
Startup developing HIV/AIDS vaccine is 2nd nonprofit accepted into Y Combinator - playhard
http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/23/startup-developing-hivaids-vaccine-is-2nd-nonprofit-accepted-into-y-combinator/
======
pg
Lest anyone be confused by that headline, there are 6 other nonprofits in the
current batch. So there is a 7-way tie for 2nd nonprofit.

~~~
napoleoncomplex
I have been at times vocal in opposition to the type of companies that YC has
funded in the past few batches, as the possibility of them improving life
quality for people that actually need the improvement seemed quite small,
largely based on a prospect of trickle down technology, which turns out to be
as likely as trickle down economics, in that it rarely trickles out of San
Francisco. Not saying those start-ups were easy, or not worth doing, as doing
any start-up is by nature incredibly hard, and following your passion is
always worth doing. But, YC's prominent role seemed ideal for doing something
more, and it just didn't come.

I'll be equally vocal in support now. Watsi was the first sign of light,
Immunity Project the second. This is what needs support, what needs money and
hype. Realistically it won't get as much money as it needs, but with someone
like YC pushing nonprofits like this, it's a huge step in the right direction.
I can't wait to see the other nonprofits.

I know I sound like a bitter communist (is there any other kind?), but this
really feels like an island of reason in the bubbly ocean of SF. Good luck to
this batch.

------
mef
Does anyone know why this approach is "viewed as a rogue project by the
immunology community"? Is it just because it's new, or is there something more
fundamental that conflicts with established immunology?

~~~
naveenspark
Hi all, this is Naveen from Immunity Project YC team. The fact that we are
using ML to identify epitopes that are the preferred targets on the virus for
HIV controllers is key to what makes our project unique. This is a newer
approach for developing a vaccine and therefore makes it "rogue."

~~~
dnautics
Hey Naveen, I know that there are some epitopes that can only be recognized if
there's a weird domain swap that happens, causing antibodies to be "four-
pronged" instead of "two pronged". I think it's a proline substitution in the
conserved neck region. Did you screen out those epitopes from your ML?

Also good luck! I'm chipping in now. I'm relaunching my own crowd-funded
nonprofit research in the biomedical space (and will be partnering with
crowdhoster/crowdtilt)... I'm magnifying your message. When the dust settles a
little bit I'd love to be in touch with you guys.

~~~
jlcx
Good luck with your relaunch! I'll look for it, so I can support it again!

------
icinnamon
Hey everyone! Ian Cinnamon here from the Immunity Project YC team. The
crowdfunding link in the article appears broken (we're working on getting them
to fix it). In the meantime, you can visit our campaign here:
[https://pledge.immunityproject.org/](https://pledge.immunityproject.org/)

------
crystaln
I'm trying to understand what if any overlap a pharmaceutical nonprofit has
with any value YC could add, from the scale of funds required, to product
advice, to business model - everything seems entirely out of the range of YC's
expertise.

~~~
yapcguy
Yeah...

Anyone know how much YC is contributing and what they get in exchange? Some
kind of ownership of the company?

Do people taking part in the $482,000 fund raiser get ownership of the
company?

Why doesn't YC just donate money as part of the fund raiser?

~~~
TheMakeA
They don't get anything.

[http://ycombinator.com/np.html](http://ycombinator.com/np.html)

~~~
yapcguy
Seems strange that non-profits have to "pitch" to validate themselves. If they
have a mission, and believe in it, why do they need a bunch of money from men
in suits?

Looks like easy PR and Goodwill for YC. Reminds me of all the big banks who
take out full-page ads every Christmas and send out press releases touting how
they're helping society by taking part in a Christmas fund raiser.

------
anu_gupta
I'd like to understand why organisations like the Gates Foundation / NIH
aren't excited by this approach? I'm assuming they've rejected this, which
would explain the need to crowdfinance the next part. If they haven't rejected
it, why aren't they being approached for grants?

Also, where's the science? Having something in the FAQ that states "We're
awaiting publication in a peer-reviewed journal" is, to be blunt, pretty lame.
Is the data and research open access? If not, why not?

~~~
naveenspark
We are pursuing all major funders we know of for funding for our work
(including Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation etc.). The challenge is that it
takes significant time to prepare grants apps, and go through the process.
Some large funders such as EJAF only accept grant applications once a year.
HIV/AIDS is an urgent challenge. Therefore we are crowd funding these dollars
now to move our project forward immediately. In terms of the PRJ question, the
bottom line is its a chicken and egg problem. Its harder to get published if
you release all of the data prior to publication. Post publication, our goal
is to make our project as open access as humanely possible. All of that being
said, we do have more information about our work on our site:
[http://www.immunityproject.org](http://www.immunityproject.org). If you have
specific questions about our approach please feel free to ask them.

~~~
rgejman
I'm confused as to why you would encourage anyone to donate money to your
organization without providing any data. I'm also confused about why you care
about publication in traditional scientific mediums. You are starting a
company and it would be in your interest to release as much data as possible
about your successes in an attempt to raise money.

Not to mention, there are some journals that will publish pre-printed data.
Here's a partial list
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy))
although take that list with a grain of salt because the pre-print policies
may only really apply to math/physics publications.

~~~
dnautics
there was veeery recently a bio paper that got pushed to arXiv. I don't have
the link, since I saw it float by on a facebook feed, but I will look for it.

------
ig1
Given the high cost (hundreds of millions) of taking a vaccine through
clinical trials, FDA approval and production I'm curious why the choice to go
the non-profit route.

Is the growth plan to raise the money from large donors (Gates foundation,
Wellcome Trust, etc.) or to licence the technology to more traditional pharma
firms ?

~~~
naveenspark
Most of the people who are living w/ HIV worldwide can't afford to pay for
treatment. From our perspective it doesn't make sense to charge for something
that the people who need it most just can't pay for. By making our project non
profit we can focus on the real goal, which is ending HIV/AIDS and not
creating ROI for shareholders. Yes we will need to raise significant funding
over the lifetime of the project to complete this goal. The good news is that
our team is very efficient. The current experiment we are hoping to execute
will be done at a fraction of the price and in a fraction of the time then
what it would typically cost / take at a major pharma company.

~~~
sgift
Is there some special "trick" that makes your team/approach so efficient or
(just) the usual ones, e.g. less overhead due to small size, less bureaucracy
than big pharma and so on?

~~~
naveenspark
Yes our overhead is far lower. Our other "trick" is that several members of
our team are multi-talented. For example Dr. Herst can do tissue culture work,
formulation development, analytical chemistry, and immunochemistry.

~~~
ig1
While I appreciate that it's possible to cut down the upfront costs with
talented staff, it still seems that things like clinical trials will cost
hundreds of millions of dollars (at least that's the price range I've seen for
anti-malarial vaccination clinical trials) and still have a substantial chance
of failure at later stage trials.

It would seem difficult to raise that kind of money from other than big pharma
or typical pharma capital market sources who would want to see a large pay-off
from such an risky investment (i.e. selling it in countries which could afford
it).

Best of luck in any case!

~~~
Daishiman
It is not unlikely that some developing country like India, Brazil or Nigeria
could pony up the money and provide access to regulatory fast tracks if the
research seems promising enough.

------
andrewfong
From the FAQ: "But, there are certain spots on HIV that rarely mutate, and
these are the same highly specific targets that controller immune systems
already recognize naturally. Our vaccine trains your immune system to attack
those weak spots so that the virus is crippled even when it mutates. In other
words, our vaccine shows the prime targets to your immune system so that it
does not have to waste time and energy trying to figure out which ones are the
best points of attack."

How does the vaccine train your immune system? My (very limited) understanding
of vaccines is that you would normally train the immune system to target these
weak spots by creating an antibody that would bind to said weak spot. But from
elsewhere on the page, it says that the project isn't working on an antibody
approach. What am I missing?

~~~
cma
I think they mean they train the immune system by creating an antigen, not an
antibody, that mimics or is identical to the nonmutating antigen on the virus.
Your immune system upregulates appropriate antibodies on its own through a
feedback effect when certain cells (B cell?) that have randomly generated
embedded antibodies on their cell membranes come across an antigen.

These cells begin to divide faster, and the children code for and generate the
same antibody as the parent. This ups the amount of cells with that particular
antibody, increasing the probability that the antigen will be targeted. They
trigger inflammation to increase the flow of blood, letting more immune cells
per second pass through scan the area (probably not helpful for aids, but for
a cut, a splinter or a tumor that is fixed in place it is useful). They also
release freestanding antibodies with the same binding profile that can disable
viruses and trigger other immune cells to come slurp them up.

I think when they say they aren't taking an antibody approach they mean they
aren't making an artificial antibody and just injecting it for passive
immunity (sort of like injecting an immune system that can't do its own
adaptation and upregulation)

The main thing with vaccines I am still confused about is what the difference
between them and allergy shots is, and how do the two end up with opposite
effects? I guess there is somehow a different reaction to a spike of something
vs a repeated presence.

(Edit: never mind.. microspheres.. who knew?)

~~~
Buttons840
Fascinating! What do you think the best resource is for brushing up on this
stuff? I haven't had a good biology class for a while.

~~~
cma
I'd say watch the Kahn academy biology videos, his wife is an immunologist or
something so it had a big focus on the adaptive immune system. Goodsell's "The
Machinery of Life" is really good too, but for molecular bio in general.

Those and just random magazine articles, etc. are really the only two things
read/watched though, so others may know of some better options.

------
unclebucknasty
On one hand, it's clearly great news that this work is being funded.

But, maybe I'm the odd guy, here. At a higher level, does it bother anyone
else even slightly that more and more of the world's priorities are being set
by fewer and fewer people? This is how it's been to some extent for millennia.
But, with increasing income/wealth disparity in the world, its effect is
amplified.

This, of course, is a terrible example because I'm sure most can agree that
attempting to cure such a devastating disease is worthy of funding. This is
also not to disparage wealthy individuals (indeed, many would include me in
the bunch).

It just seems that very little sees the light of day unless an increasingly
small group of people deem it so worthy. And, something about seeing the
priorities of even our non-profits dictated by these few gives me pause. Yes,
I know that philanthropy, foundations, etc. have always existed but, again,
the rate of increase of absolute power and control accreting back to so few
people like the days of yore seems inconsistent with freedom, democracy, and
all the other good stuff so many have come to idealize for good reason.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I get what you're talking about, but right now I personally feel happy that
this effect is increasing, and I hope to be the part of this small group at
some point.

It's because, to be honest, majority of humans just doesn't give a crap about
anything that's further than 10cm from the end of their noses. The opposite of
world priorities being set by fewer and fewer people is _not_ lots of good
things happening, it's _nothing of importance ever happening_. Want a proof?
Just look at internal politics of every democratic state. Tons of resources
get wasted, and nothing ever gets done, because people just can't agree on
anything.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _I personally feel happy that this effect is increasing_

Well, it's all good until it isn't. If the priorities of a few people impact
so many (including you) and you no longer agree with them, then what do you
do?

> _I hope to be the part of this small group at some point._

I think it's actually a shame that you'd need to be a part of the "small
group" in order to have a voice. Ideally, we'd all have at least the capacity
to participate in our world without first requiring the blessing of a handful
of gatekeepers.

And, the irony is that's the thing: It's actually harder for you to make it
into the small group sans the blessing of the few who are in it. For instance,
where is the real democratizing effect of the Net? For a recent, specific
example, look at Bitcoin. What was once a libertarian's dream has already been
co-opted by the same VCs and interests such that they will now provide the
services and "real infrastructure" to grow wealthy from what was once
considered an almost subversive concept. Business as usual.

> _majority of humans just doesn 't give a crap about anything that's further
> than 10cm from the end of their noses_

That's true, but I think that's due to the quite purposeful orientation of our
society towards mass distraction, which seems to be part of an apparent desire
to limit critical thought. Witness the U.S. education system which emphasizes
rote-memorization and the creation of "cogs for the machine". I actually think
it's endemic to the wealth/income polarization problem. That is, such a
societal structure that seeks to create a consumer class that serves as mere
unthinking cogs works to _someone 's_ benefit.

> _Just look at internal politics of every democratic state_

I'm not sure how many truly democratic states there are. The "shining example"
(US) is controlled by a relative few people through special interests, insane
campaign funding laws, and revolving-door civil-servants/lobbyists. Again, all
of these examples point back to the very discomfort I have: the increasing
concentration of power and wealth away from "the masses" into the hands of a
few whose agenda and priorities shape our world.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Well, it 's all good until it isn't. If the priorities of a few people
> impact so many (including you) and you no longer agree with them, then what
> do you do?_

You have a good point here, but...

> _I think it 's actually a shame that you'd need to be a part of the "small
> group" in order to have a voice._

> _It 's actually harder for you to make it into the small group sans the
> blessing of the few who are in it._

... but I don't think it works like that. The "small group" I'm talking about
is not a group of special people, either born into it or allowed to join. I'm
thinking about a subset of humanity that actually gives a damn, and works
towards a change. It seems that the entry exam for joining this "small group"
is just getting out and doing anything - starting a company, starting a
movement, starting a research project, etc. Because most people don't do
anything, you can join the minority by just trying to fix something.

Actually, it's the whole Snowdengate thing that got me thinking about this
issue. There's a popular meme here that "the solution must be political in
nature, not technological", a statement I strongly disagree with. I've come to
realize that an effective solution will have to be technological in nature,
because politics means lots of talking that never gets you anywhere, while a
simple technological solution can simply shift the problem landscape under
people's feet. You don't have to ask anyone; you deploy, and they'll have to
cope. It's exactly the kind of thinking you're worried about, but I can't
really see any alternative.

You see, the world is full of short-sighted, uncaring, or sometimes outright
stupid people who, if given the chance, will burn this planet down to the
ground thanks to their sheer incompetence. I would _love_ them to have the
freedom and the equal influence over the world's priorities, but I also don't
want my future kids to die a painful death because of a combination of
stupidity and democracy.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _The "small group" I'm talking about is not a group of special people,
> either born into it or allowed to join. I'm thinking about a subset of
> humanity that actually gives a damn, and works towards a change._

Yeah, I think we're talking about two different groups. The group I'm talking
about is specifically those with capital/wealth--in part, the "investor class"
if you will. This group does _materially_ dictate the world's various
agendas/priorities.

OTOH, I would say that you're already a member of "your group" (i.e. the group
that gives a damn), just by virtue of the fact that you seem to give a damn.
So, when you mentioned that you hoped to join the "small group" at some point,
I took that as an acknowledgment of my position: that is, giving a damn and
having your own priorities is not enough, without the capital/access to
actually do something.

> _There 's a popular meme here that "the solution must be political in
> nature, not technological"_

I'd say legal in nature, not technological. And, that's purely a practical
matter. That is, it's not that I'm overjoyed about the state of our legal
system. It's more that I don't think it's practical to play technological cat-
and-mouse with our own government and expect to win. So, IMO, if we don't at
least attempt to constrain the government legally, then we've lost hope.

But, I digress. To your bigger point, yes, seeking legal redress does have
political implications. And there's no doubt that we need to fix our politics,
but again, I think the problems are one and the same: the few moneyed
interests I mentioned dictate our agenda, in part through our politics. So,
while our politics appear to be broken due to sheer incompetence, they
actually are not. They simply serve an agenda that is not "for the people",
while attempting to maintain the facade that they are.

> _...will burn this planet down to the ground. I would love them to have the
> freedom and the equal influence over the world 's priorities, but I also
> don't want my future kids to die a painful death because of a combination of
> stupidity and democracy._

Well said and I agree to some extent. Beyond mere politics though, I'm
lamenting the access to power to _all_ but a few. That is to say, there are
certainly also many thoughtful, caring people in the world whose ideas/actions
could help to shape it and make it a better place for all. In other words,
it's not simply a world of a few moneyed people who know what's best for
everyone on one side vs. a slew of completely ignorant, incompetent, malicious
dullards on the other. There are many in the middle whose priorities also
deserve the light of day. I would imagine that you and I, as well as many
others who post here fall somewhere on that spectrum.

------
rdl
This is going to be really inconvenient for all the people who say "sure, you
are good at making photo sharing apps and dating sites, but you don't cure
cancer or anything."

~~~
jjoonathan
I suspect that those people value the fact that this is happening more than
the fact that they don't "get" to complain about it not happening.

~~~
Fomite
Being one of those people, and an Epidemiologist, if this team manages to
succeed, I'll happily shut up.

------
RoboTeddy
How heavily does the project depend on obtaining correct target epitopes from
Heckerman's protein Gibbs free energy simulation?

Is there a chance that HIV won't be controlled even if we can induce the
immune system to be capable of targeting some of the peptide sequences that
controllers often target? (i.e., might there be something else at work in
controllers?)

Thanks for working on an important project!

~~~
naveenspark
Right now the project is only relying epitopes derived from actual controller
targets. Our hypothesis is that if we go after the epitopes that HIV
controllers preferentially target that we will get an immune response with
memory in humans just as we have so far in our animal studies. The only way to
test this is to execute on our clinical trial in humans. The current
experiment we are aiming to perform is a good middle ground since we will be
immunizing human blood against HIV in a controlled environment and then
testing that immunity.

~~~
RoboTeddy
The experiment in blood sounds interesting, I hope it works!

It looks like there might be differences between controller immune systems and
regular ones that don't have to do with choice of epitope:

[http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/19/infdi...](http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/19/infdis.jit643.abstract)

Does this make it less likely that targeting specific epitopes is all there is
to the picture? (I'm happy to assume that we'll get an immune response with
memory in humans -- the question is, how confident should we be that that
response will control HIV?)

~~~
naveenspark
The article is describing one of the many explanations that has been brought
forward to explain why controllers do what they do. If you are looking for a
common denominator across controllers broadly, the selective epitope targeting
explanation seems to make the most sense to us and does not appear to be
constrained by anything but the individual's HLA type which essentially
determines what epitopes a particular individual's immune system can "see."

------
danielpal
This is a really interesting project. I have so many questions and it seems
others too. It would be great to do an AMA on Reddit or something.

So one question: This "targetting capability" that HIV controllers have, which
your goals is to give it to all of us, does it also have any other benefits?
Does it also help protect us from other viruses?

~~~
icinnamon
We're absolutely planning on doing an AMA on reddit in the near future!

The "targetting capability", definitely does have implications for other types
of viruses. While this vaccine focuses on giving the power of HIV controllers
to everybody, other controllers do exist. For example, there may be
controllers for other viruses like Hepatitis, HPV, Herpes, or even things like
other viruses that cause cancer.

~~~
icinnamon
Starting our AMA now!
[http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1w29dx/we_are_creating...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1w29dx/we_are_creating_the_hivaids_vaccine_to_give_away/)

------
jjoe
This is one of those times when you take a step back, reflect, and look at the
big picture. However much excited I am about my project, I realize that the
stuff these guys are working on hits all the right notes. And then some.

~~~
icinnamon
Thanks, jjoe! We really appreciate your support.

------
yarou
Very interesting. I noticed the article mentions that the algorithm used is
"similar to the techniques of spam filtering" (paraphrasing). Would it happen
to be a Bayesian Network or a logical agent?

------
humanfromearth
So have they developed a vaccine, but they need money for trials, delivery..?
How exactly would they go about and test if it works on humans? Are there
people who volunteer to get infected with HIV?

~~~
icinnamon
I'm Ian Cinnamon, one of the members of the Immunity Project YC team. We have
in fact developed the vaccine. We've completed 2 years of animal testing, and
we have one final experiment to run before we start our Phase I Clinical
Trials in humans. In order to test the efficacy of the vaccine in human
trials, we go to Durban, South Africa, where HIV has a prevalence rate of
~15%. We dose a wide range of healthy volunteers, and we check back again at
regular intervals to make sure they have no contracted HIV. We're also able to
perform a wide range of laboratory tests to show the dosed human blood is now
immune to HIV.

~~~
opendomain
Ian- YOU developed the vaccine for HIV? Were you part of some team from a
university? Or did some other company develop the real science and you are
partnering with them? How can you offer everyone in the world a free vaccine
for your crowdfunding target of only $500K? where does the money you raise go?

~~~
simonk
If you look at the fundraising page they have a budget but it looks like the
$500k just pays for the next experiment it wont even get them to Phase 1.
Microsoft Research gave them $1M to get this far.

~~~
opendomain
I did some more research and would really like a clarifcation of this project.

First of all - Flow Pharma is the inventor of the vsaccine - they are a FOR
PROFIT angel backed company. Why do they need crowdfunding?

Second - How does Immunity project work? It seems that the real non-profit is
"Until there is a cure". So you are donating money to them, which then give
the money to the immunity project which pays for a trial of an unproven drug
for a FOR prfit company.

This is a fantastic project and I promise I will donate if you have full
disclosure. thank you for doing this.

~~~
naveenspark
More then happy to give you the full details on how we've set this up: the
vaccine is being developed by Flow Pharma Inc. Instead of setting up our own
501(c)3, we setup a fiscal sponsorship agreement with Until There's A Cure, a
leading HIV/AIDS focused 501(c)3. We are operating the project as a non profit
even though our entity type is technically a corp. In other words we are
obligated to follow 501(c)3 rules and regulations, and we are obligated to
give our vaccine away for free regardless of our entity type. The primary
reason we did this is because its much better to work with a well established
501(c)3 that has team members who can help provide validation and support then
to start from scratch on your own. It is also much faster to do this then
setup your own 501(c)3.

~~~
opendomain
Thank you very much for your response! Unfortunately, I do not think you
actually answered my questions!

* Why does Flow Pharma need crowdfunding when they are FOR PROFIT? * How can you guarantee FREE vaccines for everyone for only $500k? * What will the crowd founding be spent on and will there be follow on investing needed? * What is the future of Immunity Project? Have you begun your application to be your own official non-profit?

EDIT: I seem that someone else answered a part "Dr. Reid Rubsamen, developed
the vaccine is part of the Immunity Project", but does not explain the exact
relationship with Flow Pharma?

------
FooBarWidget
I don't get it, isn't the point of investing to get the investment back in
many multiples? How do you get your investment back if it's a non-profit?

~~~
edent
I assume it's a tax dodge of some sort. I'm sure that investments in non-
profits can be offset against capital gains (or something like that).

I'm not an investor and this _isn 't_ tax advice!

~~~
pg
No, as far as I know we get no tax advantage from this beyond what anyone gets
from making any charitable donation (the ability to deduct it).

------
kfk
Does this mean that contracting the virus with the vaccine will give you HIV
but not AIDS? What about being a carrier, would you still be a carrier?

~~~
icinnamon
If you're vaccinated, your body would fight off the HIV virus. You would have
an upgraded immune system.

In terms of independently curing AIDS, although the vaccine has therapeutic
potential, it mostly likely applies only to those particular individuals
living with HIV who have normal immune systems – i.e. those successfully
managed on HAART medications. The vaccine may prevent AIDS, but it will not
cure AIDS.

------
cpursley
I'm all for this; more power to them. However, HIV/AIDS is already very
preventable and had been on the decline for a decade or more. I'd rather see
something like this effort, but for cancer. A disease that affects many more
people.

Actually, what I really want to see it a focus on stopping poaching, whaling,
habitat destruction and ocean acidification. Even with all the disease, humans
don't seem to have issues reproducing. Extending the human population,
especially those of developing countries, only leads to more of the above. One
day our children are going to say - "Cool, no more HIV, but what's a
rainforest? what's a Rhinoceros? why can't we eat fish." Just saying.

~~~
judah
Bill Gates just addressed this [1], showing the faulty thinking behind this
idea that saving lives is ultimately bad for the earth.

"It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the most deaths have among
the fastest-growing populations in the world. This is because the women in
these countries tend to have the most births, too.

This pattern of falling death rates followed by falling birth rates applies
for the vast majority of the world. Demographers have written a lot about this
phenomenon. The French were the first to start this transition, toward the end
of the 18th century. In France, average family size went down every decade for
150 years in a row. In Germany, women started having fewer children in the
1880s, and in just 50 years family size had mostly stabilized again. In
Southeast Asia and Latin America, average fertility dropped from six or seven
children per woman to two or three in a single generation, thanks in large
measure to the modern contraceptives available by the 1960s.

Because most countries—with exceptions in sub-Saharan Africa and South
Asia—have now gone through this transition, the global population is growing
more slowly every year. As Hans Rosling, a professor at the Karolinska
Institute in Sweden and one of my favorite data geeks, said, “The amount of
children in the world today is probably the most there will be! We are
entering into the age of the Peak Child!”"

Saving lives will improve humanity and -- as humanity has discovered --
actually contributes to fewer births. This is one of the reasons we see
shrinking populations in 25 nations including Japan, Ukraine, Italy, Greece.
[2]

The reality is that saving lives counterintuitively decreases population
through lower birth rates, which may ultimately help the earth.

Also, observe that the world is at its highest population today, and yet,
billions of humans are totally resource-secure. Why this counter-intuitive
phenomenon? It's largely thanks to technological advancements in farming and
genetics. There is no reason to believe this trend will not continue.

[1]:
[http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_gn_ll0_01202...](http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_gn_ll0_012023#section=myth-
three)

[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline)

~~~
humannature
highest population today.. yes but what about pollution levels? highest ever
too? natural resources also more depleted than ever? your post doesn't address
the issue of overpopulation...

~~~
judah
Pollution levels are not at their highest [1]. And even if they were, it would
not mean we should stop saving lives.

Gates' post shows that saving lives actually helps overpopulation,
historically. And through technological advances, we are more resource rich
than we ever have been. That you're sitting there in a comfy, heated office
with all the food, money, and resources you ever will need is evidence of
this. Better yet, the same resource richness you now enjoy is spreading around
the world [1].

Natural resources: if you mean things like oil, well, that is a resource only
humans need to use; our using that resource isn't a bad thing in itself. Yes,
it has some negative side effects, and yes, it will eventually run out. But
when it does, we'll move on through more technology.

The "world is doomed because of too many humans" thinking is terribly
shortsighted because it assumes humans will never increase resources, solve
diseases, and never populate other planets. Those assumptions are increasingly
shown to unlikely, if not foolish.

[1]: [http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-
one](http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-one)

------
alt_f4
Finally an answer to the question: "What do I have to do to get into
YCombinator? Cure aids?"

------
kriro
This is very good news. Good luck.

------
coreymgilmore
great job guys, keep up the good work. cant wait to see what comes of it.

------
jonhmchan
Just donated. Very cool.

~~~
naveenspark
Thank you for your support!

------
humannature
when are we going to start addressing the problem of overpopulation?

~~~
namenotrequired
There's a lot of non-profits that aim to make birth control more wide-spread,
too. Do you have any other ideas how overpopulation can be tackled by a
startup with purely legal methods?

~~~
jacalata
I believe that decreased child mortality and increased education/self-
sufficiency for women are two of the big triggers for reduced birth rates in
developing countries; in other words, increase the chances that the kids they
have will survive to support their parents, and decrease the need for mothers
to be supported by their children/possibly increase the opportunity cost to
them of having children (although I don't think I've heard it described in
that last way, it's just how it looks to me).

~~~
namenotrequired
Good points, thanks! I now see that Bill and Melinda Gates addressed the same
points in their annual letter:

[http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-
three](http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-three)

------
normloman
That'll never work. It has to involve social media somehow. Or apps.

