Folding, just a game?

[Graphicism]

I had a question on my mind and know a lot of people here do it, why do you fold?

Do you do it for competition to see who can have the highest score, which team has the most power? Or do you really think you'll find a cure for cancer? In my mind there will never be a cure, if just 10% of cancer is cured the government would be out $4.3 Trillion... 10%...

[Ben333]

This post belongs in the folding forum, at least GCRD... :rolleyes:

I fold for science but a lot of people DO fold for cancer and for lost loved ones. Kinda like santa or the easter bunny :santa:

[OldSkool]

Read the sig......Many people have the answer you seek in their sigs. That being said, I'm sure some do fold for the competition of it.

[thideras]

Should this not be in the folding section? :confused:


I do not fold to cure cancer. To me that is an end result of what we can find out.

Folding is to figure out how proteins fold and more importantly, misfold. If we can find out what triggers misfolds and PREVENT them, we could possibly cure/slow cancer. There are also many fields that would benefit from the information that we calculate. I do not mean to insinuate that if you fold "to cure cancer" that you are wrong, far from it ;)

So, to answer, why do I fold? For the science. For the people we have lost thus far.

[Graphicism]

Feel free to move it to... I didn't want to clutter up that section with any junk!

[nd4spdbh2]

IMO, and man im gonna get an ear full for this, but if you guys that fold for cancer research would send actual cancer research centers the money you spend on the electricity used to run your comp 100% loaded 24/7 they would probably find out more information....

[mdcomp]

Moved.
;)

I don't fold on as large of a scale as I used to, but I still crank out a few WU's. I do it for people I've lost to cancer. While it may not find "the cure" it can help learn more about the disease and how it works, which may eventually help people suffering from the disease. At the very least, it keeps me remembering those who have been lost, even just seeing work units being turned in, I always remember them...

Matt

[Shiggity]

Proteins are the building blocks of life, the more we understand about them, the better we can understand ourselves and all life in general.

I fold in hopes that the research will be able to help people. The points are there as a great motivator.

[I.M.O.G.]

I had a question on my mind and know a lot of people here do it, why do you fold?

Do you do it for competition to see who can have the highest score, which team has the most power? Or do you really think you'll find a cure for cancer? In my mind there will never be a cure, if just 10% of cancer is cured the government would be out $4.3 Trillion... 10%...

The government can't do anything to prevent the outing of the cure for cancer, thanks to the internet and academia.

All kinds of cancers will eventually be cured, given time. Even today, cancer isn't the death sentence it was back in the 80's. I rarely if ever heard of anyone surviving Cancer when I was a kid, now I know lots of people that are cured. Take the mortality rate of childhood leukemia - its declined 70% over the past 3 decades. That means 70% more kids survive it than did 30 years ago.

The thing with cancer is that everyone has it. Cells constantly go cancerous every hour of every day, and in most cases our immune system recognizes and responds appropriately. Its no different than coming in contact with the cold bug and our immune system wipes it out. All it takes tho is once in our entire lifetime for a cancerous cell to develop which our immune system doesn't know how to deal with, then we have cancer and we have to hope the medical society has something to offer us.

Now that said, we have effectively cured various kinds of cancer in mice. Many of those cures have moved onto human trials, where many aren't as successful as they were in mice. We aren't identical to mice, but we are similar. The same progress will eventually be made in humans, but its challenging as we are hamstringed by the sort of testing we can do directly on humans, which is good and bad. (we are protected from wacky treatments that could kill us, but we don't get solid test results in a production environment - its like finding a fix on a MAC that works on a PC, it doesn't translate directly)

So cancer will be cured. It just takes good projects like F@H, good research, and time. These things come together everyday and contribute in a positive direction.

[Graphicism]

Thats interesting to see that people do fold for loved ones, certainly with good intentions, but as nd4spdbh2 rightly put it; if all the money spent on the setups and electricity would do more good... perhaps not for cancer research but for the homeless people, starving people in the world and so on.

I really do think a cure for anything like cancer is so null and void that IF a cure came out, it would be burried very quickly, most certainly not available to the general public... because let's be honest, how much do they profit from it? How much does the working world depending on all the sick people out there?

When I was about 8 growing up in the UK, in middle school they had us all collect daises from the fields, and we did this for weeks... these were all sent off somewhere in large black plastic bags, this was almost 20 years ago now, I guess nothing came of it?

Where does all the data go that you guys produce? Do you ever here anything back from it? Does anyone profit out of it?... by that I mean are you helping a certain company produce their yearly figures?

[Graphicism]

Even today, cancer isn't the death sentence it was back in the 80's. I rarely if ever heard of anyone surviving Cancer when I was a kid, now I know lots of people that are cured. Take the mortality rate of childhood leukemia - its declined 70% over the past 3 decades. That means 70% more kids survive it than did 30 years ago.

I'm sure you're right, but I bet the cost has gone up over 70% from 30 years ago... perhaps 700% ~ cancer is put on hold but at what price? If the government didn't have a hold on the sick and dieing people in this nation health care would be free, wouldn't it?

[I.M.O.G.]

I'm sure you're right, but I bet the cost has gone up over 70% from 30 years ago... perhaps 700% ~ cancer is put on hold but at what price? If the government didn't have a hold on the sick and dieing people in this nation health care would be free, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldn't be free. Your stance is flawed, and your suffering from a couple different fallacies of logic which I'll elaborate on in a seperate post.

Lets assume we are based on free market capitalism on some level, which is close enough without getting into messy theories of economics. The US government meddles with this with state monopolies and so forth like public utilities and other types of regulations they enforce but this doesn't even apply to what your talking about.

People dieing of cancer don't care about the price, so the cure could cost anything and people would find ways to pay for it. If certain people can't find ways to afford it, businesses and researchers would evolve to offer services those certain people can afford so that those same businesses and researchers could profit from it. The customer (cancer patients) and the product (cures) both mold eachother to find a happy medium that maximizes satisfaction and profitability.

Your idea that people need to stay sick in order for it to be profitable is flawed. People are born everday. In the same way cancer develops everyday. People don't need to stay sick in order for the cancer fighting industry to survive and flourish, which seems to be your argument.

I get the feeling your fishing for a discussion without fully understanding your own stance on things. I hope I'm drawing this out accurately.

[I.M.O.G.]

Your argument that the money could be better spent somewhere else is an argument from fallacy.

You: Money spent on cancer could do more good helping the homeless. We shouldn't spend money on cancer.
Me: I could stop being part of this capitalistic society, go live in the woods, support myself off the land, and sell off my worldly possesions. The profits and saving from that could be better spent helping the homeless. Because the money could be spent better elsewhere, doesn't mean spending the money on my lifestyle is wrong. I could maintain my lifestyle, and it might even put me in a better position to offer assistance to the homeless within the society that we live.

You may find other areas where your logic is going astray here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

To answer your question about results, they have some examples here of progress that has been made by the F@H project:
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers

[Adak]

I'm sure you're right, but I bet the cost has gone up over 70% from 30 years ago... perhaps 700% ~ cancer is put on hold but at what price? If the government didn't have a hold on the sick and dieing people in this nation health care would be free, wouldn't it?

F@H is pure research - it's knowledge of how proteins fold, is just a part of the larger knowledge we need about our body's most important parts (proteins). Another part is just how these proteins *work* when healthy, and how some don't work, when we get sick.

F@H is just a piece of the whole puzzle. It's ultimate contribution to medicine and biology/chemistry is far from being known, but that is our goal here - to strive for greater knowledge. Points are just for fun and bragging rights, and there's nothing wrong with a quest for knowledge having a bit of fun along the way.

Let's say you took $5,000 dollars and gave it to a homeless man. What would you have, typically:

1) A drunker homeless man, who can afford better booze.
2) A sudden increase in the man's "friends", who know they can sponge $$$, booze, or cigarettes off him.
3) The homeless man getting the crap beat out of him for his money, because homeless people typically don't have or use, bank accounts.

There are two kinds of homeless people:
1) About 50% need psychiatric help and meds. They should not be on the streets, but in a clinic. They are a danger to themselves, and others.

2) The other 50% are mentally OK, and make up two sub-groups:

a) Those who have had a serious reversal in their finances, and just need a
helping hand, and

b) Those who have (oddly) adopted living on the street as their lifestyle of
choice, for reasons of their own. There is nothing you can do to help them
as long as this is their choice. Giving them money just furthers their hope
that they can and should stay living on the street.


In addition to the considerable research F@H does, F@H is also a hugely successful testbed for any distributed computing project. Consider the advances:

1) Multi-threaded, SMP clients
2) Clients for powerful game consoles
3) Clients for even more powerful Graphics cards.
and now:
4) A client for multiple Graphics cards, on the same PC

All of the above is being done not just for one type of PC, but for all the major operating systems in use, today: Windows (XP & Vista), OSX for Macs, and Linux (most distro's).

These clients are not running as well as we'd like, but they all work, and what other distributed computer project can match up with those accomplishments?

None.

And what distributed computer project has produced as much data, in the last year? In the last 5 years?

None and none.

IMO if we strive to find a cure, we might find one or more. If we don't strive to find a cure, we show by our actions that we really don't care. I care, so I fold.

It is a *huge* mistake imo, to sit back, do nothing, and expect the government funded research labs (or whatever), to solve all your medical (or other), problems. We the People, are not we the helpless.

How did I get up on this soapbox, again? :D

[ihrsetrdr]

The Pande Group's Folding@Home projects are dependent upon the hundreds of thousands of donor computers worldwide to perform immense amount of simulations within a fairly tight timeline. If donors just gave money, that would surely help, but would not provide the massive amount of Parallel computing capability needed.

Social implications? Everyone has their own vision of how financial resources 'should' be allocated, for the betterment of Mankind. Most of the Folding@Home contributors/participants live in countries where they have the free, individual right to allocate their own hard earned money in the fashion that they see fit.

[Graphicism]

Lets assume we are based on free market capitalism on some level They call it the NHS, UK, Canada, France...

People dieing of cancer don't care about the price, so the cure could cost anything and people would find ways to pay for it. If certain people can't find ways to afford it, businesses and researchers would evolve to offer services those certain people can afford so that those same businesses and researchers could profit from it. The customer (cancer patients) and the product (cures) both mold eachother to find a happy medium that maximizes satisfaction and profitability. That's not true, you HAVE to pay for insurance to be able to afford treatment, and you better hope you have insurance BEFORE you get sick!

Your idea that people need to stay sick in order for it to be profitable is flawed. People are born everday. In the same way cancer develops everyday. People don't need to stay sick in order for the cancer fighting industry to survive and flourish, which seems to be your argument.

All I'm saying, and this was my sub question... If we cured 10% the US would be out 4.3 Trillion Dollars, that's roughly what we spend every year attacking other countries, it's not gonna happen!

You: Money spent on cancer could do more good helping the homeless. We shouldn't spend money on cancer. Me: I could stop being part of this capitalistic society, go live in the woods, support myself off the land, and sell off my worldly possesions.

Dude, I'm not talking about selling everything and following Jesus, how about we all live to the age of 65? 70? and everyone can have the same quality of life we do?

Thanks for the links!

Let's say you took $5,000 dollars and gave it to a homeless man. What would you have, typically:

You're options are a little black and white; it's not about giving the kid in the third world country a microwavable meal, it's about giving them means to grow their own food, clean water, electricity and so on. $5,000 would put a roof over the head of a group of homeless people, giving them $5k in cash might be asking for trouble! :beer:

IMO if we strive to find a cure, we might find one or more. If we don't strive to find a cure, we show by our actions that we really don't care. I care, so I fold.

Hmm... If we did live in this fairy tale world you speak of, I think a cure would be accidental and come from other means, not from folding proteins all of which we all already know.

The Pande Group's Folding@Home projects are dependent upon the hundreds of thousands of donor computers worldwide to perform immense amount of simulations within a fairly tight timeline. If donors just gave money, that would surely help, but would not provide the massive amount of Parallel computing capability needed.

I understand what you're saying, my question isn't why don't you send the money to the labs, but does it help? How many years has folding been in place, has it cured anything as of yet?

Social implications? Everyone has their own vision of how financial resources 'should' be allocated, for the betterment of Mankind. Most of the Folding@Home contributors/participants live in countries where they have the free, individual right to allocate their own hard earned money in the fashion that they see fit.

I would bet my life, that all the money spent to cure the incurable could of cured world hunger twice over!

[Lofty]

My main PC is also my folding PC. I simply donate spare CPU cycles to a research project, which may or may not find something useful to medical research.It is also midly fun to compete on the points and be part of a community. If I did not fold, cancer research would get nothing instead of something. I already have a direct debit setup donating to a charity, but I can't help ALL of the hundreds of thousands of registered charities throughout the UK.

Just on a side note: the NHS (National Health Service), UK. Now I live in the UK, and have five long-term medical conditions. So I've had a lot of experience of the NHS. It is a brilliuant institution that saves many lives every day, BUT there are problems. It costs £90 billion ($170 billion) to run every year. We only have 60 million citizens. You have close to 300 million in the USA. Would you pay another $850 billion in taxes for this kind of system?

Cancer is certainly another area of issue. Many cancer treatments are hugely expensive, and drug treatments have to be approved for cost/benefit ratio by NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) before they can be obtained on the NHS. Inevitably, some treatments are too expensive to get through, and that leaves patients who have exhausted all treatments and will die in a matter of months.

[dfonda]

Thats interesting to see that people do fold for loved ones, certainly with good intentions, but as nd4spdbh2 rightly put it; if all the money spent on the setups and electricity would do more good... perhaps not for cancer research but for the homeless people, starving people in the world and so on

Well I can only speak for myself but folding is small fraction of what I donate. How could you presume to know anything about us as individuals or as a Team.....Please we have answered this question enough times do a search on the topic. This has all been covered.

[OldSkool]

Honestly, this sounds more like an attack on folding and the reasons people do it, rather than simple curiosity. If you don't believe in it, nobody is twisting your arm to sign up and fold your heart out. I think the last thing any of us really need to do here, is defend ourselves for doing something positive.

No offense intended.

[muddocktor]

Honestly, this sounds more like an attack on folding and the reasons people do it, rather than simple curiosity. If you don't believe in it, nobody is twisting your arm to sign up and fold your heart out. I think the last thing any of us really need to do here, is defend ourselves for doing something positive.

No offense intended.

Yep, looks to me like you are just trolling for an argument. If you don't think it will help, then don't worry about it and don't participate in the project. And if you want to send your money to solve world hunger of some other pie-in-the-sky ideal, then by all means go ahead and do it. But don't come with an attitude to tell us what to do with our humanitarian contributions. I don't even fold any more; I run the Seti DC client myself. Who knows, maybe we will find ET and he will give us a cure for cancer. ;)

All I'm saying, and this was my sub question... If we cured 10% the US would be out 4.3 Trillion Dollars, that's roughly what we spend every year attacking other countries, it's not gonna happen!

As for this statement; well you can park those thoughts on another forums besides this one. We do not allow political discussion on these forums and I will come down hard on someone that keeps trying to inject politics into a thread on these forums. No if's, an's or but's about it.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Adak View Post
Let's say you took $5,000 dollars and gave it to a homeless man. What would you have, typically:


You're options are a little black and white; it's not about giving the kid in the third world country a microwavable meal, it's about giving them means to grow their own food, clean water, electricity and so on. $5,000 would put a roof over the head of a group of homeless people, giving them $5k in cash might be asking for trouble!


I'm in the USA, and I'm not a civil engineer. Do you *really* think that somehow, someway, a group of us is going to build an electrical power plant in Africa, with our charitable donations? Maybe a series of reservoirs and dams, with aquaducts and piping to deliver clean water?

A homeless person has *no* home, so what good would a roof do them? None!


Originally Posted by Adak
IMO if we strive to find a cure, we might find one or more. If we don't strive to find a cure, we show by our actions that we really don't care. I care, so I fold.


Hmm... If we did live in this fairy tale world you speak of, I think a cure would be accidental and come from other means, not from folding proteins all of which we all already know.


No less than the greatest antibiotic we've ever had, penicillin, was found by accident. Hunches have always played a huge part in science. Whether it was Fleming's idea of inoculations, or Walter's Reed's hunch that mosquitoes spread Yellow Fever, or Galileo's telescope. As Pasteur said "accidents favor the prepared mind".

F@H focuses on *how* proteins fold - which is certainly not known except in a few instances. You may be thinking of Rosetta@Home, which deals more with the proteins final shape (which is better known).

Since F@H began, at least three other distributed computing projects dealing with proteins have come on-line. This did not happen by accident, you'll be glad to hear! :)

Groups like Muscular Dystrophy Ass'n., have come to F@H with special proteins they would like us to research. They're not doing that for no reason, and again, it's no accident.

[harlam357]

I had a question on my mind and know a lot of people here do it, why do you fold?

I am a living cancer survivor. I am a geek. I build rigs for the fun of building rigs- It's my hobby. It's a positive outlet- I'm not spending my money buying crack on the street. I started Folding because I needed something to do with my rigs and found it, again, a positive outlet that I enjoy.

I guess I should spend more of my time and money on "Relay For Life", or some other charity organization, run by locals who want the public recognition that they're doing something. I don't have a problem with those organizations or what they stand for or what they are doing for humanity. I give to "Relay For Life", a very small amount... but I do it because the people who run it at my company are my friends. I believe what we're doing with F@H is much more important than giving to charity. Once those dollars are given, one has no idea what happens with them after that. With F@H I get a sense of control over how my time/money/resources are spent, and knowing that what I contribute directly impacts the research. That gives me a great sense of accomplishment. To throw some dollars at my local "Relay" organizer doesn't do that for me.

Then there are the points... is Folding just a game? Heck No! Is it partially a game? In a sense, I'm not going to deny that... what we do for F@H, and the attitude one has to adopt, is based on a long term scope. The points are there to give us, the donors, a real-time feedback on our contributions. We're geeks... we like numbers. The points system is a means to an ends. So in the short term... sure you could look at it as a game- a game that I fully enjoy. :)

[ihrsetrdr]

I understand what you're saying, my question isn't why don't you send the money to the labs, but does it help? How many years has folding been in place, has it cured anything as of yet?



Results/Recent-research-papers (http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Paper)

[orion456]

I really do think a cure for anything like cancer is so null and void that IF a cure came out, it would be burried very quickly, most certainly not available to the general public.

That assumes that all people are self centered, money greedy and morally bankrupt; this is false. Many researchers give their discoveries away every day in the form of public research journals. For example, Banting discovered insulin, a life saving treatment for diabetes and he donated it to the world for NOTHING. He is far from alone.

[David]

Folding@Home will not turn up a miracle cure for cancer. It doesn't work like that, neither does scientific research in general.

Research is incremental, iterative, progressive, and often quite broad based. You don't go researching "cure for cancer" you go researching e.g. the folding of a certain group of proteins that are possibly implicated in cancer (e.g. overactive tyrosine kinase enzymes are involved in some cancers caused by mutations of the genetic code that codes for the kinases). Then this is used as a basis for other research work (in pharmaceutical companies for example) leading to potential cures.

I fold partly for the science. Not for a cure to cancer because FaH itself will never give us the cure to cancer, only an idea of where to start looking. I fold for the contributions to science and our understanding of the general processes of protein (mis)folding.

As for cures being buried, not necessarily. For a drug to be commercially viable it must be patented (no point spending $500m putting drugs through testing for some little generic company to whizz in and undercut you, it's just not commercially viable) and hence the pharma company must be guaranteed exclusivity for that chemical.

Now, if FaH finds strong evidence for protein X being involved in cancers then we may well see Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, GSK, Merck, Sanofi Aventis, Novartis etc all start looking in this area to try and market a product.

Look at statins - all very structurally similar with different bioisosteric groups on several positions. They inhibit the same pathways to cholesterol formation in vivo but are all separately patented and owned due to these structural differences.

[Jolly-Swagman]

@ Graphicism

I really think you need to read this
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Science

Then you may understand why we Fold, not just for Cancer but also the other Diseases that plague Mankind

[David]

They call it the NHS, UK, Canada, France...


The NHS does not purchase all drugs automatically. They must be determined to be value for money and some of the more expensive and exotic ones are reserved for people for whom nothing else works. Exortion will not net the pharma companies anything.


Hmm... If we did live in this fairy tale world you speak of, I think a cure would be accidental and come from other means, not from folding proteins all of which we all already know.


We know they exist but in many areas we have a very poor understanding of how they work. The human biochemistry is so fantastically intricate and elaborate and well developed that we can't ever completely understand it. Your body can do reactions in water at 37C that chemists require sodium hydroxide and 60C+ to achieve!*


I understand what you're saying, my question isn't why don't you send the money to the labs, but does it help? How many years has folding been in place, has it cured anything as of yet?


It's contributed papers to the scientific community and hence to understanding of the science behind protein self assembly.


I would bet my life, that all the money spent to cure the incurable could of cured world hunger twice over!

Cancer is not incurable. Great progress is being made all of the time, and to write off the lives of up to 1/3 of the population is ludicrous. World hunger is not just a lack of money (such a view is rather naive). World hunger has as many political and social issues behind it as financial ones.


* The example reaction is the hydrolysis of amide bonds. Amide bonds are stable due to delocalisation of nitrogen p-orbital electrons into the N-C atomic orbitals leading to strengthening of the bond. Enzymes can bind proteins in such a way that the bond is twisted and the geometry does not permit such delocalisation, hence weakening the bond.

[Shiggity]

In addition to the considerable research F@H does, F@H is also a hugely successful testbed for any distributed computing project. Consider the advances:

1) Multi-threaded, SMP clients
2) Clients for powerful game consoles
3) Clients for even more powerful Graphics cards.
and now:
4) A client for multiple Graphics cards, on the same PC

All of the above is being done not just for one type of PC, but for all the major operating systems in use, today: Windows (XP & Vista), OSX for Macs, and Linux (most distro's).

These clients are not running as well as we'd like, but they all work, and what other distributed computer project can match up with those accomplishments?

None.

And what distributed computer project has produced as much data, in the last year? In the last 5 years?

None and none.

Awesome point. Worldwide computing power is going to go up by very large amounts in the near future, not just because of Moore's Law, but just because of the volume of computers that there will be.

A distributing computer project like F@H is simply groundbreaking. I'm sure a project like F@H will help other distributed projects in the future as well.

I hope Microsoft and Nintendo add F@H to their consoles.

[Graphicism]

Well I can see this is a really touchy subject, which is kind of why I wanted to keep it out of the folding section of the site. I wasn't looking for an argument or anything political, you're all way too jumpy! What is your problem muddocktor? seriously, what is your problem? You need to get more! ;)

If I showed proof that all this data ended up in a trash can at the end of the day, would you continue to fold? Of course you would... let's be honest the fun is in the competition, which is why we have all these teams and individuals bragging about their numbers... do you think 'scientists' in test labs brag about the numbers they produce?

My basis, my question, was do you think a cure for cancer and the likes would be put out, baring in mind that I can't talk about politics, think about the electric car... this was designed over 50 years ago to help cut down on the number of cancer causing agents and so on, you would think the battery car would be mainstream by now. The plans for battery cars are purchased and destroyed by certain people to protect the wealth of the country, in oil, in disease and so on.

If Dr. Joe at Joe's Science Lab found the cure for cancer, do you think it would go public?

[Adak]

Now you have gone from a F@H topic, totally into a political and commercial/conspiracy topic.

This thread should now be locked.

[dfonda]

Or do you really think you'll find a cure for cancer? In my mind there will never be a cure, if just 10% of cancer is cured the government would be out $4.3 Trillion... 10%...How can you not know that many cancer's have been cured??? I can name 20 folks I know that were cured of cancer your whole premise for this thread is so ridiculous.Ever here of Lance Armstrong?

and after IMOG mentions this you post this!

I really do think a cure for anything like cancer is so null and void that IF a cure came out, it would be burried very quickly, most certainly not available to the general public... because let's be honest, how much do they profit from it? How much does the working world depending on all the sick people out there?

When somebody gives you obvious answers over and over and you continue... of course people become irritated.

We say 2 plus 2 is 4 and you refute it. Now why don't you reread your OP and apologize?

Ok now the thread can be locked!:)

[Lofty]

How can you not know that many cancer's have been cured??? I can name 20 folks I know that were cured of cancer your whole premise for this thread is so ridiculous.Ever here of Lance Armstrong?

and after IMOG mentions this you post this!



When somebody gives you obvious answers over and over and you continue... of course people become irritated.

We say 2 plus 2 is 4 and you refute it. Now why don't you reread your OP and apologize?

Ok now the thread can be locked!:)

The CIA is conpsiring to prove that 2+2 = 5 so that greedy capitalist pigs can increase their profits! LMAO!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Graphicism]

Oh boy... one person mentions conspiracy and everyone follows suit, if I tell a kid Santa clause doesn't exist am I a conspirator? Look I'm not disagreeing to disagree, I just think that maybe your facts aren't right, you fold and fold and fold and fold and strongly believe your fighting the disease, thus you get this impression implanted in your mind.

Looking at some facts from cancer.gov:

Under 65
1975 - 22% of deaths
2004 - 26% of deaths

Over 65
1975 - 18% of deaths
2004 - 22% of deaths

More people die from cancer today than they did 20 years ago, if my premise for this thread is so ridiculous why is it backed up by facts like this? And yes I've heard of Lance Armstrong, you are simply choosing what to accept, 1 person lives, 1,000 people die. If 1,000 people with cancer pray to the Easter bunny and 999 of them die, you would here the miracle of the 1 survivor.

[dfonda]

Read my last post again...admit your wrong and apologize. There are cures for cancer.

Skin cancer, colon cancer, testicular cancer all curable.

I am specifically questioning how repeatedly you have denied there are cures.

Is the world flat?

[Shelnutt2]

I fold so that we can get a better understanding of proteins in the human body.

I hope that with this knowledge we can get a better understanding of many diseases and illnesses. Hopefully cures to some of these too.

Graphicism you are trying to start a flame war. You bring up many different things and refuse to respond fully and correctly to anyone's response. I still think this topic has had many good explanations, so I just ask you to stop for a moment and really read what has been said in response so far, and think about our reasoning and rational.

[Graphicism]

The problem isn't with me not accepting what has been said, the problem is you believe you are right and therefore I must be wrong and I must apologize? You don't see the problem with this? You're all saying the same thing because you fold, for someone to come along and say 'hey, you might be doing more damage than good' I'm put in the category of crazy simply because you don't want to believe anything else.

You are right in that people are being cured for cancer, but more people were cured 20 years ago... I'm not denying their isn't cases where people are treated correctly, but that the work we do today isn't as effective as it was 20 years ago.

Read this: http://clark.pamrotella.com/

"The challenge in America today isn't in curing cancer itself -- cancer was cured in 1934 by Royal Raymond Rife. The real fight is to integrate SUCCESSFUL cancer treatment into America's standard medical practices. For now, the mass murders of modern oncology wards are made only by greed, not by lack of technology."

Or even this: http://www.studentprintz.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=c7794f20-dfb1-4494-892d-b529895da103

"Here's the deal. Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada found a cheap and easy to produce drug that kills almost all cancers. The drug is dichloroacetate, and since it is already used to treat metabolic disorders, we know it should be no problem to use it for other purposes."

It makes you wonder doesn't it... perhaps all we're doing is prolonging any cures while we number crunch!

[Dapper Dan]

Thats interesting to see that people do fold for loved ones, certainly with good intentions, but as nd4spdbh2 rightly put it; if all the money spent on the setups and electricity would do more good... perhaps not for cancer research but for the homeless people, starving people in the world and so on.

I really do think a cure for anything like cancer is so null and void that IF a cure came out, it would be burried very quickly, most certainly not available to the general public... because let's be honest, how much do they profit from it? How much does the working world depending on all the sick people out there?

When I was about 8 growing up in the UK, in middle school they had us all collect daises from the fields, and we did this for weeks... these were all sent off somewhere in large black plastic bags, this was almost 20 years ago now, I guess nothing came of it?

Where does all the data go that you guys produce? Do you ever here anything back from it? Does anyone profit out of it?... by that I mean are you helping a certain company produce their yearly figures?


to me you sound like one of those consiracy theory guys ... i mean come on ... you really think the government would with hold a cure for cancer? what is this some sort of sick movie?

and im not flaming im jsut saying movies warp our minds to think that the government actually hides info from us ... im sure tehy hide some stuff .. but cures to diseases?

[NoWhereM]

Now you have gone from a F@H topic, totally into a political and commercial/conspiracy topic.

This thread should now be locked.

I'll second that.

[jonspd]

3.0

[orion456]

you fold and fold and fold and fold and strongly believe your fighting the disease

Folding is about understanding proteins. Understanding proteins is a goal in itself. Understanding proteins MIGHT lead to cures for some diseases, there is no guarantee and it certainly isn't something that would happen for many years. Meantime the information is published for everyone to see.

So short term people fold for points, fun, a sense of community, a use for their computer power and to help science advance. Long term, there might be a nice reward; we don't know.

Choosing to do nothing is an option. I choose hope in the belief that people are fundamentally good, that there is value in science, that one person can make a difference and that working with others is better than worrying about being taken advantage of.

[David]

Oh boy... one person mentions conspiracy and everyone follows suit, if I tell a kid Santa clause doesn't exist am I a conspirator? Look I'm not disagreeing to disagree, I just think that maybe your facts aren't right, you fold and fold and fold and fold and strongly believe your fighting the disease, thus you get this impression implanted in your mind.


You're trying to disagree with our reasons without actually responding to them. You haven't actually responded to any of my post which pretty much sums up the value of Folding@Home in terms of research value.



Looking at some facts from cancer.gov:

Under 65
1975 - 22% of deaths
2004 - 26% of deaths

Over 65
1975 - 18% of deaths
2004 - 22% of deaths


This doesn't make sense. Where did you get it from (cancer.gov is a big website). 22% of deaths simply means 22% of the deaths were people over 65 in 2004. It doesn't say anything about survival rate or number of deaths. Poor use of statistical data proves nothing.

You also have to take into account that modern diagnostics are much better than those in 1975 - more cancers are found earlier and hence statistically there appears to be 'more' cancer. This will affect death statistics.

Have a look here: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/survival/fiveyear/

Five-year survival rates for most cancers in both men and women are steadily up each year. Prostate cancer, for example, has a much improved survival rate between 1986 and 1999.

More people die from cancer today than they did 20 years ago, if my premise for this thread is so ridiculous why is it backed up by facts like this?

See my point re: diagnoses, also survival rates are the important statistic. The population has also increased a lot since 1975 and so more deaths (in terms of numbers) means little without other statistical evidence.

And yes I've heard of Lance Armstrong, you are simply choosing what to accept, 1 person lives, 1,000 people die. If 1,000 people with cancer pray to the Easter bunny and 999 of them die, you would here the miracle of the 1 survivor.

Absolute rubbish, bordering on trolling. See my point re: prostate cancer. Lance isn't the "one person who prayed to the Easter Bunny" he is one of the thousands of men who no longer have a death sentence when diagnosed with prostate cancer. (CRUK link above has a lovely graph:)

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/images/gpimages/cs_sur_f4.2


The problem isn't with me not accepting what has been said, the problem is you believe you are right and therefore I must be wrong and I must apologize? You don't see the problem with this? You're all saying the same thing because you fold, for someone to come along and say 'hey, you might be doing more damage than good' I'm put in the category of crazy simply because you don't want to believe anything else.

You try to put your point across but you're selectively ignoring posts that raise good points and wielding statistics without understanding them. You decide on a premise, you try to fit some statistics to it. You fail.

You are right in that people are being cured for cancer, but more people were cured 20 years ago... I'm not denying their isn't cases where people are treated correctly, but that the work we do today isn't as effective as it was 20 years ago.

See my points above. CRUK is the leading not-for-profit cancer research organisation in the UK, by the way. Their statistics are reliable.


Read this: http://clark.pamrotella.com/

"The challenge in America today isn't in curing cancer itself -- cancer was cured in 1934 by Royal Raymond Rife. The real fight is to integrate SUCCESSFUL cancer treatment into America's standard medical practices. For now, the mass murders of modern oncology wards are made only by greed, not by lack of technology."

:rolleyes: Out come the conspiracy theories.


Or even this: http://www.studentprintz.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=c7794f20-dfb1-4494-892d-b529895da103

"Here's the deal. Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada found a cheap and easy to produce drug that kills almost all cancers. The drug is dichloroacetate, and since it is already used to treat metabolic disorders, we know it should be no problem to use it for other purposes."

It makes you wonder doesn't it... perhaps all we're doing is prolonging any cures while we number crunch!

Dichloroacetate is not the wonder-cure everyone thinks it is. You can't just start dosing this straight off. Any drug requires years of careful testing to meet FDA and MHRA standards, including 3-4 clinical trials which can only be conducted after toxicity tests in rat, rabbit and/or mouse; bioavailability studies in dog and/or primate; large scale optimisation of synthetic routes, limitation of harmful PGI compounds (potental genotoxic impurities) and development of a robust, reproducable and pharmaceutically acceptible dosage form which must reliably give appropriate bioavailability in vivo.

Some of these issues will have been tackled if you use the drug already for metabolic conditions, however you can't just start using it for cancer patients without approval.

Also: https://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/02198.htm

"Potential Health Effects
Eye: Causes eye irritation. May cause chemical conjunctivitis.
Skin: Causes skin irritation.
Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
Inhalation: Causes respiratory tract irritation.
Chronic: No information found."

Everything has side effects, granted these are better than cancer but if you're going to be dosing large amounts for long periods of time you really want to investigate these side effects in detail (or risk being sued).

Patents are an issue as well - getting the drug to market will cost $250m upwards in most cases. If you can't patent it you wont get the money back because generics will undercut the pharma company and make money off their research, leaving the pharma company out of pocket.


Folding is about understanding proteins. Understanding proteins is a goal in itself. Understanding proteins MIGHT lead to cures for some diseases, there is no guarantee and it certainly isn't something that would happen for many years. Meantime the information is published for everyone to see.

So short term people fold for points, fun, a sense of community, a use for their computer power and to help science advance. Long term, there might be a nice reward; we don't know.

Choosing to do nothing is an option. I choose hope in the belief that people are fundamentally good, that there is value in science, that one person can make a difference and that working with others is better than worrying about being taken advantage of.

This post = win.

[dfonda]

If I post in this thread again David, please BAN me...I can't stop myself.(Just a 3 day ban please.)

[rainless]

I had a question on my mind and know a lot of people here do it, why do you fold?

Do you do it for competition to see who can have the highest score, which team has the most power? Or do you really think you'll find a cure for cancer? In my mind there will never be a cure, if just 10% of cancer is cured the government would be out $4.3 Trillion... 10%...

Ummm... do you actually care more about the government being out what it spent in the last 30 seconds in Iran and Afghanistan than you do about 10% of cancer patients being cured?

(And... in case you hadn't noticed... Cancer patients are cured all the time! Look at Roger Ebert...)

[torin3]

(I was hesitant about posting given some of the OP's comments, but I figured, what the heck)

While I like watching the numbers roll up and seeing where I am in relationship to my teammates, that isn't why I fold.

I'm folding to help increase the understanding of how these basic building blocks of life function. I'm a big believer in science for pure research, and this is a way I can directly support it.

I expect that the results of this research will work its way into many developments down the road, if not directly, then by filling in information in other research.

A few other things.

There is no "cure for cancer". Just like there is no "cure for bacterial infection" or "cure for viruses". However there are quite a few "cures" for "cancer X" or "cancer Y" or "bacterial infection Z". Cancer isn't 1 disease, it is a variety of diseases that operate in similar ways. And in some cases, "cancer X" is actually several diseases. Prostate cancer for example. Pretty much every man will have Prostate cancer by the time they turn 80. However, for some, the disease is so slow growing that left alone, it won't present a problem for 20-30 years, and treatment will more negatively impact their lives than leaving it alone. For others though, it starts much younger, and if untreated, can lead to death in just a year or two.

As David said, survival rates are going up over time. New treatments are being tested and integrated as they prove to be successful. But there will probably never be just one pill that is "the cure for cancer". If there is, it might contain self-replicating nano-bots that are designed to hunt down and kill cancer cells. But not somethign that today we would see as medicine.

Also, spending money on research isn't a linear proposition. You can't just pay $X billions and get result Y. You need enough money to pay for people, equipment, and other operating expenses, of course. But beyond that, it is up to the people who do the research and how well they design their experiements and how well they understand the results of their experiments, and the nature of how the universe works. If we spent every penny in the world trying to figure out how to travel faster than light, it might never ever produce the results wanted, because it is up to the nature of the universe if it is possible or not. If it isn't, (and currently our understanding is that it probably won't be), no amount of money will ever let us find a way to do so.

So, to sum up. I fold to increase our understanding of the way the universe works, and hope that the results are able to be used to humanity's benefit.

[Graphicism]

You're all chiming in on the same BS and all following suit with each other, if you don't like what someones saying, ban him! lock the post! You guys need to grow up. I find it amusing that I 'sound like one of those conspiracy guys' ~ as opposed to those who believe America was attacked by people in caves... lol!

You're telling me I'm trying to disagree, You need to listen to yourself, if someone has another opinion, provides facts, ideas and an alternative way of think you need to at least listen to that, not shun them away because you're always right and they must be wrong!

David, it doesn't make sense because you don't want to believe it... in 1975 22% of cancer lead to death, in 2004 26% of cancer lead to death... there is nothing mystical about this, more people die today from cancer than they used too. David you say there appears to be 'more' cancer, however there is a lot less cancer than 20 years ago due to a lot of the changes we have made to the environment and way of living, we use cleaner fuels, we tell people it's not cool any more to smoke and you in fact will die faster and so on... to clarify, far fewer people get cancer, but the death percentage is higher. Your thinking and argument is backwards, more population so more percentage of people die from cancer? If 10 people have cancer and 2 people die, that's 20% ~ if 10,000 people have cancer and 2,000 people die that's still 20%, the population increasing has nothing to do with percentages.

You're doing what everyone else is doing, believing they are right, ignoring what I'm posting or calling it a 'conspiracy' ~ that's crazy!

Trolling? Because I mentioned the Easter Bunny? That's great to see people with prostate cancer have a higher chance of surviving, it doesn't however say at what cost? You must also know that the UK is leaps and bounds ahead of the US when it comes to health care, so survival rates may be increasing in the UK and falling in the US?

The rest of your comments are just biting for debate which I won't enter with you, if 10 minutes of reading a website on a cure yields in a 'conspiracy theory' it sounds like you have already make your mind up.

If I post in this thread again David, please BAN me...I can't stop myself.(Just a 3 day ban please.)

If you can't stop yourself maybe we need to have a word with your mommy about your internet access?

Ummm... do you actually care more about the government being out what it spent in the last 30 seconds in Iran and Afghanistan than you do about 10% of cancer patients being cured?

(And... in case you hadn't noticed... Cancer patients are cured all the time! Look at Roger Ebert...)

How do you figure that out? The war is costing $500 billion, that's $0.5 Trillion... Cancer is costing $43 Trillion... Unless you think the war actually costs $4.3 Trillion every 30 seconds?

And yes, cancer patients are cured all the time... but more die every second.

torin3, thank you for your post. I can understand the fun in competition but when it could be costing lives it's a tad sinister. How long will we have to fold to understand how these building blocks of life function? Forever?

I'm not saying we should skip folding and use the money directly on cancer research, I understand what you're saying, I just think this game isn't helping at all.

Look at it this way; if you woke up tomorrow in an adobe in Africa with 30, 40 starving families around; would you boot up your folding rig and 'fight cancer' ~ or would you sell it, and get these people some food? I bet the money alone could implement a well and thus clean water in that village.

To everyone:

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone sold their folding rigs and donated the money to one massive cause that could guarantee to cure world hunger, provide clean water, electricity and a basic economy, would you do it?

[Mr.Guvernment]

The government would let cancer be cured because once you cute cancer, a new type of virus / infection / disease will be there to take it's place, in fact i am sure it is already out there waiting to pop up one day

man kind will NEVER defeat the world of viruses and such, so the government lets X thing be cured, looks like a savior and then makes cash of the next thing to cure.

[Mr.Guvernment]

IMO, and man im gonna get an ear full for this, but if you guys that fold for cancer research would send actual cancer research centers the money you spend on the electricity used to run your comp 100% loaded 24/7 they would probably find out more information....

the $10 a month, likely wont do much, sure if every single person did it, maybe but for a few individuals, it wont make any diff.

[ihrsetrdr]

@Graphicism,

It appears that:

A. you think folding is a waste of time

B. that the money spent on folding could be better spent


If so then that's fine, your freedoms survive intact-your point is noted.

Any other philosophical arguments that we can move-on to now? <yawn>

[orion456]

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone sold their folding rigs and donated the money to one massive cause that could guarantee to cure world hunger, provide clean water, electricity and a basic economy, would you do it?[/B]

At most there are one million folding rigs worldwide @ $1500/rig = $1.5 billion. Considering that world foreign aid, both private and public exceeds well over $300 billion per year, I seriously doubt that a one time donation of a few folding rigs would solve world hunger or any other major world problem.
On the other hand, in the remote possibility that folding does lead to cures, then the value to man kind would be astronomical.

Your kind of thinking would have us still using candles because fiddling with electricity and white hot filaments is a waste of time and resources which could be better spent feeding the worlds hungry. Science is expensive, it has value for the future and it deserves resources. The fact you don't like a particular expenditure is your personal choice. I choose to fold because I think it has value especially considering it uses spare computing time. You choose not to fold. If a cure results, I bet you will not hesitate to use it.

re: More cancer now....the population is aging, more cancer is expected because part of aging is a loss of immune function.

[Wicked_Pixie]

I admire & respect your passion for the less fortunate. I really do.
World hunger, just like diseases, exist since time immemorial.
It will be there when we are long, long gone.

The beauty of it is, we get to select which ones to fight for (some do both).
Well, this one is mine. My reasons are my own.
I will not justify my spending to anyone who does not share,
understand, nor respect something I believe in.

It appears that you are a strong advocoate for
world hunger. I suggest you channel your
energies there.

[David]

You're all chiming in on the same BS and all following suit with each other, if you don't like what someones saying, ban him! lock the post! You guys need to grow up. I find it amusing that I 'sound like one of those conspiracy guys' ~ as opposed to those who believe America was attacked by people in caves... lol!


Notice how you're not banned? How the thread isn't locked? This thread is based on civil discussion (and I'd like it to stay that way) and hasn't been locked for that reason. If it goes downhill then it will get locked but for now I'm leaving this open for discussion.


You're telling me I'm trying to disagree, You need to listen to yourself, if someone has another opinion, provides facts, ideas and an alternative way of think you need to at least listen to that, not shun them away because you're always right and they must be wrong!


I'm listening, and providing my own opinions and evidence to back them up. I'm giving my reasons for participating, not the reasons everyone has to participate. There is a difference. You asked why we fold, we've all given answers. If you believe your view is the more valid one, then don't fold. If you agree with us, fold. No-one has to fall out over this :). It's a simple matter of personal choice. Please don't listen to our side of the discussion and then tell us we're all wrong (which is what you're accusing us of doing to you).

At the end of the day, I doubt you'll stop any of us folding and I doubt you'll start folding. Lets not let this get out of hand.


David, it doesn't make sense because you don't want to believe it... in 1975 22% of cancer lead to death, in 2004 26% of cancer lead to death... there is nothing mystical about this, more people die today from cancer than they used too.

The way you had presented the statistics was rather ambiguous without the context. Thank you for clarifying.

David you say there appears to be 'more' cancer, however there is a lot less cancer than 20 years ago due to a lot of the changes we have made to the environment and way of living, we use cleaner fuels, we tell people it's not cool any more to smoke and you in fact will die faster and so on... to clarify, far fewer people get cancer, but the death percentage is higher. Your thinking and argument is backwards, more population so more percentage of people die from cancer? If 10 people have cancer and 2 people die, that's 20% ~ if 10,000 people have cancer and 2,000 people die that's still 20%, the population increasing has nothing to do with percentages.

You misread my post. I said that there appears to be more cancer as we are getting better at diagnosing cancer. This doesn't mean there is more around, it just means that there are a vast number of cases that in 1974 would not be diagnosed compared to 2004. If it wasn't diagnosed, it wouldn't be on statistical data.

The population increase comment was related to the number of deaths, not the percentage. This was to pre-empt the use of any statistics saying the number of cancer deaths increased X% YoY (not the percentage death rate).

You're doing what everyone else is doing, believing they are right, ignoring what I'm posting or calling it a 'conspiracy' ~ that's crazy!

I'm not ignoring it, I'm responding to it. Some of it is a bit far fetched. I'm happy to stick to statistics and such but I'm not even going there with conspiracy theories or we'd be here all day and inevitably drift onto political discussion which is not permitted here.

Trolling? Because I mentioned the Easter Bunny? That's great to see people with prostate cancer have a higher chance of surviving, it doesn't however say at what cost?


The cost of research? What do you mean at what cost? Cis-platin is (AFAIK) the leading prostate cancer drug which is a little expensive but can be made relatively easily on a large scale (using IIRC Platinum Iodide, Chlorine, Ammonia, solvents).

You must also know that the UK is leaps and bounds ahead of the US when it comes to health care, so survival rates may be increasing in the UK and falling in the US?

Is it? Where are you getting this from? The NHS is in a mess and doesn't actually allow access to most people to the more expensive and exotic drugs or newer treatments.

I've worked for a pharmaceutical company and I can tell you right now the biggest market is the US and, hence, it is always a priority to have FDA approval to market there. Granted you have health insurance/cost issues over there but I'm not sure this would lead to worse healthcare. I'm pretty sure your hospitals are all far more up to date than ours.

The rest of your comments are just biting for debate which I won't enter with you, if 10 minutes of reading a website on a cure yields in a 'conspiracy theory' it sounds like you have already make your mind up.

Debates are fine. What debate are you referring to? If it's the conspiracy theory one (which is backed up by a grand total of one dubious website) then don't bother going there as no doubt it has political elements to it. If it's any other matter, feel free to start a discussion.



If you can't stop yourself maybe we need to have a word with your mommy about your internet access?


Comments like this are not appropriate. If you can't base posts on discussion of the topic and hand and have to resort to insulting members then you're better off not posting.

How do you figure that out? The war is costing $500 billion, that's $0.5 Trillion... Cancer is costing $43 Trillion... Unless you think the war actually costs $4.3 Trillion every 30 seconds?

I think it was a tounge-in-cheek comment referring to his opinion that the war is a big waste of money, but that line of discussion isn't appropriate here.

And yes, cancer patients are cured all the time... but more die every second.

But you said 26% of patients in 2004 died. Surely that means for every 3 cured, one dies. Thats a 74% success rate. You contradict yourself here.

torin3, thank you for your post. I can understand the fun in competition but when it could be costing lives it's a tad sinister. How long will we have to fold to understand how these building blocks of life function? Forever?

Costing lives? Perhaps the money you spend on your internet access, car, new LCD TV, trip to a restaurant is costing lives and should instead be donated to charity? :rolleyes:

We'll never completely understand the human biochemistry but that shouldn't stop us trying. Even a very tiny part of the big picture could yield us some fantastic results. That's the nature of scientific research, it does't always work as you thought it would. It's a very weak viewpoint to say that because success isn't guaranteed you shouldn't do it. All technological and scientific innovations and discoveries were achieved at the risk that it wouldn't work.


I'm not saying we should skip folding and use the money directly on cancer research, I understand what you're saying, I just think this game isn't helping at all.

Just because we don't have a cancer treatment from it doesn't mean it's useless. They have published work and have gained understanding of various protein folding-related information. It has not been a waste.

Look at it this way; if you woke up tomorrow in an adobe in Africa with 30, 40 starving families around; would you boot up your folding rig and 'fight cancer' ~ or would you sell it, and get these people some food? I bet the money alone could implement a well and thus clean water in that village.

There are more than just financial issues at hand here. The political situation in many african countries (which we ought not to go into here) means that eradicating poverty is harder than just getting the cash together.


To everyone:

Hypothetically speaking, if everyone sold their folding rigs and donated the money to one massive cause that could guarantee to cure world hunger, provide clean water, electricity and a basic economy, would you do it?

See above.

the $10 a month, likely wont do much, sure if every single person did it, maybe but for a few individuals, it wont make any diff.

£8/month here to CRUK ($16/mo). However it is important to note that CRUK and F@H work at different levels. CRUK focus on cancer, F@H is much broader than people think - it's about general scientific research into the area of protein self-assembly.



People need to stop thinking of FaH as some miracle cure thing, it's not. It does however contribute general scientific data to the entire field of protein self-assembly.

[dfonda]

If you can't stop yourself maybe we need to have a word with your mommy about your internet access?That won't work my mother passed away 2 years ago at the ripe old age of 90.

It was tongue in cheek humor of which you are not familiar with.

EDITED for my untoward comments.

[NoWhereM]

Looking at some facts from cancer.gov:

Under 65
1975 - 22% of deaths
2004 - 26% of deaths

Over 65
1975 - 18% of deaths
2004 - 22% of deaths

More people die from cancer today than they did 20 years ago, if my premise for this thread is so ridiculous why is it backed up by facts like this?

http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/results_merged/topic_graph_heartdis_cancer.pdf.

Graphicism there is a difference between what a person knows and what they believe. When you take a statistic, or fact, which shows one thing, and claim it shows another it is called a logical fallacy. As you can see from the graph I linked to cancer deaths per 100,00 dropped for those under 65 from 1975 to 2004.

[torin3]

http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/results_merged/topic_graph_heartdis_cancer.pdf.

Graphicism there is a difference between what a person knows and what they believe. When you take a statistic, or fact, which shows one thing, and claim it shows another it is called a logical fallacy. As you can see from the graph I linked to cancer deaths per 100,00 dropped for those under 65 from 1975 to 2004.

Also from that chart, it might be possible that in the over 65 range, with such a large decrease in deaths due to heart disease, people who would have died of that lived years longer until they died of cancer. And it looks like cancer deaths in that age range are starting to drop again.

[NoWhereM]

Torin3 I think you're probably right and that would be the logical conclusion from that graph, but I just wanted to stick to an indisputable fact to illustrate my point.

[torin3]

Torin3 I think you're probably right and that would be the logical conclusion from that graph, but I just wanted to stick to an indisputable fact to illustrate my point.

Yep, that chart shows that while the percentage went up, the number of deaths due to cancer as a total went down by over 25% in that time frame. Which as you point out is the opposite of what the OP who included just the numbers was trying to convey.

[nitteo]

I see threads like this ALL the time. Eventually it comes down to :

Folding is a waste because:
> uses too much energy
> there is already a cure for cancer
> the results of folding are going to be exploited by corporations

Even if all are true, I'll still be folding because it makes me feel like I am fighting back.

One thing is for certain, you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.

[Lofty]

I think nitteo's signature is appropiate here. If you don't want to fold, don't bother.

Both sides to this have a right to voice their opinion, neither side has a right to lecture the other side as to what they should do. This argument seems entirely pointless as neither side is going to convince the other. So I think it would be most appropiate to go our separate ways here...

[VinnyTAMU]

I think folding has its merits. However folding is not cheap, which is why I had to stop folding.

[dfonda]

Hey Vinny:beer: Was wondering where you went to:sn:

That 8800GTS would do so well too.(Hint Hint):)

[VinnyTAMU]

Hey Vinny:beer: Was wondering where you went to:sn:

That 8800GTS would do so well too.(Hint Hint):)

I know it would, and if I left my computer on 24/7 I would be folding 24/7. However as it stands right now, my "Desktop" (see sig) is rarely powered on, maybe 6-10 hours spread out throughout the week. Also I used to fold on my computer at work, however my boss asked me to stop (University energy conservation).

[wingless]

I folded first with my 2900XT, and now with my overclocked HD 4870 to use more energy thus increasing the load on power plants thus increasing greenhouse emission thus speeding up global warming thus melting the polar ice caps thus raising the sea level thus causing catastrophic flooding along coastal regions thus causing chaos thus leading everybody to follow my leadership thus allowing me to take over the world. Everybody starts somewhere....

PS. I also get points for it but I don't care that much or I would have bought an Nvidia GPU. Also maybe the science will lead to a cure to testicular (my nutz) cancer and breast (boobies!) cancer, two things I care a lot about. Ultimately its for my world domination plan as stated above though.

[Graphicism]

Oops. Sorry Graphicism - I hit the edit button instead of the quote button :-\ -- David

[I.M.O.G.]

This thread started as a discussion. Now it has become a troll, with a dash of political conspiracy theory.

Well done!

[NoWhereM]

http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/results_merged/topic_graph_heartdis_cancer.pdf

As I told you before, there is a difference between what a person believes and what they know. If you really don't understand the chart I linked to, and linked to again just for you, than find someone to explain it to you. It is a very simple and easy to read graph, so that should not be a problem.

[ihrsetrdr]

ihrsetrdr - C. you think folding detracts from finding any cure.




*Simply amazing* :rolleyes:

[David]

ihrsetrdr - C. you think folding detracts from finding any cure.

I wouldn't say it detracts from finding cures. It may not find 'a cure', but does contribute to scientific research (as I've said in my past few posts, it's not all about some miracle cure - it's about general scientific basis for further investigations).

David - Maybe I'm not banned because I haven't done anything wrong? If you don't allow a difference of opinion I would expect to be banned. I asked a simply question, people started to get their knickers in a twist and became very defensive over my opinions. yes sorry I must of misread your post, either way you look at it the amount of money that's going into cancer they really should have better statistics, why are they also all out of date?

I felt your implication was that because we disagreed with you we were going to lock this thread and/or ban you. I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.

I think the problem with new news is that's it's easily classed as a 'conspiracy' theory because it's not main stream... Think back to WMDs, they were never found ~ does it make WMDs a conspiracy theory?

It's all to do with the amount of evidence to back something up, and unfortunately a lot of political stuff can be interpreted in a number of ways especially when it concerns military intelligence that you and I cannot see, and hence cannot make an informed decision.

It is true however, that had someone threatened to fly two planes into the WTC there would be many who would call it bluffing...

I've seen how a pharmaceutical company works on the inside at most levels (synthetic discovery chemistry/synthetic process chemistry/analytical chemistry/biopharmaceutics/dosage form design/NDA submission) and hence I am wary about any conspiracy theories that say that they deliberately avoid treating the problem. I have, in fact, seen at least two projects canned because although they treat the symptoms they do not cause tumours to shrink, they only stop them growing. These projects would not pass NDA (and would not sell on the market) so were canned.

At the end of the day you have to make up your own mind on these conspiracy theories. Some, like the WMD issues are not appropriate for these forums. The evidence either way is usually very circumstancial or incomplete and we are all welcome to hold our own differing opinions on the matter.

I grew up in the UK, lived there for 20 years and the NHS always provided quickly and easily, not just for a tax payer like myself, but for people from abroad. Here in the states you can't even get seen too before you sign your life away... and 90% of the doctors here don't do it to save lives, they do it for the pay check... this means the care isn't as good, the more people they see the higher their bonus. Up to date? maybe, my wife god her blood checked last month by a very very fancy and shiny machine, it would of cost $1800 without insurance, so the question remains, at what cost!

It's a postcode lottery. You should visit the hospital my mum works in - you can frequently sit for between 2 and 6 hours in A+E before being seen, budgets are being cut 2% across the board and two wards have been closed in the past two years. Remember as well that the NHS has generally got worse over the past 10-20 years so I don't know when you were over here.

NoWhereM - Either I am not understanding these graphs or your not, either way as I mentioned to David these needs to be updated! Why are all the statistics available old by at least a couple of years and look like crap? It doesn't take but a few minutes to make a nice, easy to understand graph. Doesn't this graph illustrate less people with cancer but more % die from it?

It takes ages to collect statistics from so many areas, and ages to process them. The census in the UK is collected every 10 years but its usually 2-4 years before data becomes available.

[David]

Graphicism: I owe you an apology. I hit edit instead of quote (the two are next to each other) and put in my reply thinking I was quoting you.

I've moved my reply out into its own post where it should have been but unfortunately removed your post... :-\

[ihrsetrdr]

Just for the sake of clarity, the following are Graphicism's words- not mine:

ihrsetrdr - C. you think folding detracts from finding any cure.

:p