Taking Charge of Your Health

I want to talk to you
about the future of medicine. But before I do that, I want to talk
a little bit about the past. Now, throughout much
of the recent history of medicine, we’ve thought about illness and treatment in terms of a profoundly simple model. In fact, the model is so simple that you could summarize it in six words: have disease, take pill, kill something. Now, the reason
for the dominance of this model is of course the antibiotic revolution. Many of you might not know this,
but we happen to be celebrating the hundredth year of the introduction
of antibiotics into the United States. But what you do know is that that introduction
was nothing short of transformative. Here you had a chemical,
either from the natural world or artificially synthesized
in the laboratory, and it would course through your body, it would find its target, lock into its target — a microbe or some part of a microbe — and then turn off a lock and a key with exquisite deftness,
exquisite specificity. And you would end up taking
a previously fatal, lethal disease — a pneumonia, syphilis, tuberculosis — and transforming that
into a curable, or treatable illness. You have a pneumonia, you take penicillin, you kill the microbe and you cure the disease. So seductive was this idea, so potent the metaphor of lock and key and killing something, that it really swept through biology. It was a transformation like no other. And we’ve really spent the last 100 years trying to replicate that model
over and over again in noninfectious diseases, in chronic diseases like diabetes
and hypertension and heart disease. And it’s worked,
but it’s only worked partly. Let me show you. You know, if you take the entire universe of all chemical reactions
in the human body, every chemical reaction
that your body is capable of, most people think that that number
is on the order of a million. Let’s call it a million. And now you ask the question, what number or fraction of reactions can actually be targeted by the entire pharmacopoeia,
all of medicinal chemistry? That number is 250. The rest is chemical darkness. In other words, 0.025 percent
of all chemical reactions in your body are actually targetable
by this lock and key mechanism. You know, if you think
about human physiology as a vast global telephone network with interacting nodes
and interacting pieces, then all of our medicinal chemistry is operating on one tiny corner at the edge, the outer edge,
of that network. It’s like all of our
pharmaceutical chemistry is a pole operator in Wichita, Kansas who is tinkering with about
10 or 15 telephone lines. So what do we do about this idea? What if we reorganized this approach? In fact, it turns out
that the natural world gives us a sense of how one
might think about illness in a radically different way, rather than disease, medicine, target. In fact, the natural world
is organized hierarchically upwards, not downwards, but upwards, and we begin with a self-regulating,
semi-autonomous unit called a cell. These self-regulating,
semi-autonomous units give rise to self-regulating,
semi-autonomous units called organs, and these organs coalesce
to form things called humans, and these organisms
ultimately live in environments, which are partly self-regulating
and partly semi-autonomous. What’s nice about this scheme,
this hierarchical scheme building upwards rather than downwards, is that it allows us
to think about illness as well in a somewhat different way. Take a disease like cancer. Since the 1950s, we’ve tried rather desperately to apply
this lock and key model to cancer. We’ve tried to kill cells using a variety of chemotherapies
or targeted therapies, and as most of us know, that’s worked. It’s worked for diseases like leukemia. It’s worked for some forms
of breast cancer, but eventually you run
to the ceiling of that approach. And it’s only in the last 10 years or so that we’ve begun to think
about using the immune system, remembering that in fact the cancer cell
doesn’t grow in a vacuum. It actually grows in a human organism. And could you use the organismal capacity, the fact that human beings
have an immune system, to attack cancer? In fact, it’s led to the some of the most
spectacular new medicines in cancer. And finally there’s the level
of the environment, isn’t there? You know, we don’t think of cancer
as altering the environment. But let me give you an example
of a profoundly carcinogenic environment. It’s called a prison. You take loneliness, you take depression,
you take confinement, and you add to that, rolled up in a little
white sheet of paper, one of the most potent neurostimulants
that we know, called nicotine, and you add to that one of the most potent
addictive substances that you know, and you have
a pro-carcinogenic environment. But you can have anti-carcinogenic
environments too. There are attempts to create milieus, change the hormonal milieu
for breast cancer, for instance. We’re trying to change the metabolic
milieu for other forms of cancer. Or take another disease, like depression. Again, working upwards, since the 1960s and 1970s,
we’ve tried, again, desperately to turn off molecules
that operate between nerve cells — serotonin, dopamine — and tried to cure depression that way, and that’s worked,
but then that reached the limit. And we now know that what you
really probably need to do is to change the physiology
of the organ, the brain, rewire it, remodel it, and that, of course,
we know study upon study has shown that talk therapy does exactly that, and study upon study
has shown that talk therapy combined with medicines, pills, really is much more effective
than either one alone. Can we imagine a more immersive
environment that will change depression? Can you lock out the signals
that elicit depression? Again, moving upwards along this
hierarchical chain of organization. What’s really at stake perhaps here is not the medicine itself but a metaphor. Rather than killing something, in the case of the great
chronic degenerative diseases — kidney failure, diabetes,
hypertension, osteoarthritis — maybe what we really need to do is change
the metaphor to growing something. And that’s the key, perhaps, to reframing our thinking about medicine. Now, this idea of changing, of creating a perceptual
shift, as it were, came home to me to roost in a very
personal manner about 10 years ago. About 10 years ago —
I’ve been a runner most of my life — I went for a run, a Saturday morning run, I came back and woke up
and I basically couldn’t move. My right knee was swollen up, and you could hear that ominous crunch
of bone against bone. And one of the perks of being a physician
is that you get to order your own MRIs. And I had an MRI the next week,
and it looked like that. Essentially, the meniscus of cartilage
that is between bone had been completely torn
and the bone itself had been shattered. Now, if you’re looking at me
and feeling sorry, let me tell you a few facts. If I was to take an MRI
of every person in this audience, 60 percent of you would show signs of bone degeneration
and cartilage degeneration like this. 85 percent of all women by the age of 70 would show moderate to severe
cartilage degeneration. 50 to 60 percent
of the men in this audience would also have such signs. So this is a very common disease. Well, the second perk of being a physician is that you can get
to experiment on your own ailments. So about 10 years ago we began, we brought this process
into the laboratory, and we began to do simple experiments, mechanically trying
to fix this degeneration. We tried to inject chemicals
into the knee spaces of animals to try to reverse cartilage degeneration, and to put a short summary
on a very long and painful process, essentially it came to naught. Nothing happened. And then about seven years ago,
we had a research student from Australia. The nice thing about Australians is that they’re habitually used to
looking at the world upside down. (Laughter) And so Dan suggested to me, “You know,
maybe it isn’t a mechanical problem. Maybe it isn’t a chemical problem.
Maybe it’s a stem cell problem.” In other words, he had two hypotheses. Number one, there is such a thing
as a skeletal stem cell — a skeletal stem cell that builds up
the entire vertebrate skeleton, bone, cartilage and the fibrous
elements of skeleton, just like there’s a stem cell in blood, just like there’s a stem cell
in the nervous system. And two, that maybe that, the degeneration
or dysfunction of this stem cell is what’s causing osteochondral arthritis,
a very common ailment. So really the question was,
were we looking for a pill when we should have really
been looking for a cell. So we switched our models, and now we began
to look for skeletal stem cells. And to cut again a long story short, about five years ago,
we found these cells. They live inside the skeleton. Here’s a schematic and then
a real photograph of one of them. The white stuff is bone, and these red columns that you see
and the yellow cells are cells that have arisen
from one single skeletal stem cell — columns of cartilage, columns of bone
coming out of a single cell. These cells are fascinating.
They have four properties. Number one is that they live
where they’re expected to live. They live just underneath
the surface of the bone, underneath cartilage. You know, in biology,
it’s location, location, location. And they move into the appropriate areas
and form bone and cartilage. That’s one. Here’s an interesting property. You can take them out
of the vertebrate skeleton, you can culture them
in petri dishes in the laboratory, and they are dying to form cartilage. Remember how we couldn’t
form cartilage for love or money? These cells are dying to form cartilage. They form their own furls
of cartilage around themselves. They’re also, number three, the most efficient repairers
of fractures that we’ve ever encountered. This is a little bone,
a mouse bone that we fractured and then let it heal by itself. These stem cells have come in
and repaired, in yellow, the bone, in white, the cartilage,
almost completely. So much so that if you label them
with a fluorescent dye you can see them like some kind
of peculiar cellular glue coming into the area of a fracture, fixing it locally
and then stopping their work. Now, the fourth one is the most ominous, and that is that their numbers
decline precipitously, precipitously, tenfold,
fiftyfold, as you age. And so what had happened, really, is that we found ourselves
in a perceptual shift. We had gone hunting for pills but we ended up finding theories. And in some ways we had hooked ourselves
back onto this idea: cells, organisms, environments, because we were now thinking
about bone stem cells, we were thinking about arthritis
in terms of a cellular disease. And then the next question was,
are there organs? Can you build this
as an organ outside the body? Can you implant cartilage
into areas of trauma? And perhaps most interestingly, can you ascend right up
and create environments? You know, we know
that exercise remodels bone, but come on, none of us
is going to exercise. So could you imagine ways of passively
loading and unloading bone so that you can recreate
or regenerate degenerating cartilage? And perhaps more interesting,
and more importantly, the question is, can you apply this model
more globally outside medicine? What’s at stake, as I said before,
is not killing something, but growing something. And it raises a series of, I think,
some of the most interesting questions about how we think
about medicine in the future. Could your medicine
be a cell and not a pill? How would we grow these cells? What we would we do to stop
the malignant growth of these cells? We heard about the problems
of unleashing growth. Could we implant
suicide genes into these cells to stop them from growing? Could your medicine be an organ
that’s created outside the body and then implanted into the body? Could that stop some of the degeneration? What if the organ needed to have memory? In cases of diseases of the nervous system
some of those organs had memory. How could we implant
those memories back in? Could we store these organs? Would each organ have to be developed
for an individual human being and put back? And perhaps most puzzlingly, could your medicine be an environment? Could you patent an environment? You know, in every culture, shamans have been using
environments as medicines. Could we imagine that for our future? I’ve talked a lot about models.
I began this talk with models. So let me end with some thoughts
about model building. That’s what we do as scientists. You know, when an architect
builds a model, he or she is trying to show you
a world in miniature. But when a scientist is building a model, he or she is trying to show you
the world in metaphor. He or she is trying to create
a new way of seeing. The former is a scale shift.
The latter is a perceptual shift. Now, antibiotics created
such a perceptual shift in our way of thinking about medicine
that it really colored, distorted, very successfully, the way we’ve thought
about medicine for the last hundred years. But we need new models
to think about medicine in the future. That’s what’s at stake. You know, there’s
a popular trope out there that the reason we haven’t had
the transformative impact on the treatment of illness is because we don’t have
powerful-enough drugs, and that’s partly true. But perhaps the real reason is that we don’t have powerful-enough
ways of thinking about medicines. It’s certainly true that it would be lovely to have new medicines. But perhaps what’s really at stake
are three more intangible M’s: mechanisms, models, metaphors. Thank you. (Applause) Chris Anderson:
I really like this metaphor. How does it link in? There’s a lot of talk in technologyland about the personalization of medicine, that we have all this data
and that medical treatments of the future will be for you specifically,
your genome, your current context. Does that apply to this model
you’ve got here? Siddhartha Mukherjee:
It’s a very interesting question. We’ve thought about
personalization of medicine very much in terms of genomics. That’s because the gene
is such a dominant metaphor, again, to use that same word,
in medicine today, that we think the genome will drive
the personalization of medicine. But of course the genome
is just the bottom of a long chain of being, as it were. That chain of being, really the first
organized unit of that, is the cell. So, if we are really going to deliver
in medicine in this way, we have to think of personalizing
cellular therapies, and then personalizing
organ or organismal therapies, and ultimately personalizing
immersion therapies for the environment. So I think at every stage, you know — there’s that metaphor,
there’s turtles all the way. Well, in this, there’s
personalization all the way. CA: So when you say
medicine could be a cell and not a pill, you’re talking about
potentially your own cells. SM: Absolutely.
CA: So converted to stem cells, perhaps tested against all kinds
of drugs or something, and prepared. SM: And there’s no perhaps.
This is what we’re doing. This is what’s happening,
and in fact, we’re slowly moving, not away from genomics,
but incorporating genomics into what we call multi-order,
semi-autonomous, self-regulating systems, like cells, like organs,
like environments. CA: Thank you so much. SM: Pleasure. Thanks.

100 thoughts on “Soon We’ll Cure Diseases With a Cell, Not a Pill | Siddhartha Mukherjee | TED Talks

  1. ı have got a question about stem cells
    is stem cells cause certain cancers or they just cause teratoma cancers
    for example we injected esc and we want esc become neurons,so the stem cell turn into neurons but it divide more than we need, or they did not turn neurons but esc cause certain cancer, which one is connect
    why amniotic stem cells can not cause teratoma by the way
    are amniotic stem cells Could be cause certain cancers
    pls answer my question thank you for reading

  2. obviously this guy hasn't heard of DRACO Check out "DRACOs May Be Effective Against All Viruses" on Indiegogo

  3. How sad is it that these days people are Surprised when TED does a talk about Science instead of the Feminism.

    That's what Western Feminism does now, poisons everything it touches.

  4. Cultivated organs would be great and also removing defective cells and replacing corrected version this would be infinitely better than our current strategy.

  5. Seriously, I thought this would be about cell phones.
    I should also say that I am pleasantly surprised that TED did not upload a feminist/social justice feel-fest and actually uploaded something about science for once. It's been far too long.

  6. I'm sad that he makes a joke at 12:34 about exercise, because that's exactly what we have to do. We have to set ourselves in a healthy environment. I always say "the cell want's to live". We have to show them that it's worth living, that they are needed, and at the other hand expose them to less toxins and irritating chemicals (pharmaceuticals, food additives)

  7. But how do you get in vitro cells in??? He doesn't even mention it. When cells malfunction or is missing, you need lots of cells in very specific areas and that seems to hard to achieve. Can it be done?

  8. Well, let's phrase it this way:
    The approach isn't that far off. We shouldn't try to "engineer nature" in labs within a few years when nature itself has formed the best possible methods for 3 BILLION years already.
    A good example for a cell as a medicine is a feces-transplant. The bacteria in the feces actually re-cultivate the natural gut flora, eventually becoming part of the body. This procedure has helped a lot of people with certain forms of colitis. The reason for that is that nature itself has the best solutions for us, we just have to figure out how to use those solutions, bionics isn't it's own science-field for no reason.
    Maybe cultivating certain cells to treat diabetes or cancer is the way we have to think about the future of medicine, combine that with the current medication to make sure we suppress negative effects of that and poom, we have a medical revolution.
    Most medicine is only suppressing negative effects anyway for a reason, our immune system is the single best weapon against invaders. In 150 years of actual science we haven't found a way to get rid of a virus, other than alcohol and other disinfectants while our body handles viral infections on a daily basis without any problem.

  9. Cell-based therapy is really something. I culture dendritic cells for cancer therapy, which is a pretty mild adjuvant treatment, but there are some really crazy cells being developed out there. Read about CAR T-cells used at Memorial Sloan Kettering, Upenn, and Baylor.

  10. Each "natural" human death is a step forward in evolution. If our perception of death wasn't as final as it is now, perhaps we would shift our focus from trying to save lives to letting people die in order to evolve as a specie.
    But, the reality is that we know nothing about mortality, and most people held tight to the last drop of life they got, of course very understandable.

  11. What happens to stem cells after Radiation & chemotherapy?
    Environment/Lifestyle is #1 trigger of dis-ease – well established.
    What % of global population suffer from iatrogenic illness?

  12. If you think antibiotics only target a very specific "key hole" you've got another thing coming. Fluoroquinolones like Cipro & Levaquin attack mitochondria. They don't know or care if that mitochondria belongs to a bacteria or a human (how could it? It's a purely synthetic chemical). And for this reason, fluoroquinolones are crippling and killing patients who are recklessly prescribed them for simple infections like UTIs. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease! These antibiotics carry multiple black box warnings, yet doctors like this guy still believe they are safe and/or that they ONLY affect bacterial cells. Do your research! It's your body–you'll be the one living with the consequences of these nasty drugs.

  13. If this talk had been given years ago it would have been very impressive. As it is, it's just saying, 'what if we could do these things we've already started doing?' There are already people walking around whose knees have been repaired with stem cells, Joe Rogan makes one well known example. There are researchers already working on making 3d printed organs that can be implanted; Anthony Atala's work has been featured on TED 3 times over the last 5 years. Aubrey de Grey's organisation, SENS, has been researching modifying the body's function to prevent degeneration and restore degenerated function for some time now. These ideas aren't actually all that new. I suppose they might be inspiring to a young med student if they haven't heard of them but I'm really not impressed with the way these ideas are presented if that's the goal.

  14. I love watching Ted talks about medicine. For the sake of the future.
    Like, the other day I saw a guy talking neurosurgery with photocuring(Can't quite remember the name), it was about planting a seed into a brain, which would then target specific areas, affected by disease, and would essentially allow us to turn them "off" just by exposing that part to light.
    And every time I hear something like this, it makes me so happy that our children and grandchildren may never witness horrors of slowly losing their beloved ones to brain infection or, in case of this video, to cancer. All because some man thought outside of the box, and invented new ways of curing something.
    Medics are demigods, I swear on me mum.

  15. This fails… He didn't address the cause of the disease. Eliminate the antigen that is the cause and reverse disease. Our bodies where designed to heal through proper holistic nutrition. The future is Functional Medicine. The rest is just treating the symptoms.
    When diet is wrong.. Medicine is of no use.. When diet is correct.. Medicine is of no need.
    Look up the word nagalase and how it prevents D3 from converting to GcMAF… When that happens, our immune systems are not able to fight off cancer and viruses, Why would we take Nagalase intentionally? Then ask yourself why anyone would submit to a vaccination that contained nagalase. Ref. Dr Bradstreet.

  16. Siddhartha Mukherjee, you should be ashamed of your ancestors. You use your intelligence for fraud. Never will any human be healthy if not living healthy.
    You will always fail because you contradict the laws of creation. This would be the direction you should lead, to find a cause of our illnesses and to find a way to change our way of living and remove the cause of damage. And you want to change our cells! You will always fail.
    Shame on you.

  17. Indians has destoyed all IT and program direction. When microsoft and other companies started to hire this people – softwhare has become worst than ever been! And now he talking about medicine. Sorry!

  18. This Ted Talk came at a moment when I was deeply doubting the current approach that medicine takes towards healing people by assaulting their diseases with pills and scalpels. The human body is capable of wonders when put in the right environment. I could not have agreed more.

  19. Soon we will allow the body to "cure" itself through a low fat vegan diet, and in certain cases a fully raw high calorie fruit based diet. The body can heal itself, stop feeding it food it wasn't biologically designed to thrive on.

  20. Fairy tales for adults. The human body is not mechanical and it doesn't have locks. What is a fact of life and this one ignores is that every action has a reaction and complicating a condition of disease will always worsen the disease itself and ultimate death.

  21. In the future, all diseases will be cured by destroying the person who has the disease and making an exact copy of them without the disease.

  22. I am looking a utilizing adenosine triphosphate to modulate cell function through purinergic signaling.  My article is The Therapeutic Potential of Adenosine Triphosphate as an Immune Modulator in the Treatment of HIV/AIDS: A Combination Approach with HAART.

  23. Very brilliant and confident speaker. Well done Siddhartha Mukherjee! I will definitely be looking you up more often now.

  24. Why can this man teach me mri physics….why? I could fall in love with it or at least pretend to like it

  25. This talk is great in a way, not because he is telling something new ('coz they've already been done), but more of how he had drawn a level of abstraction that could be generally applied in the field of medicine.

    But I have my second thoughts on the controlled environment aspect; not much as to its causal effect on our health but as to how you could effectively enforce a desirable state on a large scale so much so that today's individuals are criss-crossing not just State borders, but also from one sovereign country to another. Our laws could only stretch so much as to territories which we have jurisdiction, in general.

    Nonetheless, The Cell-to-Organismal Approach is one disruptive principle in Medicine; beyond that would be a socio-political intervention already.

  26. Stem cell therapy for eye disease has shown miraculous results. See this video to know how a blind man could see again.

  27. 50-100 years away unfortunately. For me I wish they could repair and heal nerves better. I have had 3 surgeries to try and fix a nerve in my ankles and it didn’t work. Now I take daily medication at the age of 25. I wonder how my daily living will be effected unless medical advances happen sooner than later.

    They have made great advances in spinal cord stimulators though.

  28. You're talking about external creation of organs. Would you actually consider repairing the existing organs in their own environment without any transplant surgery?

  29. Today marks the beginning of a scientific motivational journey I'm taking and this video (Siddhartha Mukherjee) has taught me that comabting disease is more of a matter of thought than tech -Dw, The Grooveman (July.31.2018)

  30. Over 3 years since this talk. Science is slow and innovations are slowed by big government and big insurance companies.

  31. What is at stake is
    NOT killing something
    It is in growing something
    Ah yes
    Siddhartha you are a creationist
    Bless you
    Can we clone you

  32. I know TED TALKS love vaccine but in many vaccines there are many fragmented human cells. These cells are readily taken up by our stem cells causing mutations which lead to cancer. There is an huge increase in rare childhood cancers. This is due to these toxic vaccines. If our stem cells mutate then it's the end of the human race. Gene therapy will not help these children. The chicken pox vaccine is loaded w these cancer causing embryonic cells which forever change their stem cells.

  33. My undergraduate studies were focused on biological systems and treatments using novel drugs. I worked with many different types of novel drugs. There were many drugs that were previously tested by other facilities but did not produce the theorized results. We noticed that there was a possibility they interacted with what we were working with and thought to use them in our studies. Sometimes they worked but often we published papers demonstrating there was no relation. This taught me exactly what Mr. Mukherjee is explaining. We need to open our minds up to other ideas of treating disease.

    Since starting my post graduate work, I’ve been excited to learn about the development of treating some cancers with your own immune system. It’s so cool to see how well this Ted talk has aged when it comes to the question of “Could your medicine be a cell, not a pill?” To quickly summarize this idea, your bodies immune system is “taught” what each other cell “looks like.” It’s true that cancer cells are your own cells but they can have many different mutations that alter their outer proteins. They’ll look similar to your own cells but different enough that it’s possible the train your immune system to target and destroy those cells.

    From my understanding, modern day medicine is coming the ideas of “Could your medicine be a cell, not a pill?” and “Could your medicine be an environment?” It would be easy to just say “ramp up the immune system to full capacity” if it meant getting rid of all cancers but that can cause equally dangerous problems. There are internal environmental conditions that cause an up-regulation of your immune system and others that cause a down-regulation. Your body is always balancing the two. Too high and you may end up with an auto-immune disorder while if it’s too low you are vulnerable to opportunistic diseases that can kill you.

    It’s really exciting to be a part of the generation that may have the ability to fully understand the body and create health for everyone.

    If you’re interested in the above ideas you can search for “CAR T-cell therapy” for a more fulfilling understanding.

  34. Loved your concept but at the same time its very disappointing that we will loose millions of our dear ones till we reach to that eutopian state.
    Please come up with some thing done we are in urgent need of help as victims of cancer family.

  35. "Ye shall not surely die.." hissssssssss!!! Don't buy what your selling Satan; Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life.

  36. Taking the mark; altering the DNA to become your own god eventually right? You want everyone to believe that your intentions are benevolent, but they are nefarious and are already cannibalizing unborn children to give you this false hope. Where you think stimcells come from? The murderers of the innocent will be judged by the LORD JESUS CHRIST!

  37. 1:14 find it's target… Yes, but the same way a nuclear warhead would find its target in Kim Jong-Un's swimming pool…along with it killing the whole of Pyongyang…same with antibiotics, collaterally damaging your beneficial microbiome. So yes, you're definitely killing something! I really like your 'upward' approach… Instead of blocking and killing, feeding and upregulating. The same with your microbiome: stimulate the good guys, eat good food, and benefits will come without collateral damage from an often overdosed chemical. Great insights Dr. Mukherjee! Thanks

  38. Pneumonia is caused by Many Viruses and Bacteria and a weak body filled with "treatment drugs". Look up Heat and Cancer Drugs.

  39. I’ve become very pessimistic about curing cancer. About a decade ago when the promise of stem cells was the rage I was very optimistic but now ten years later most of the stem cell research and companies funded it have folded and with it the promise of a cure. The truth is we really do not understand cancer and as these researchers found out that the more we learn the more we discover that the less we know. When I look at the state of cancer today and most frontline treatment is still radiation which was the main treatment 60 years ago is a very sobering reality at how little progress we have made. Yes the earlier detection and screening is better but once you have cancer it is really generally a death sentence. Even the hope of immunotherapy is limited to one type of cancer and recent trials with pancreatic cancer showed no improvements. The problem is that we really do not understand cancer and the various forms and stimuli which makes it so difficult to beat. When I hear idiotic politicians of both sides with the latest being Joe Biden saying we will cure cancer in 4 years if he’s elected is as Sid said stupid. It’s not a political issue. It’s something that will still be here In all of our lifetimes. There is no cure round the corner.

Leave a Reply

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