1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Ken_g6
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:45 pm UTC
Location: in yer GPUz fakterin' primez in wardrobez

1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Ken_g6 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:09 pm UTC

Image

Title text: 'People with all six of those names agree that it's weird that we have teeth, when you think about it for too long. Just about everyone agrees on that, except—in a still-unexplained statistical anomaly—people named "Trevor."'

Evolution had to find a way to grind up food. The choices were teeth, bony plates (similar to teeth), or gizzards. I think it would be weirder if we had gizzards.

leeharveyosmond
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:03 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby leeharveyosmond » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:43 pm UTC

Logan? Brooklyn? Harper?

It would be a kinder simpler world if David Beckham had been a fictional character just like Wolverine

speising
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby speising » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:47 pm UTC

Fun fact: i'm part of the first batch of people (of those alive today, that is) who do not have a smallpox inoculation scar. my older siblings still got one.

DanD
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby DanD » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:55 pm UTC

Ken_g6 wrote:Evolution had to find a way to grind up food. The choices were teeth, bony plates (similar to teeth), or gizzards. I think it would be weirder if we had gizzards.


External digestion, as in starfish or spiders. Slow digestion of intact food, as in snakes. External grinding, as in flour (yeah, I don't know any animals for whom that's the standard approach, but it could be). Consumption of only food soft enough to be mashed by soft tissue. Liquid diet, as in humming birds or vampire bats or vampire finches.

And that's just in animalia. There are lots of options.

jozwa
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby jozwa » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:57 pm UTC

There's a vaccine for it now?

speising
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby speising » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:57 pm UTC

but vampires still have teeth, even rather prominent ones.

chenille
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby chenille » Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:36 pm UTC

Ken_g6 wrote:Evolution had to find a way to grind up food. The choices were teeth, bony plates (similar to teeth), or gizzards. I think it would be weirder if we had gizzards.

But then, you've spent a long time getting used to having teeth. For an alternate perspective you can see how babies feel about them, when a few months into figuring out the world, they suddenly start having these chisels of bone rip out through their soft tissue. Not many take it so well!

User avatar
Reka
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Reka » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:02 pm UTC

leeharveyosmond wrote:Logan? Brooklyn? Harper?

It would be a kinder simpler world if David Beckham had been a fictional character just like Wolverine

I don't know if you can really blame it on Beckham, though: his (and his wife's) name choices are a product of the times, same as all the other parents out there who think Jaxon is (1) the correct spelling, (2) of a first name, not a last name, and (3) they're the first parents to have thought of this creative option. It's pretty pointless to tell such parents that all three of those assumptions are wrong. Small comfort, I know, but they'll figure out #3 as soon as their kid gets old enough to visit a playground.

(At least Harper on a girl isn't as bad as Addison on a girl. The former is an occupation, so grammatically [and to some degree semantically] it's gender-neutral. The latter literally means "son of Adam".)

DanD
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby DanD » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:08 pm UTC

speising wrote:but vampires still have teeth, even rather prominent ones.


But they aren't required to grind food. And could be replaced by claw or proboscis.

User avatar
jc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby jc » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:38 pm UTC

Ken_g6 wrote:Evolution had to find a way to grind up food. The choices were teeth, bony plates (similar to teeth), or gizzards. I think it would be weirder if we had gizzards.

Nah; we'd just think gizzards are normal. And we might also pity the critters that have teeth, since it's so much easier to replace worn-out gizzard stones than worn-out teeth.

Of course, gizzards do go well with beaks rather than lips, since you need something to catch your food and chop it roughly into pieces that go down the throat easily. Yes, humans can do this with hand-held tools, but our earlier ancestors wouldn't have had that ability.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby ivnja » Fri Feb 02, 2018 6:46 pm UTC

For my own ease of viewing, I've made the arrow of time in the graphs point to the right, so that the trend lines flow in the (again, to me) more intuitive direction:

chicken_pox_and_name_statistics.png
Hi you.
she/her

MrPractical
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:05 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby MrPractical » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:10 pm UTC

ivnja wrote:For my own ease of viewing, I've made the arrow of time in the graphs point to the right, so that the trend lines flow in the (again, to me) more intuitive direction:


Registered to say THANK YOU! I couldn't make heads or tails of the original graph, and came here for enlightenment. :D

gcgcgcgc
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:18 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby gcgcgcgc » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:46 pm UTC

Am I alone in interpreting "people with all six of these names" to mean people called "Brian Sarah Logan Brooklyn Jaxon Harper"? [Or permutations thereof]

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3190
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:57 pm UTC

gcgcgcgc wrote:Am I alone in interpreting "people with all six of these names" to mean people called "Brian Sarah Logan Brooklyn Jaxon Harper"? [Or permutations thereof]
Nope. (Awaiting news for if there's more than two, of course.)

User avatar
timrem
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:02 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby timrem » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:39 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
gcgcgcgc wrote:Am I alone in interpreting "people with all six of these names" to mean people called "Brian Sarah Logan Brooklyn Jaxon Harper"? [Or permutations thereof]
Nope. (Awaiting news for if there's more than two, of course.)

I certainly read it that way as well. I didn't think of the other interpretation until reading the thread here.

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby somitomi » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:53 pm UTC

timrem wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:
gcgcgcgc wrote:Am I alone in interpreting "people with all six of these names" to mean people called "Brian Sarah Logan Brooklyn Jaxon Harper"? [Or permutations thereof]
Nope. (Awaiting news for if there's more than two, of course.)

I certainly read it that way as well. I didn't think of the other interpretation until reading the thread here.

Yup.
Although I had to do that here, because it refused to show up on the xkcd site for some reason. Restarting Firefox seems to have fixed that, weird...
—◯-◯

sonar1313
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:29 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby sonar1313 » Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:28 am UTC

Reka wrote:
leeharveyosmond wrote:Logan? Brooklyn? Harper?
(At least Harper on a girl isn't as bad as Addison on a girl. The former is an occupation, so grammatically [and to some degree semantically] it's gender-neutral. The latter literally means "son of Adam".)

I knew there had to be a reason I don't like girls names in the form of Mc(Something).

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby da Doctah » Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:51 am UTC

MrPractical wrote:
ivnja wrote:For my own ease of viewing, I've made the arrow of time in the graphs point to the right, so that the trend lines flow in the (again, to me) more intuitive direction:


Registered to say THANK YOU! I couldn't make heads or tails of the original graph, and came here for enlightenment. :D


I still can't make sense of the original or the update. It seems to say that people my age are way off the chart to the left of what is shown. Before the question you asked someone wasn't "did you ever have the chicken pox" but "when did you have the chicken pox".

I got mine when Martin Luther King was still alive. I think Walt Disney may have still been walking around too.

Brian-M
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:31 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Brian-M » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:37 am UTC

As a Brian, I did think it was pretty normal to have had chickenpox. In fact, I even had it twice. Apparently some people can get it more than once, and I was "fortunate" enough to be one of those people. I'm probably going to get super-bad shingles someday because of it.

I had no idea that rates of chickenpox had dropped so far.


But I don't agree that it's weird that we have teeth, even when I think about it too long. It's thinking about it too long which is weird.
Last edited by Brian-M on Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:46 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Brian-M
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:31 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Brian-M » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:46 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:I still can't make sense of the original or the update. It seems to say that people my age are way off the chart to the left of what is shown. Before the question you asked someone wasn't "did you ever have the chicken pox" but "when did you have the chicken pox".


The graph is saying that if you're 30 or over then close to 100% of people your age have had chickenpox, but if you're 5 or less then only a few percent of people your age have had chickenpox, and if you're between those two ages the chances are somewhere in-between. The main reason for the difference being that the chickenpox vaccine was introduced about 30 years ago, and vaccination rates have gradually increased.

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5544
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Eternal Density » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:55 am UTC

I had chicken pox and knew kids named Brian and Sarah and none of the other names, so it should be of no surprise to anyone that I'm in my 30s.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

AndrewGPaul
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:02 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby AndrewGPaul » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:33 am UTC

The chicken pox incidence graph presumably doesn't quite go to 100% at the top of the curve; I'm 38, and didn't get chicken pox until a couple of years ago. :)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3190
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:45 pm UTC

AndrewGPaul wrote:The chicken pox incidence graph presumably doesn't quite go to 100% at the top of the curve; I'm 38, and didn't get chicken pox until a couple of years ago. :)

Maybe Randall had prepared this earlier, but waited until he got you and several other 'not quite 100%'ers from your age-group?

:P

gcgcgcgc
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 1:18 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby gcgcgcgc » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:09 pm UTC

chenille wrote:
Ken_g6 wrote:Evolution had to find a way to grind up food. The choices were teeth, bony plates (similar to teeth), or gizzards. I think it would be weirder if we had gizzards.

But then, you've spent a long time getting used to having teeth. For an alternate perspective you can see how babies feel about them, when a few months into figuring out the world, they suddenly start having these chisels of bone rip out through their soft tissue. Not many take it so well!


What's really weird is that this entire process happens twice, for most people at least.

Mikeski
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Mikeski » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:19 pm UTC

gcgcgcgc wrote:
chenille wrote:
Ken_g6 wrote:Evolution had to find a way to grind up food. The choices were teeth, bony plates (similar to teeth), or gizzards. I think it would be weirder if we had gizzards.

But then, you've spent a long time getting used to having teeth. For an alternate perspective you can see how babies feel about them, when a few months into figuring out the world, they suddenly start having these chisels of bone rip out through their soft tissue. Not many take it so well!

What's really weird is that this entire process happens twice, for most people at least.

What's really weird is that a zillion years of evolution hasn't come up with an immune-system mod to protect them. They're the only body part where your body says "protect those? Nah, screw em, they can rot and die decades before the rest of you."

I guess the "having two sets of teeth" thing is a partial workaround for that...

chenille
Posts: 409
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby chenille » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:15 pm UTC

The original workaround was having constantly replaced teeth. It seems like that only works out when they are all fairly similar, though, and mammals gave that up in favor of having very specialized teeth. The two sets are guessed to be another specialization for nursing; you can imagine what it might be like for an early insectivore mother otherwise.

Teeth are really hard – they're the most common fossil parts – and I'm sure in those early mammals would be likely to outlive them. It's only once you got longer-lived things like people and elephants that it became a problem, and now it's too late to fix.
Last edited by chenille on Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:19 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Reka
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Reka » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:18 pm UTC

AndrewGPaul wrote:The chicken pox incidence graph presumably doesn't quite go to 100% at the top of the curve; I'm 38, and didn't get chicken pox until a couple of years ago. :)

And I'm 46 and have never had chicken pox. Comes from not having friends when I was a kid. :)

User avatar
ParisNorway
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:41 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby ParisNorway » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:10 pm UTC

Does anyone know a Trevor?
The Road goes ever on and on
Out from the door where it began.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3190
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:48 pm UTC

ParisNorway wrote:Does anyone know a Trevor?

I have known several.

One died in the '90s (a cancer-related illness), I'm not quite sure of his age at that time, but he was past middle-age, a healthy prime-of-life-plus-a-bit apart from that medical misfortune that hit him. Another is still around, elderly but fit enough. A third is elderly and far from fit (from the few times I've seen him in the last few years), maybe worn down mostly from caring for his much iller wife. A fourth is still of working age (but possibly not far off retirement, I don't know and it'd be rude to ask) and very healthy. A fifth (it's actually his middle name, he never actually used it and I'm not sure how I learnt that he had it, probably a family name 'inherited') I knew when he was younger and would be mid-40s if he's still around… And others that I know of (outside of famous Trevors, like McDonald), and maybe some I just don't immediately remember, but I think not any of them younger than that middle-name one, and otherwise the pre-retree is likely near the lower limit.

(I don't know, BTW, their status re: Chicken Pox. One assumes they had it, but that's just reinforcing the base proposed statistic with itself.)

User avatar
MarkGyver
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 6:56 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby MarkGyver » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:38 pm UTC

Am I the only one who, upon reading this comic, immediately thought that this name analysis could be compared to names of antivaxxers?

(By the way, is there a spelling for "antivaxxer" that doesn't look weird, or have I just not seen the word enough?)

================================= (line of separation between different subjects in the same post)

ivnja wrote:For my own ease of viewing, I've made the arrow of time in the graphs point to the right, so that the trend lines flow in the (again, to me) more intuitive direction:


Neat! I took the liberty of relabeling the time axis as (birth) years so it doesn't depend on being viewed in 2018. But now it looks like the "1995" point on the graph happens in 1990.... Maybe this comic was meant for the year 2023?

chicken_pox_and_name_statistics.png
Generation 0: The first time you see this, copy it into your signature and change it so that it looks like you inspired this signature. Social experiment.

speising
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby speising » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:53 pm UTC

at which age is the vaccine usually administered?

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby ivnja » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:05 pm UTC

The arrow definitely doesn't point to '95, but I think the trend line does start to move at the right place, and the change in the late '80s or '90 is still explained by the 1995 introduction of the vaccine because the illness doesn't hit at birth, but at some later point in childhood.
I'm 30 this year, so I was 7 when the vaccine came out. As far as I know, I never got the shot, or if I did it was superfluous - I'd already gotten chickenpox the year before. Same, actually, with my sister, who's a few years younger than I am. She got it from me. However, if someone born in 1990 made it to age 5 without being exposed to the virus and instead did get the new vaccine, they wouldn't end up getting chickenpox when they otherwise likely would have - ditto for 1991 (age 4), 1992 (age 3), etc.

@speising: 12-15 months
Hi you.
she/her

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4540
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Pfhorrest » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:52 pm UTC

I once knew a Trevor who would be around 30ish by now.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby GlassHouses » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:40 am UTC

Mikeski wrote:What's really weird is that a zillion years of evolution hasn't come up with an immune-system mod to protect [teeth]. They're the only body part where your body says "protect those? Nah, screw em, they can rot and die decades before the rest of you."

I guess the "having two sets of teeth" thing is a partial workaround for that...

In fairness to Mother Nature, humans threw her tooth design a nasty curveball when they started eating sweets. Fun fact: in the skulls found at Pompeii, where the conditions of burial led to perfectly-preserved teeth, it turned out that most of them had most or all of their teeth, even into their late 40s. But these were people whose only sweeteners were honey and reduced wine or fruit juices, both expensive. No chocolate, no cheap sugar. Healthy teeth practically their entire lives with nary a dentist in sight.

Brian-M
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:31 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Brian-M » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:51 am UTC

chenille wrote:The original workaround was having constantly replaced teeth. It seems like that only works out when they are all fairly similar, though, and mammals gave that up in favor of having very specialized teeth.

You're forgetting about rodentia (AKA rodents). This group of mammals solved the problem by having teeth which are always growing longer, and they keep them at the right length by constantly gnawing at things.

So before cavities or decay can start to affect any part of a tooth, the tooth has grown long enough that this part of the tooth gets worn away by gnawing. Problem solved!

Mikeski
Posts: 984
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Mikeski » Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:12 pm UTC

Brian-M wrote:
chenille wrote:The original workaround was having constantly replaced teeth. It seems like that only works out when they are all fairly similar, though, and mammals gave that up in favor of having very specialized teeth.

You're forgetting about rodentia (AKA rodents). This group of mammals solved the problem by having teeth which are always growing longer [...]

That's not forgetting anything, since that's not the original workaround. That's a subsequent workaround. Sharks existed before mice.

jello34543
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:08 pm UTC
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby jello34543 » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:37 pm UTC

Sarah and Brian are the parents of Logan and Harper. They should be well aware of modern Chicken Pox rates.

McBee
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:01 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby McBee » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:05 am UTC

Brian-M wrote:
chenille wrote:The original workaround was having constantly replaced teeth. It seems like that only works out when they are all fairly similar, though, and mammals gave that up in favor of having very specialized teeth.

You're forgetting about rodentia (AKA rodents). This group of mammals solved the problem by having teeth which are always growing longer, and they keep them at the right length by constantly gnawing at things.

So before cavities or decay can start to affect any part of a tooth, the tooth has grown long enough that this part of the tooth gets worn away by gnawing. Problem solved!


In such a case we would be periodically going to the "tooth barber", and ask if "Coulf you frim fhem af fhe fronf a bif?" :D

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1993
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby Flumble » Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:56 am UTC

Shave 20 minutes off of your daily routine with this new tooth shaver! Includes diamond-reinforced blades for durability and a polishing tool on the back so you never accidentally bite your tongue again!

User avatar
YellowYeti
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 6:05 am UTC

Re: 1950: "Chicken Pox and Name Statistics"

Postby YellowYeti » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:14 pm UTC

Proof that if all children were called Logan, chickenpox would be eliminated from the globe.

I wonder if we can do the same for Malaria, and what the optimum name would be? More funding for research!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Psykar and 16 guests