you can see as soon as the picture comes up that they are in fact a remarkable group of young people all afflicted by this disease, all looking quite similar to each other. And instead of telling you more about it, I’m going to invite one of them, Sam Berns from Boston, who’s here this morning, to come up on the stage and tell us about his experience as a child affected with progeria. Sam is 15 years old. His parents, Scott Berns and Leslie Gordon, both physicians, are here with us this morning as well. Sam, please have a seat. (Applause) So Sam, why don’t you tell these folks what it’s like being affected with this condition called progeria? Sam Burns: Well, progeria limits me in some ways. I cannot play sports or do physical activities, but I have been able to take interest in things that progeria, luckily, does not limit. But when there is something that I really do want to do that progeria gets in the way of, like marching band or umpiring, we always find a way to do it, and that just shows that progeria isn’t in control of my life. (Applause) Francis Collins: So what would you like to say to researchers here in the auditorium and others listening to this? What would you say to them both about research on progeria and maybe about other conditions as well? SB: Well, research on progeria has come so far in less than 15 years, and that just shows the drive that researchers can have to get this far, and it really means a lot to myself and other kids with progeria, and it shows that if that drive exists, anybody can cure any disease, and hopefully progeria can be cured in the near future, and so we can eliminate those 4,000 diseases that Francis was talking about. FC: Excellent. So Sam took the day off from school today to be here, and he is — (Applause) — He is, by the way, a straight-A+ student in the ninth grade in his school in Boston. Please join me in thanking and welcoming Sam. SB: Thank you very much. FC: Well done. Well done, buddy. (Applause) So I just want to say a couple more things about that particular story, and then try to generalize how could we have stories of success all over the place for these diseases, as Sam says, these 4,000 that are waiting for answers. You might have noticed that the drug that is now in clinical trial for progeria is not a drug that was designed for that. It’s such a rare disease, it would be hard for a company to justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars to generate a drug. This is a drug that was developed for cancer. Turned out, it didn’t work very well for cancer, but it has exactly the right properties, the right shape, to work for progeria, and that’s what’s happened. Wouldn’t it be great if we could do that more systematically? Could we, in fact, encourage all the companies that are out there that have drugs in their freezers that are known to be safe in humans but have never actually succeeded in terms of being effective for the treatments they were tried for? Now we’re learning about all these new molecular pathways — some of those could be repositioned or repurposed, or whatever word you want to use, for new applications, basically teaching old drugs new tricks. That could be a phenomenal, valuable activity. We have many discussions now between NIH and companies about doing this that are looking very promising. And you could expect quite a lot to come from this. There are quite a number of success stories one can point to about how this has led to major advances. The first drug for HIV/AIDS was not developed for HIV/AIDS. It was developed for cancer. It was AZT. It didn’t work very well for cancer, but became the first successful antiretroviral, and you can see from the table there are others as well. So how do we actually make that a more generalizable effort? Well, we have to come up with a partnership between academia, government, the private sector, and patient organizations to make that so. At NIH, we have started this new National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. It just started last December, and this is one of its goals. Let me tell you another thing we could do. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to a test a drug to see if it’s effective and safe without having to put patients at risk, because that first time you’re never quite sure? How do we know, for instance, whether drugs are safe before we give them to people? We test them on animals. And it’s not all that reliable, and it’s costly, and it’s time-consuming. Suppose we could do this instead on human cells. You probably know, if you’ve been paying attention to some of the science literature that you can now take a skin cell and encourage it to become a liver cell or a heart cell or a kidney cell or a brain cell for any of us. So what if you used those cells as your test for whether a drug is going to work and whether it’s going to be safe? Here you see a picture of a lung on a chip. This is something created by the Wyss Institute in Boston, and what they have done here, if we can run the little video, is to take cells from an individual, turn them into the kinds of cells that are present in the lung, and determine what would happen if you added to this various drug compounds to see if they are toxic or safe. You can see this chip even breathes. It has an air channel. It has a blood channel. And it has cells in between that allow you to see what happens when you add a compound. Are those cells happy or not? You can do this same kind of chip technology for kidneys, for hearts, for muscles, all the places where you want to see whether a drug is going to be a problem, for the liver. And ultimately, because you can do this for the individual, we could even see this moving to the point where the ability to develop and test medicines will be you on a chip, what we’re trying to say here is the individualizing of the process of developing drugs and testing their safety. So let me sum up. We are in a remarkable moment here. For me, at NIH now for almost 20 years, there has never been a time where there was more excitement about the potential that lies in front of us. We have made all these discoveries pouring out of laboratories across the world. What do we need to capitalize on this? First of all, we need resources. This is research that’s high-risk, sometimes high-cost. The payoff is enormous, both in terms of health and in terms of economic growth. We need to support that. Second, we need new kinds of partnerships between academia and government and the private sector and patient organizations, just like the one I’ve been describing here, in terms of the way in which we could go after repurposing new compounds. And third, and maybe most important, we need talent. We need the best and the brightest from many different disciplines to come and join this effort — all ages, all different groups — because this is the time, folks. This is the 21st-century biology that you’ve been waiting for, and we have the chance to take that and turn it into something which will, in fact, knock out disease. That’s my goal. I hope that’s your goal. I think it’ll be the goal of the poets and the muppets and the surfers and the bankers and all the other people who join this stage and think about what we’re trying to do here and why it matters. It matters for now. It matters as soon as possible. If you don’t believe me, just ask Sam. Thank you all very much. (Applause)

100 comments

  1. I would like to point out that in order for somebody to make the claim that god does not exist somebody else first has to say that a god does exist before someone will bother or even think of saying that one doesn't exist. I assume you're trying to shift the burden of proof with this comment.

  2. I AM MOVING AS FAST AS I CAN! You do realize it takes a long time to get your PhD in biochemistry right…?

  3. TED limits most of its talks in time I think. If one truly wanted to give a comprehensive talk on this subject it wouldn't be 20 minutes or less, that's for sure. If you really think that Collins just knows nothing about drug development then I think you are probably mistaken.
    I agree, he could have used the extra 5 minutes to add in some detail, but it would still be way too short/simplistic to get any really helpful information across on such a broad subject.

  4. Yes, that is true, but many people have covered important information in those 20 minutes. Collins knows very little about the detail of drug development. As someone who has been on the front lines of drug research, I can tell you that his "its too slow" rebuke is heard often and it is meaningless. When he actually comes up with a way to speed the process, fine. Until then, he's just parroting a criticism that applies as much to his own failures as to those of any one else. CONT

  5. CONT
    The true solution to the problem is advanced modeling in computers. As of right now, the use of computers in receptor modeling, etc. is atrocious. Efforts are being made and will show impact soon, but given the complexity of the information, it will take some time to develop accurate computer models. We can't even model the climate and it is, frankly, less complex than the human body.

  6. Reform the patent system (and copyrights) and the research will be more open and cheaper to conduct along with spurring on quicker development of solutions to maladies of today.

  7. It is a very serious mistake, in my opinion, to compare "faith" as you define it which is held regarding something that can be demonstrated to exist outside of the imagination, and "faith" as you define it which is held regarding something that cannot be demonstrated in any way to exist outside the imagination, especially when the latter is held beyond any form of rationality, as is most often the case with theism. Christianity, for example, outright demands such faith for salvation.

  8. I agree that the talk is essentially just another "it's too slow" complain that we have heard from many researchers already…and he doesn't really put forth a plan on fixing anything.
    But to say he "doesn't know anything about drug development" is false. Maybe you are high up in research concerning it, but saying such a thing makes you come as someone who has some sort of vendetta against Francis Collins for some reason. Sure, he doesn't have the answer to the problem. But neither do you.

  9. I think instead of discussing religion in the comments section, we should discuss ways to do something Francis Collins hasn't done: Get the drugs faster.
    My vote is to de-regulate companies. The government has its foot on drug companies throats–the companies want to provide drugs, but there are too many obstacles to doing so. The government should get out of the way of progress.

  10. Not once in his presentation did he even bring up religion, and yet there are so many hateful and pretentiously negative comments here about the topic.

    Disappointing to see, that's all.

  11. The real problem that Collins did not adresse is that the government is way too overbearing on drug companies–they want to get the drugs to the people as fast as possible, but there are a million different regulations/standards they have to go by. Get the government out of the way and we will see progress. Abolishing the FDA would be a good start.

  12. What exactly do you know about that he doesn't? You appear to be more on the hateful side than the "constructive criticism" side. Constructive criticism would be "ok, this talk was pointless, we already knew the process is slow…so any ideas on how to speed it up?" Instead you're saying "he doesn't know the answer, so he knows nothing about any of it, he's just an idiot spewing what we already know." Why the hate? You obviously have a personal problem with the guy. At least he's trying.

  13. Atheists have literally zero burden of proof and don't have to do anything to "defend" their hehe "beliefs"… I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing at the idea of an atheist having to defend their belief and how ridiculous that encounter would sound.

  14. ?? Rejecting such a claim is obvious, you can't prove a negative. Me having no reason to think God exists does not mean I must believe absolutely that God must not exist. Rational people should not deal in absolutes because absolutes can never actually be proven absolutely, this too should be obvious….

    There is no such things as people arguing whether things are true absolutely, that's completely ridiculous philosophically. Only a discussion about differing views of what is more likely.

  15. Yes they would which is why it is a weaker position, not a stronger one. Not that it is really a position at all since any absolute claim is ridiculous by default.

    Burden of proof? You gotta be kidding here. The reason theists are the ones with burden of proof is because they are the ones making claims. Atheists simply have to point out the weakness of those claims, theists have to defend them, that's all there is to it. Your whole argument hinges on a ridiculous and irrelevant detail.

  16. Do I really have to explain this??

    OK consider that you are a kid on an island. You've lived here your whole life along with a bunch of other kids. You survived. Now you and the other survivors are all grown up but still live on the island.

    One day a ship comes along and some people get off and interact with/study this isolated group of humans. The people on this island had it so easy that they didn't have to invent any gods and they are therefore atheist, though don't have a word for it.

  17. Not quite Joey. What I am saying is that Collins is simply restating a question that is decades old and giving us nothing new to work with. Where is the Technology, Entertainment, or Design in this lecture? If he had been left on his on with the HGP, it would still be going on. It was just a pointless, simplistic talk that rehashed ideas that are a decade or more old now.

  18. So say the guys on the boat tell these survivors about this wonderful idea called god, they tell the island guys that there's a big man/thing/entity way beyond our universe and he/she/it controls everything. When you die you get to meet all the people you've loved who died and you get eternal happiness (Although some friends and family will be burning in hell forever, so good luck with the eternal happiness.)

  19. Why are you replying to me about this? I didn't bring up the religion topic, I was just making a point to that individual person. De-regulation is hardly the answer and the FDA is not, in general, a barrier to drug approval. The work of drug development takes an average of 15 years, regardless of whether the FDA is involved or not.

  20. So yeah blah blah blah. I'm sure you get it.

    One thought experiment later, with which party does the burden of proof lie?

  21. I said he knows "very little about the detail of drug development," so your quote is actually not a quote. I have no personal vendetta against Collins. As to who has the better answer, you'll never know if it is me because you don't know who I am.

  22. …You gave me a video of a documentary. A Documentary is not a peer review in anyway, it is every bias and you should know that. Not only that, the document talks about the use of excessive pesticide to AID growth in food and how big corp are hiding those fact. They did not mention the harmful "of Non-natural" or genetic modify food(GM) and the connection b/w just the GM food to autism and allergies. You are leaping ahead in your logic train and should recheck evidences outside of Media.

  23. It doesn't matter whether or not they have heard these claims. The fact is that atheists are still not making any claims. The very first time anybody is ever told about god is no different from the 1000th time. The burden of proof doesn't slowly or suddenly shift to one side once you know more about a subject. It stays where it originally was. Therefore atheists have literally 0 burden of proof. There is no way around this.

  24. You don't need evidence against somethings existence, just a lack of evidence for its existence.

    Yes that is what people mean colloquially as true but you are trying to turn a position from one based on evidence (or lack therof) for god to one based on belief in the nonexistence of god.

    The word agnostic doesn't really mean much. You are either a theist (believe in god/s) or an atheist (don't believe in gods) by definition. This means for example that some religions are in fact atheistic.

  25. I can see that in order to respond to this I would have to reaffirm once again what I already said. You don't seem to get the idea behind the whole burden of proof concept. Some atheists might make these claims but atheism itself does not make any kind of claim. It is simply not believing in a god of any kind. Whether that god belongs to christians. muslims, hawaiins, eskimos or whatever is irrelevant as all of these religions and creations have to first be conjured by someone before anyone can

  26. But yeah you have a good point. If an atheist actually makes a claim about something then the burden of proof is on the atheist individual, however, the burden of proof can never be on atheism itself. That, to any logical person, would be madness.

  27. If that's the case then of course you are completely justified in not believing it exists, why should you?

    Again you are equivocating a lack of belief with disbelief, it is not the same. The evidence of god existing is weak or nonexistent so I don't think it plausible or likely, I'm unconvinced by the evidence available. Does this mean I actively believe god doesn't exist? No, I just find it very unlikely but if new and very strong evidence were to emerge that could change.

  28. In the old day's scientists used to "show" ppl who had shocking apperense to.. well shock fellow Dr's and show off… to get fundings and have more chance of getting green light on testing…
    I wonder if he whas doing the old way to show off, or if we realy do need to shock ppl to speed up development?
    (sry 4 the typos, 3'rd lang, and dislexia)

  29. Didn't think I'd like this one as much as I do! Having a personal biochip doctors can use to test medicinal drugs on you before prescribing them…. Incredible idea!! The number of falsely prescribed drugs leading to worsening conditions is colossal.

  30. " unless atheists are claiming absolute ignorance of religion they have to give reasons why they aren’t convinced"

    Most atheists are perfectly happy to do so. The burden of proof for the supernatural will always rest on the person making the claim. If no claim is made that no gods exist, there is no burden of proof. Pretty simple.

    I don't know what apologist you're listening to, but you might want to listen to a different one.

  31. Only some atheists believe religion is evil, and/or a complete delusion, or that "God" is a bronze-age sky daddy, etc., and most reasonable atheists certainly WOULD abandon those beliefs, IF they hold them, if there were a good reason to do so. Granted, some atheists are complete idiots, but some people are stupid.

    The point of my previous post, which you seem to have side-stepped, is that theists aren't able to support their faith-based belief in a specific god without faith as a catalyst.

  32. I did learn one thing. I've seen people with Progeria before, (no more than one or two years and years and years ago,) but never knew what the disease (and I hate to call it that) was called or exactly what it did.

  33. Except that I'm not saying atheists never have our own burden of proof. I'm saying that atheism itself does not hold a burden of proof unless it is a claim that no gods exist, which is only one of the definitions.

    Any rational person should abandon faith-based beliefs in the face of convincing evidence.

    Faith is certainly irrational if it's held against conflicting evidence… creationists for example. But if faith is held when there's no way to know, that is also irrational in my opinion.

  34. To be honest I was an anti-theist before I was an atheist. So it's not really related. Most of what you say is just general stuff, which nobody would disagree with (the need to provide evidence in defense of claims) but you fail to justify the application here, nor do you compare with the baseline (general population). So your statement is void. As for faith being irrational; it depends on your definition of faith. People tend to shift the definition according to their needs to much.

  35. What is a poor decision? Allowing one person to die to save another isn't exactly a good decision, but it isn't 100% bad either. Anyway, reasons and beliefs are hugely individual. One persons reason could another's excuse. You can't make either "false reasoning" or a "poor decision" testable. You might say a bad decision leads to bad reasoning and I couldn't disprove that but neither could you produce some statistic that proves your point.

  36. OK good we agree then, but I completely disagree that a belief in "God" is properly basic, as the modern concept of "God" depends completely on who you talk to, and there's no independently verifiable source against which claims can be proven.

    As for faith be irrational, that's a different matter, as I don't consider faith itself to be irrational, only faith held in face of opposing evidences. Example… watch the retreat of creationism in the face of the advance of scientific discovery.

  37. That makes so sense. The only incentive for private companies to risk billions of their dollars researching new drugs is knowing once they have a drug that works, others can't steal their formula for the duration of the patent. You remove the patent system, and no private corporation has an incentive to spend its own money doing research.

  38. Atheist is a broad category. It's like non-tennis player; people don't play tennis for a variety of reasons. I feel that the most noble, and seemingly the most common reason for atheism is rational, evidence based skepticism. Those positions you mentioned, well, evidence highly supports those positions, and rational, evidence based skeptics follow the evidence. Their view isn't "atheism is correct", it's "the evidence highly suggests that theism is almost certainly incorrect".

  39. Some people, a profit motive is all that matters; for more good people, which is a majority in this world I would hope, a cure for cancer doesn't need a big price tag for them to be willing.

    If you don't believe in charity, we have nothing more to speak about. Most humans want to do good for others, be remembered as such and make a difference.

    In the utilitarian sense (the reason for patents/copyrights), it only demotivates MORE people from getting into it and contributing or making progress.

  40. a part of me was like … wtf this old kid has a really small head and he talks like a kid but looks 80 and laughing when he was talking. the other half was happy for him and was glad that he was getting to lead a normal life

  41. @wHisperis001

    People don't need to work for free but let's say even if they did, if everybody worked fore say 1/000th of current payoffs on matters of passion and maybe perhaps much labor that isn't. The cost for living, goods and progress would be much cheaper, cheaper to live, thrive etc.

    You don't understand how significant "the market" is when it comes to this. If people support you and like what you are doing they will… support you, with money or anything they can.

  42. You clearly don't understand simple economics. Companies need to remain solvent/make a profit in order to have revenue to make new investments in research for new drugs.

    I also don't think you understand what a patent is. A patent for a new drug means you cannot steal the product of a lot of investment (not just monetary, but creative energy and hard work by scientists working in a lab all day) to make a profit for yourself. What you're promoting is not charity but theft.

  43. Take this example with food production, if people worked for near free, food would be cheap for everybody to live off of, if people can labor a farm for that cheap than any job or career field could and should be "cheap" as well.

    The government doesn't allow it to happen, by setting price floors, manipulating supply and subsidizing things like corn; which has hurt us in many ways, not just economics.

    Everything should and could be cheaper, somethings free and in surplus, like food, globally.

  44. Ok this may seem strange but, the thumbnail for this video looks like a man in purple boxer shorts and nothing else.

    It's because his pants are sort of skin coloured and there is a shadow about where boxers would be.

  45. Huh? I have no positive beliefs about the non-existence of many things, from UFOs to Leprechauns to gods. If you have evidence for any of these claims, bring it, and I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded by that evidence. Until then, I can hardly waste time and mental capacity actively disbelieving in every fantastic claim some delusional believer wants to bring to the table.

  46. Weird talk imho, also I learned almost nothing from this talk, though I knew and still know very little about this subject… Also i stopped the vid when he got the boy out, because i louyh these kind of methods. Later I came back wondering if there was gonna be some kind of point to his story.. But I've yet to discover it I guess

  47. It's not a fallacy. Atheism changed from "there is no God" to merely "a lack of belief in God". Redefining atheism is an attempt to make no assertions so no facts need to be offered up. Most atheists have adjusted their rhetoric to include the "new definition". Although clever it's not a brilliant attempt to escape the burden of proof you demand from anyone who claims God does exist.

  48. Theism is defined as a belief in a god or gods. Atheism is the lack of said belief. What kind of proof would an atheist have to give you in order to prove that there is no god? What kind of proof would you demand from a unicorn un-believer? Or, better still, what proof would you ask a Hindu to provide in order to establish that his belief in many gods is true as opposed to a monotheistic view?

  49. If I saw that kid anywhere else, I would think that he was an alien (yes, I'm a horrible person). But the talk is really great. In 50 years I will probably have better health than my grandparents or parents, the problem is, will I be able to afford it?

  50. First of all, the only reason atheism is redefined is because you've got actual atheists talking about what they believe and don't believe now, instead of theists.

    Second, there isn't just "God" there are gods, as in claims of specific attributes of separate gods, so it's not accurate to just say atheism was ever "there is no God" because, for one, "God" isn't defined in a specific enough way to do so.

    Third, correctly defined, atheism has NO burden of proof whatsoever, unlike theism.

  51. 1. According to the Bible, bad things happen because of demons and because people reject God or sin, Jesus himself cast out demons
    2. If Francis really is a Christian, why would this video exist? Just cast out demons with prayer, magic, and loving God like the bible suggests
    3. Pro-religious nuts look up evolution and how it works
    4. Understand what a scientific Theory actually is
    5. Look up fossil layers
    6. Look up the timeline of the universe
    7. Look up the "Problem of Evil"
    8. Get over it

  52. "You on a chip"
    Does anyone find this weird?
    Tge talk is about pushing the ideas about NWO.
    He spills all out at the end.
    Quite scary.

  53. The prefix a in front of atheism is NOT, NOT A BELIEF, lack of belief, negative beliefs, how else can I put it so you understand it.

  54. Are we really having this conversation on this video? This conversation on a video which has nothing to do with it? Again?

  55. "How can we make this faster, how can we make this more successful." Well, you can start by legalizing the natural herbs this planet offers which have proven to be fast, accessible, and successful and free if you play your cards right. Legalize marijuana and stop hindering people from getting what they need. The fact is that each and every human brain has a chemical receptor, a lock if you will, and the only key that fits is tetrahydrocannabinol. THC…marijuana, cannabis. The medicine is here.

  56. Damn! In '92, I co-invented a DNA sequencer & contributed to the design of another, both of which were commercially successful for researchers. To date, I regard these activities as the most important in my life because they've been part of a growing movement to improve all our lives in fundamental ways. My message to young people wondering about their future careers: go for science & engineering… it's very, very satisfying!

  57. we need worse drugs now we have no need to be living to age 80 a point where people can barely take care of themselves

  58. newly engineered organs based on human stem cells would be even better – IMHO we should try spending more money on that and less on business-as-usual animal testing

  59. Don't take my word for it, do the research yourself. I didn't make that up, I got it from the data that's been established in laboratories around the world. This was first discovered in Israel but I see by the many negative votes on my initial comment that the world still doesn't know the truth about cannabis. That's okay though. There are entire states in the U.S. legalizing it because they've been educated.

  60. Yeah, let's hope that he reaches your level of understanding and contributes something to humanity.

  61. They're not legalizing it because they've been educated, they're legalizing it because it's a guaranteed source of tax income that's too dangerous (which I'm all for, Colorado resident and libertarian here).

    Cannabis clinical studies have shown it decreases and prevents tumor growth in some groups. It also shows that it impairs short term memory. It's just another recreational drug, not a panacea. More studies are needed to prove otherwise, and until then, don't define it as one

  62. Hm, let's see (peers closely at your avatar), what are you….about 16? Well, I smoked pot for 22 years straight, I smoked pounds a week of it, good green bud, ganja, stink weed, sticky bud. I'm now 44 years old and a college student mastering in Psychology. I have a 13 yr career in professional carpet installation wherein I smoked pot the entire time and ran circles around the men! I have 0% side effects from it. Now, I study it. Don't try to educate the educated. Go away boy.

  63. What the fuck is wrong with you? haha Do you really need to look at someone that is suffering or that needs help so you can feel yourself happier? Then I think you should really redefine your definition of happiness 🙂
    Don't worry, nobody's mad with your comment. Intelligent people will understand that idiots like you are not idiots because they want to, but because society didn't helped them. Better luck next time with the next one haha

  64. Thank you. I speak the truth. I smoked it, I smoked a lot of it, and as you can see I'm still able to articulate myself and form a proper syntax. Marijuana is not a demon weed. We're all wired for it. Some of the oldest research out of Jerusalem shows that every brain has a chemical receptor (the lock) that only opens for one chemical (the key) and that chemical is Tetrahydrocannabinol, THC. If the receptor works with the chemical, then that's a mated pair, they're meant to work together.

  65. I hope Marijuana, Hemp and other plants become legal in all states. I also think we should end the drug war and legalize all drugs.

  66. Marijuana isn't a drug, it's an herb. I don't think methamphetamine should be legalized. I don't think heroin should be legalized. I don't think cocaine should be legalized although the coca leaves themselves have their own value in pure form. It's the man made stuff that kills. The cooked stuff, with all the mind altering chemicals that are better suited for your car engine than your body, that kills.

  67. The thought that "man-made bad, natural good" is severely over-simplified and outright false. The world isn't black and white like that.

    Oh, and the argument against prohibition isn't based on a substance's harmfulness. It's more a question of how harmful the prohibition itself is. You should look into the subject.

  68. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I don't say anything in any of my comments that implies what you're saying about "man made is bad and natural is good". Not one thing. I'm making a direct point about marijuana.

    What YOU should look into is the fact that prohibition isn't something considered "harmful" when it's directed at the things that societies deem harmful. There's never been a prohibition in America that was "harmful." That's just ridiculous.

  69. This all wrong!  What we need is more prayers and choose God over antivenom.   More kids hiking and find more 3 frozen drops of ice.  Smaller governmen bigger drugs' marke ing deparmen.  We prayed for he atom bomb and God gave us instead of Hitler or Hirohito.  And so is transistor, pc, internet, quantum and pc.  I can't be done with logic of one step after the other.

  70. We seem to be lacking some basic biological or chemical knowledge. Shouldn't there be a simple algebraic solution to these chemical compounds? If we know the exact molecular problem, shouldn't we be able, with some mathematical calculation and chemical equations, to determine the exact compound that we need to use to eliminate the disease? Why do we need clinical trials? Am I too far ahead of everyone else with my scientific optimism?

  71. 然り!フランシス コリンズ博士。お友達申請したいな

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *