What is "folding"?
Tim
Southwest PA Icrontian
It may be a dumb question, but one I have to ask. In all the time I've been reading posts here, I constantly see posts where someone says "this processor is good for folding", or "this computer is doing folding 24 hours a day".
What the hell is folding?
What the hell is folding?
0
Comments
How can you have missed this? This is one of the main things this site is about!
A flash video.:)
So Tim i certainly hope that you would be interested in folding for our team (#93). If you have any questions don't be afraid to ask, thats what we are all here for
by using your computer to fold, you're assisting in the search for a cure to a multitude of diseases, including cancer... just not in such a direct way. both of my grandmothers died of cancer, so the folding project hits close to home with me.
As for parkinsons, alzheimers and every other degenerative disease, they are 99.99% of the time(theres usually is an excption to everything), caused by an acumilation of poisons and toxins. Thats the way degenerative diseases work. They get worse with time, unless you do a detoxification, which is what it sounds like. If there is no detoxification done, then the disease continues to worsen.
All the pesticides, herbicides, cleaning chemicals, etc., acumilate in the body and are stored with fat, as they cannot be metabolised. It is better for the body to keep the substance idle than to have it pass through your entire body. I think the perfect way to put it, is that they are not compatible with the human body. And it makes sense that they wouldnt be, they are not natural, they are engineered. And we all know what pesticides do, they kill bugs.
Of course, spraying them once won't kill us(we're huge compared to bugs), but after a lifetime of using bug bombs in your house and eating food sprayed with pesticides and putting herbicides on your lawn, they add up. What stage of development your body is in(if your a fetus or if your 10), the type of chemical your exposed to, and how much of the chemical are the major factors in what disease you will develop. And if they are all building up in your body, they will DEGENERATE or continuosly damage whatever tissue it comes in contact with.
Lets say the university figures something out from all this research, they get a hunch or an idea, chances are that all will be produced is just another drug. Just another drug that will make millions or even billions of dollars in profits and wont even cure the disease, just suppress the symptoms. Everybody knows that your body needs nutrition in many forms to function properly. The mindset of all these pharmacutical companies and research teams and "mainstream" medical doctors is almost to the point where they believe that nutrition is not required for health as long as there are drugs that present a desired effect(relieve symptoms). Nutrition is the answer to disease 99% of the time. Think of how ailments would be cured in nature, not with pharmacutical drugs. And virtually, all drugs have side effects(because they are not compatible).
As I have said before, F@H does not include these factors so I am positive It will not find an actual cure to anything, but it is a nice gesture from your end. I'd love to hear what everybody thinks of this
General Keebler added spaces for readability.
These omissions serve to assert that your statements are based upon opinion, FAR moreso than fact. Research does not support you. Furthermore, the advertisements you see on TV are NOT the majority prescriptions.
Ever seen an advert for Doxycycline? Arithromyacine? Luvox? Zyprexa? Geodon? Lithium? Zithromyacine? No?
Those are all VERY effective antibiotics and anti-depressants, the prescription rate on those are SEVERAL dozen time TV medications.
Additionally, genetic predisposition has been PROVEN to be a consistent factor in the attraction of chronic diseases. Families with histories of cancer and alzheimers have statistically (Far higher than one can argue with) proven to carry the disease generation to generation than those without.
The margin of error is very small.
Further credence to my statements.
Ya know I'm quite convinced that this is true considering some of the people I've met IRL ...no one at short-media of course!
Still in all ...Folding@Home is a far better use of cpu cycles than the old System Idle Process!
I'd be interested to see you pose your opinions to Vijay Pande (the architect of the folding@home project) to see what he has to say about that.
Fudgam, I have to admit that your post pissed me off, because what you said sounds like the usual eco-nut bullsh*t to me. And the worst part of it is that you're presenting it as fact, and I fear that most people will take it as such, when your statements are simply wrong.
1.
Bullsh*t. Cancer is is a general term for more than 100 diseases that are characterised by uncontrolled, abnormal growth of cells. This uncontrolled growth is known to be caused by defective DNA, not nutrient deficiency.
2.
Really? That's interesting. Maybe you should develop a supplement that'll cure them then, huh? The fact of the matter is that the cause of these diseases is presently unknown, and could very well be caused by malformed proteins. In fact, part of the definition of Alzheimer's includes the following statement: "The cause of nerve cell death is unknown but the cells are recognised by the appearance of unusual helical protein filaments in the nerve cells (neurofibrillary tangles) and by degeneration in cortical regions of brain, especially frontal and temporal lobes."
3.
More Bullsh*t. You cannot make pronouncements about how a drug will treat a disease who's cause is unknown. And, it wouldn't necessarily be a drug. If it's solely a genetic issue, you can engineer a virus to carry altered DNA, which will fix the diseased person's DNA. They've done this in animals already- for instance, we now have glow-in-the-dark rabbits and zebra danios, because they've been injected with a virus containing a gene from a jellyfish.
4. Oh for christ's sake, would you go do some reading before spouting off?
Nutrition is a factor in diseases only when a person is under-nourished. This is not likely in any modernized country. People in the U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan, etc. get more than adequate nutrition. In fact, many people taking supplements have problems with poisoning due to extremely high nutrient density.
5.
Have you ever taken a biology course? I've got news for you- most of the time, in "nature", diseases are not cured- the diseased organism usually dies. Why? Because it's a highly competitive world- survival of the fittest is a reality. Sick animals either die of their own accord, or are killed for food by other animals that are higher on the food chain. It's very rare for seriously sick animals to survive without human intervention.
You know what I think?
I think that you're a great example of what a lot of people do. They don't think critically. You've been fed bullsh*t by a bunch of idiots, and you're repeating it without thinking about it. I suggest that you go do some real research on these issues before you make all-encompassing truth claims on issues that you apparently know nothing about.
As for my credentials... I've spent all 17 years of my life with my father. My father has a Ph.D in Zoology, as well as degrees in Chemestry and Ecology. He developed life support systems for Nasa and Lockheed Martin for 20 years. If we ever send anyone to Mars, his research/designs/etc. will be responsible in part for keeping them alive. In addition to the knowledge I've picked up from him, I keep track of cutting-edge medical breakthroughs, and I've done extensive research on this stuff. Unless you can back up your statements with credible research, then I'll maintain my position that you are repeating B.S. rhetoric that you have no understanding of.
//End flame
Well I know for a fact that nutrition and nutrient supplements are key component to good health ...however, why do you assume that F@H does not include these factors?
Ok, now I didn't read fudgam's post either because when I saw it I thought it was Ageek and I didn't have time for a novel.
So I flew off the handle.... I don't do that often, but if there's one thing that REALLY PISSES ME OFF it's having someone (esp. knowingly, but even unknowingly is bad) present BS and claim it to be the absolute truth, or make blanket statements like "F@H won't cure anything" without going through the critical thinking process first. Just be glad I didn't include the rain of expletives and insults that usually goes along with me getting really pissed...
And Thrax, reguarding something that I said, what research does not support it? If its the cancer statements, I have many instances that prove the vitamin theory of cancer is true. And as for the genetic predispositioning you have mentioned, diseases are not genetic. Only the potential for those diseases. The disease are kept in the family because they have similar lifestyles and the children spent the first 9 months of their life developing in a human that is poisoned. If a poisoned mother is sharing her body with a fetus, then her poisonings will be passed on.
I do agree that most diseases can be prevented by proper nutrition. While I cannot say with 100% certainty that F@H will find a cure, I do believe it highly probable that F@H or other similar projects will lead to very important discoveries that could ultimately lead to finding a cure.
Anyone who disagrees that the main culprit of diseases is because of lack of nutritient and a build-up of toxins are fooling themselves. I cannot say 99.99%, but I believe that percentage was more for emphasis than it was to be literal.
Does anyone still think these chemicals are not damaging to the human body? If so someone needs to bone up on some chemistry and physiology.
As is the case with most toxins: prolonged exposure is what leads to irreparable damage, though the duration depends on the particular toxin and the quantity.
I don't know that F@H doesn't (attempt) to include some factors. Surely F@H cannot include all factors because not all factors are known.
As the issue with pharmaceutical companies using F@H (or other similar projects) to profit from does bother me, I'm hoping that this research will be put to a true good so that the patient can be treated rather than just the disease.
It's not a lot of new-age home-diagnosis bull.
To which "human-neutral" chemicals do you refer?
The body does attempt to flush toxins, but if the system is flooded with toxins it is difficult to keep up with the work load, also as the liver becomes full of toxins that greatly reduces the body's ability to adequately flush toxins. Going on a liver cleansing diet once a year is a good practice.
I'm not exactly sure I follow which scientific advancements in the last twenty years you're talking about. How does what Fudgam said go against them?
If that's so, then similarly your statements must be based far moreso on opinion than fact because of the same lack of evidentiary proof. Which research do you speak of?
I'm not exactly sure what relevance this has.
Definitely genetics play a role in one's predisposition, but all that means is one is more likely to contract/develop a disease that another, it does not mean one is born with a disease or that he will surely develop a disease.
Also, being born with a disease/virus and contracting a disease/virus aren't to be confused with predisposition.
Not necessarily.
Yes, I agree that he did present it as fact without much (any?) proof and that by using numbers like 99.99% is bothersome. Fudgam should have been a bit more prepared and used numbers that were more accurate.
See my previous post for this one.
I saw nothing in Fudgam's original post that said misfolds/malformed proteins are not the culprits for diseases. What he said was that with proper nutrition diseases could most likely be prevented. Whether that's because they can help reverse diseases, the damage of diseases or because they can make it so that the body can more accurately reproduce genetic strands is beside the point.
What you suggest is a fascinating field. I think it wil be wonderful when we can be treated without having to be pumped full of drugs with adverse side-effects.
That is definitely not the case. Many (dare I say most) of the US citizenry is malnourished. Over-nourishment is also a problem, but many of the body's essential aminos and other vitamins/minerals are not met by every-day "healthy" diets. Also, many vitamins wash out within just a few hours and the body disregards what it does not need, such as vitamin C.
He may be guilty of not thinking critically and not researching what he is told, but that does not mean that he's incorrect on this. I'm not going to say he's entirely accurate, and I'm definitely not going to back his numbers of 99.99%, but by-and-large he's not too far off on his assessments.
My mother has studied both psychology and sociology until I'M blue in the face.
My uncle graduated at the top of his class for law-school while also providing for three children and a wife.
This makes me no more an expert in psychology, sociology and law than being around your father makes you an expert in his field of expertise.
Also, You give nothing to back up your claims that proper nutrition does not play a key role in maintaining one's health and ability to stave off disease.
I've also studied nutition at length, along with many other members of my family and a number of medical doctors that we know.
You can keep your opinions if you like, but I think perhaps you should study a bit more before you completely write-off the benefits of proper nutrition.
I sure wish Vijay had time to read this and post.....
Long live F@H!!
Not what I understood. At any rate, the U.S. population is adequately nourished. If it was not, we would see instances of scurvy, beriberi, etc. on a regular basis, and we do not. If anything, the U.S. population is over-nourished. We eat so much food that we get sufficient amounts of most of the stuff we need, in general. Unfortunately, we also tend to get more fat and calories than we really need, but that's another issue. Proper nutrition plays a role in that it allows better functioning of your immune system, etc. It does not, however, in and of itself, prevent diseases like cancer. My definition of cancer is correct. It is a known fact that cancer is caused by malformed DNA, at least it is the last time I checked...
The small percentage of pesticides and stuff present on properly prepared food is small enough to be irrelevant.
And you're right, the fact that my dad has a doctorate in zoology does not make me a zoologist by any stretch of the imagination. What it does do, however, is give me access to a tremendous amount of information that he has, both in books that he's got and what he knows. Since I've always been interested in this stuff, and I've always asked questions about it, I've picked up a good deal of knowledge about it from him. This doesn't make me an absolute authority on the subject, but I do know a pretty good deal about it...
Lets say cancer is caused from defective DNA. If its cause is known then how come a cure is not found? Vitamin b17 is the vitamin that will cure cancer if your body fails to. Your body releases pancreatic enzymes that break down the protein that repels your bodies white blood cells. Once the protein layer is gone, your immune system does the rest. If your diet uses up all the pancreatic enzymes, or your pancreas is impared for any reason, then the 2nd NATURAL way to cure cancer is through vitamin B17. (FYI: Diabetics are more likely to contract cancer). It will cure and prevent cancer just as effectively as the pancreatic enzymes. Vitamin B17 is composed of 2 glucose, 1 cyanide, and 1 benzaldehyde. The Cyanide and benzaldehyde are only released in the presence of an enzyme known as beta-glucosidase, which is found all throughout your body but much more at the site of cancerous cells. It can be 100 times more concentrated at the site of cancer than the surrounding areas. There is also an enzyme known as Rhodenase that neutralizes cyanide and turns it into by-products that are beneficial to health. It is found everywhere EXCEPT at the site of cancerous cells. So the risk of poisoning is extremely, extremely low, except to the cancer.
As for degenerative diseases, the cause is unknown..... but an acumilation of toxins and poisons cannot be the cause? And it wouldnt make any sense that poisons(pesticides) designed to induce the destrustion of nerves, put insects into respritory attacks, and disrupt the water balance have anything to do with the degeneration of any part of the human body. And how come the idea of me "just making a supplement" is so abstract when that is the main thing done by pharmacutical companies today after receiving the info from the research groups(Which are funded by the pharmacutical companies)? Other than the fact that they make DRUGS not nutritional SUPPLEMENTS. (FYI: The same companies that make pesticides make pharmacutical drugs)
As for the drugs that wont cure anything, you can tell what a drug will do reguardless of the disease. Advil will always thin your blood, reguardless of the disease you may have. If you take novacane, it will always numb you, whether theres pain or not. A drug will work the same way. It disrupts your bodies chemical actions, they're not compatible.
All disease, aside from degenerative, are nutritional deficencies. Your body can heal itsself if it has everything it needs(nutrition). Any doctor will tell you that no drug by itsself will cure a disease, as only the body can heal the body.
By nature, I was still refering to people. In the scenario that pharmacutical drugs were not an option. Its interesting that you mentioned U.S., Canada, Europe, Japan, etc. They are indeed well developed countries. Isnt it odd that in a country where 1 in 3 will have cancer (The US), there is a kingdom thats near Pakistan known as Hunza that has virtually no cases of cancer. There, there is no money. It is not uncommon to live to 100 years old and sometimes 120. A mans wealth is meaured by how many apricot trees he owns. Apricots naturally contain the highest concentration of Vitamin B17! There, APRICOTS are a food staple the way rice is a staple in other countries. The Eskimos also are known to have very low cancer rates. A delicacy there is to open up the gut of prey they hunt and eat the grasses as a salad. The grasses also contain B17. When the eskimos were introduced to the "white mans diet" he developed more disease. Isnt it odd that more developed countries tend to have more diseases? I think those facts are great evidence towards the vitamin theory of nutrition. When you rely on an industry that recognizes health as an absence of symptoms, you will never achieve true health.
BTW, how come the people that think the same way as I and many others who have achieved true health by avoiding mainstream medicine are considered idiots? People who dont use drugs are not anti-medicine, they are anti-drugs.