PDA

View Full Version : Is medical progress slowing down?



nec207
October 6th, 2011, 06:38 PM
Is medical progress slowing down and medical breakthroughs is slowing down with cancer treatment and cure?

I know 5 friends this year that died with cancer !! Also when the big NDP leader Jack Layton in Canada dies with cancer and rich man like Steve Jobs and man like Patrick Swayze that leaves you in shock how primitive the health care is.

What is the scopes on cancer treatment and cure now ? Is there a medical progress slowing down ?

Paqman
October 6th, 2011, 07:10 PM
I doubt it. My niece has recently been having a new kind of radiotherapy using a proton beam instead of photons. It's much more precise and does less damage to surrounding tissues, so can be used in tight spots. It's so new that a lot of medical people have never even heard of it.

Sorry to hear about your friends, but I think you'll find survival rates for most cancers are trending upwards. It really depends on the cancer though, some have excellent survival rates, and some are still a bit of a death sentence.

dpny
October 6th, 2011, 07:22 PM
Cancer rates have been steadily dropping in most of the world for the past two decades. There's been lots of progress, but cancer is systemic and difficult to treat.

ninjaaron
October 6th, 2011, 08:09 PM
No way. They just used genetically re-engineered HIV to kill cancer in rats with crazy success. Course, it's going to be many years before they have done enough animal testing to start trying to give humans fake AIDS to fight cancer.

However, as long as life-expectancy continues to go up, the number of weird, horrible diseases that slowly and painfully reduce you to nothing is also going to increase. These bodies aren't made to last forever, so you've got to die of something. Heart failure looks pretty good compared to most of them.

madjr
October 6th, 2011, 08:11 PM
Cancer rates have been steadily dropping in most of the world for the past two decades. There's been lots of progress, but cancer is systemic and difficult to treat.

that's because people are trying to prevent it by eating healthier, smoking less, using sun block, etc.

but still millions die each year...

JDShu
October 6th, 2011, 08:45 PM
Currently drug breakthroughs are extremely rare by pharmaceutical industries, to the point where they are beginning to "make up" conditions that their new drugs supposedly solve in order to recoup their losses.

ice60
October 6th, 2011, 08:50 PM
i've mostly heard positive things recently other than bacterial resistance to antibiotics!


Antibiotic Resistant Gonorrhea Found In Japan (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/138164324/antibiotic-resistant-gonorrhea-found-in-japan)

i heard about this - British flowers are the source of a new cancer drug (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14855666)

and this MIT creates superdrug that might be able to kill all viruses (http://www.newsytype.com/10123-superdrug-could-kill-all-viruses/)

lots are been helped with this
GM Mosquitoes Bred To Tackle Dengue Fever (http://news.sky.com/home/technology/article/16068519)

i've read how 1000s are being saved with other great ideas too. i think things are generally positive atm.

Basher101
October 6th, 2011, 08:52 PM
i think it was the big jump medical advancement made with the computer technology. There is still progress, its just that the news do not report them unless it is a Big breakthrough..

Paqman
October 6th, 2011, 09:29 PM
i think it was the big jump medical advancement made with the computer technology.

This is true, just look at the Human Genome Project. During the course of the project the speed and price of sequencing genes has improved by a factor of a thousand in about 10 years. That's a huge leap forward in capability.

dpny
October 6th, 2011, 09:46 PM
that's because people are trying to prevent it by eating healthier, smoking less, using sun block, etc.

but still millions die each year...

It's for several reasons: earlier prevention means earlier, more aggressive treatment means better survival rates. Survival rates for the most common cancers are much better than they used to be.

However, something has to kill us. The body is a machine, and all machines break down.

Basher101
October 6th, 2011, 09:48 PM
The body is a machine, and all machines break down.
Sooner or later its the same fate for all of us.

del_diablo
October 6th, 2011, 10:05 PM
If I understand my litteratur correctly: Medicine has had a flat rate of breaktroughs since the 1850s.

tgalati4
October 6th, 2011, 10:09 PM
Regarding cancer: cancer cells have all of the evolutionary survival skills of normal cells, so trying to kill them is just as difficult as killing normal cells. Chemotherapy is selective poisoning and not as effective as we would expect.

drawkcab
October 7th, 2011, 01:34 AM
In America we like to spend a lot of money researching treatments that we may or may not be able to deploy at this point due to scarce resources. In many ways the primary issue is not whether or not we're researching (we are) but whether or not the majority of us will have access to treatments when they become available.

KiwiNZ
October 7th, 2011, 01:47 AM
I can only speak for my own situation. 20 years ago I would have remained wheelchair bound and probably bed bound. The drugs I use have given me back my life and as a result I am getting back on my feet.

ugm6hr
October 8th, 2011, 10:12 AM
Death is always a tragedy, but remains inevitable.
Progress in medical research / treatments has taken 10s of years to reduce mortality from the "top killers" of past eras.
Infectious diseases are now a minority cause of death in the "developed" world, and even worldwide are no longer as big a problem they once were.
This resulted largely from public heath interventions, including hygienic water supply, vaccinations, with antibiotics contributing only a small additional improvement.
Heart disease (coronary artery disease) has replaced infectious diseases as the top cause of death, with cancers at number 2. Mortality from heart disease is falling largely from reduction in smoking, with improvements from new treatments contributing a small amount. Cancers are in a similar situation.
Essentially, research progresses at an ever faster rate, but incremental improvements are harder to achieve once the "high impact" targets for treatments have been addressed.

mips
October 8th, 2011, 11:51 AM
From http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1823511

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

Now, in a development that could transform how viral infections are treated, a team of researchers at MITís Lincoln Laboratory has designed a drug that can identify cells that have been infected by any type of virus, then kill those cells to terminate the infection.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44090512/

Doctors have treated only three leukemia patients, but the sensational results from a single shot could be one of the most significant advances in cancer research in decades. And it almost never happened.

Read the rest of the articles at the supplied links.

nec207
October 16th, 2011, 06:18 PM
After doing some reading this weak :p sure cancer is bad but really what is so shocking with no progress at all is not cancer but disease like motor neuron disease , amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) ,MS, Parkinson's, strokes or spinal cord injury and disease?? In fact over the past 200 years there has been no progress at all.

All despite of millions of money for research for past 15 years there is no cure or treatment .





Now, in a development that could transform how viral infections are treated, a team of researchers at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory has designed a drug that can identify cells that have been infected by any type of virus, then kill those cells to terminate the infection.

Not sure how this would work.But I have read that they are working on using virus to kill cancer cells , I guess the trick now is making sure the virus kills the cancer cells but no other cells.

I also have read over this week of hopes of target drugs and gene therapy to cure cancer !! Not sure how this will work .Do to testing is so intensive in western standards and by the time they perfect it all , it probably be 15 or 20 years before hospitals can start to use this.

angryfirelord
October 17th, 2011, 12:31 AM
The thing to note with cancer is it is analogized to more like the common cold than anything else. There isn't one form of cancer, there are many different variations of it: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/alphalist/

Therefore, when money is used for cancer treatment, it is generally being applied to a specific type of cancer. However, I'd hardly say it's slowing down, there's always something in the news about new form of treatment.

All despite of millions of money for research for past 15 years there is no cure or treatment .
Cancer is a very complex topic and forms in a multitude of different ways. Unless you have some statistics to back that, I'd hardly say that's true. If anything, the rate at finding new forms of treatment has increased.

kevdog
October 17th, 2011, 01:37 PM
Steve Jobs turned to alternative treatment first for treatment of his neuroendocrine tumor prior to turning to conventional western style medicine. Some have speculated that he would still be alive today if he didn't screw around with the alternative path first. I don't Steve Jobs is an adequate example to judge the utility of futility of medical progress.

nec207
October 18th, 2011, 03:16 AM
All despite of millions of money for research for past 15 years there is no cure or treatment . All despite of millions of money for research for past 15 years there is no cure or treatment .


Cancer is a very complex topic and forms in a multitude of different ways. Unless you have some statistics to back that, I'd hardly say that's true. If anything, the rate at finding new forms of treatment has increased.


No not cancer I was saying (ALS) ,MS, Parkinson's, strokes or spinal cord injury .

Cancer is really bad some people live and some die.But lateral sclerosis (ALS) ,MS, Parkinson's, strokes or spinal cord injury is worse than most cancer do to there is no cure or treatment .

thatguruguy
October 18th, 2011, 03:29 AM
50 years ago, a person who had a stroke was going to end up dead or permanently disabled. Now, there are actual treatments that can be given if the person gets to the hospital fast enough. And there is a lot of research going on w/r/t spinal cord injuries, including stem cell research.

As far as cancer goes, my mother-in-law was diagnosed with leukemia 5 years ago when she was in her 60s. She was given a year or so to live. She ended up receiving a bone marrow transplant as part of a pilot program some four years ago, and she's still going strong. As recently as 20 years ago, that would have been unimaginable.

As a final note regarding cancer, a vaccine was developed here in Louisville, Kentucky that prevents HPV, which is the leading cause of cervical cancer and one of the leading causes of throat cancer.

To suggest that medical progress is slowing down is ludicrous, at best.

nec207
October 18th, 2011, 07:32 PM
That me we re-phrase my question is there even going to be a cure for these diseases?

Cancer is really bad some people live and some die some have better survival rate than other tpyes of caner and there is medical breakthroughs with cancer it just the media does not talk about it...

But lateral sclerosis (ALS) ,MS, Parkinson's, strokes or spinal cord injury or Graveís Disease and Cystic fibrosis is worse than cancer Most would want to die than live with these horrible disease.

Well over the past 200 years there has been no progress at all with these diseases. There is no cure or treatment with these diseases.They know more about cancer by a long shot than these diseases.

My question is there going to be a cure or treatment with these diseases ? Why no medical progress at all with these diseases ?

KiwiNZ
October 18th, 2011, 07:51 PM
No not cancer I was saying (ALS) ,MS, Parkinson's, strokes or spinal cord injury .

Cancer is really bad some people live and some die.But lateral sclerosis (ALS) ,MS, Parkinson's, strokes or spinal cord injury is worse than most cancer do to there is no cure or treatment .

The number of treatable Cancers is growing year by year, Parkinsons whilst there is no cure there is effective treatments that slow progress and improve quality of life, levodopa, Anticholinergics amd Mao-B inhibitors.

Multiple Sclerosis also has effective treatments such as interferons.

Bachstelze
October 18th, 2011, 09:51 PM
Progress in all areas is slowing down. The 2000s gave us lots of shiny iProducts, but we don't travel any faster or live any better than 15 years ago. And yes, we aren't any closer to finding a cure for major diseases either.

nec207
October 23rd, 2011, 01:58 AM
Progress in all areas is slowing down. The 2000s gave us lots of shiny iProducts, but we don't travel any faster or live any better than 15 years ago. And yes, we aren't any closer to finding a cure for major diseases either.


The progress of computers are slowing down alot.A computer in 2011 may be 2 times faster than a computer in 2007 but is not 3 times faster or more.

The RAM and hard-drive is getting bigger and bigger all the time :p but the CPU i5 quad core or i7 quad core is not 2 times faster than the core 2 duo that come in Quad or duo versions.

Paqman
October 23rd, 2011, 02:59 AM
The progress of computers are slowing down alot.

Not really, progress has tracked surprisingly closely to Moore's Law for some time now.

hotweiss
October 23rd, 2011, 07:50 AM
Is medical progress slowing down and medical breakthroughs is slowing down with cancer treatment and cure?

I know 5 friends this year that died with cancer !! Also when the big NDP leader Jack Layton in Canada dies with cancer and rich man like Steve Jobs and man like Patrick Swayze that leaves you in shock how primitive the health care is.

What is the scopes on cancer treatment and cure now ? Is there a medical progress slowing down ?

Medical progress is not slowing down. People are living longer than ever. Although this might soon change as we are now living very unhealthy lifestyles.

As far as cancer is concerned, most of the carcinogens that we receive come from food. Just look on the side of the box of any food that you buy. Not to mention that all of our vegetables are now sprayed with chemicals. Our animals and fish now live in a polluted environment, an environment they feed in. Not to mention that most animals now receive hormones.

Human thinking is to always put the blame on others but not oneself. See what you can do yourself to improve your health.

del_diablo
October 23rd, 2011, 11:44 AM
See what you can do yourself to improve your health.

So you have finally trained yourself to become quite epic, not at the self crippling level of Olympic athletes, with quite a bit of muscles and you have a extremely healthy diet.
You are still doomed if you get one of those diseases we don't have a proper cure for, and nothing will change that.
What will change is what diseases that can be cured.
Even if you don't eat any of the unhealthy food, the main reason you develop cancer is because of the radiation in your environment or the luck of a dice.
Radiationish food and radiation only increases the chance of you getting cancer, you still have a chance of getting it regardless.
I am not saying "Roll over and die", I am just saying that the attitude "You can really do something about this!" is a really bad attitude compared to reality IF you are not living a extremely unhealthy life.
So if you are living somewhat healthy, all that you need to do is to get a disease that can be cured by modern science, and you are in luck because we can cure quite a lot of diseases these days.

ikt
October 23rd, 2011, 04:36 PM
Has anyone posted this yet?

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1162

fontis
October 23rd, 2011, 05:18 PM
I'm a medical student, almost finished with my studies, and I can tell you from clinical experience as well as theory, that the progress is not slowing down at all. It's just that we have learned from mistakes in the past of overhyping drugs without being certain of their efficacy that the community is far more hesitant in saying so.

Many cancers are fully treatable and have great prognosis, there are a few though which are highly malignant that are troublesome. Also some cancers cannot be operated not because of the cancer itself but because the precision required to JUST attack the cancer and not the surrounding tissue is not good enough.

As for neurodegenerative disorders such as ALS, MS, Parkinson etc. There is no clear understanding of the process, hence why they are called neurodegenerative. We know what happens when the disease occurs but we have little understanding of the etiology of the diseases, thus making it hard for us to recommend prophylactic treatments.

For those diseases, there are no cures at this point. All care in patients with Parkinson, ALS, MS, etc are purely symptomatic, and the patient WILL deteriorate and eventually die. What the treatments do at this point is simply to stall the disease process and/or to provide a better quality of life to the patient. An example can be made with MS patients; when first diagnosed, the brain will fully heal after the attack, but as time goes on this healing process will be less complete leaving dysfunctional areas in the brain which inevitably will occur at vital points and patient will die. The treatment plans now act to reduce the inflammatory attacks and to speed up the process of healing as much as possible so that the last stage of the disease is kept as far away as possible.


As for cancer, there is always need in more medical research grants because as you know, medics are fighting a lost cause. There will always be something we need to cure, unless we all turn immortal ;D

nec207
October 23rd, 2011, 07:57 PM
As for neurodegenerative disorders such as ALS, MS, Parkinson etc. There is no clear understanding of the process, hence why they are called neurodegenerative. We know what happens when the disease occurs but we have little understanding of the etiology of the diseases, thus making it hard for us to recommend prophylactic treatments.


So in the past 15 to 20 years or so there has been no progress at all with these disease?



According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the 10 most deadly cancers in the U.S. between 2003 and 2007 were lung and bronchial cancer, colon and rectal cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, ovarian cancer, and esophageal cancer


http://calorielab.com/labnotes/20101113/most-deadly-cancer-types/


Why does these cancer have such low survivor rate where other cancers have much higher survivor rate .

fontis
October 23rd, 2011, 08:16 PM
So in the past 15 to 20 years or so there has been no progress at all with these disease?



No, not really. I mean the progress has primarily been in extending and improving quality of life to simply stabilize the course of the disease, but no cure really. There is still much to be discovered and understood about the etiology of these diseases, and research is focused on trying to understand specific processes that triggers it. Once you understand the disease the cures or treatments can be produced.

http://calorielab.com/labnotes/20101113/most-deadly-cancer-types/



Why does these cancer have such low survivor rate where other cancers have much higher survivor rate .

Well, each specific cancer has specific pattern of malignancy, spread and circumstances. Mostly however, for some of those cancers like the different types of breast cancer, early detection is crucial. That's why screening procedures are so useful and have been a great tool of combating the number of deaths caused by breast cancer.

Colorectal cancers and generally cancers in the GIT tract are highly aggressive because of the natural tissue turnover and the increased amount of lymphatic tissue. So treating these are difficult and optimally include both surgical excisions and radio/chemotherapy.

Anyway, as I said, it's hard to treat cancers because almost all treatment plans are harmful. Chemotherapy acts on a specific set of tissue and is highly toxic. And even more radical treatments that are effective are simply way too toxic for them to be beneficial. I mean, what's the use if you get rid of the cancer, but destroy 3 other organs in the process? :p

That's why so much effort is being placed on trying to discover cancer-cell specific drugs that destroy the cancer cells but leave the rest unharmed.

nec207
October 23rd, 2011, 08:24 PM
What about stem cell or target drugs could that cure alot of the disease talked about in this thread or what disease could it cure ?

Could stem cell cure ALS, MS, Parkinson or spine injury or is this still other 40 years out ? Do to stem cell is so much in its infancy.

fontis
October 23rd, 2011, 08:29 PM
What about stem cell or target drugs could that cure alot of the disease talked about in this thread or what disease could it cure ?

Could stem cell cure ALS, MS, Parkinson or spine injury or is this still other 40 years out ? Do to stem cell is so much in its infancy.

Well, POTENTIALLY yes. Theoretically the stem cells can evolve into any damaged tissue and regenerate it and hopefully the function. But this is so super legislated by ethical and moral crusaders it's hard to tell. There is however the potential theoretical use for it, and probably why so much effort is placed to understand more about whether or not it's clinically applicable.

nec207
October 23rd, 2011, 08:36 PM
Well, POTENTIALLY yes. Theoretically the stem cells can evolve into any damaged tissue and regenerate it and hopefully the function. But this is so super legislated by ethical and moral crusaders it's hard to tell. There is however the potential theoretical use for it, and probably why so much effort is placed to understand more about whether or not it's clinically applicable.


What is holding the US back with stem cell not like Canada or Europe ? And is much still has to be learn how stem cell works and how it can evolve into any damaged tissue to regenerate ? Is this what is holding them back?

If so in 40 years or so they could use stem cell?

fontis
October 23rd, 2011, 08:55 PM
I don't know the EXACT legislature, but I know that it's a highly controversial topic.


And yes, maybe who knows? If the research is continued and granted for years, it's fully possible.

nec207
October 23rd, 2011, 09:01 PM
I don't know the EXACT legislature, but I know that it's a highly controversial topic.


And yes, maybe who knows? If the research is continued and granted for years, it's fully possible.

Why is it such a controversial topic.


what progress is being made with stem cell.

del_diablo
October 23rd, 2011, 09:25 PM
Why is it such a controversial topic.

Because it can under certain specific circumstances and parts of the procedure involve dead babies.
So the "controversial part" is just religious ignoreance over what the subject actually entails.
At the least that is my biased opinion.

nec207
October 24th, 2011, 11:56 PM
Parkinsons whilst there is no cure there is effective treatments that slow progress and improve quality of life, levodopa, Anticholinergics amd Mao-B inhibitors.

Multiple Sclerosis also has effective treatments such as interferons.

Can you or some one elaborate on this ? I'm not sure what those drugs are or what they do?



Not really, progress has tracked surprisingly closely to Moore's Law for some time now.


CPU's made in 2000 and a CPU made in 2006 where 3 or 4 times fater than CPU's made in 2006 and one made now other than Apples high end mac pro if you are rich or the server market.

Paqman
October 28th, 2011, 08:10 AM
CPU's made in 2000 and a CPU made in 2006 where 3 or 4 times fater than CPU's made in 2006 and one made now other than Apples high end mac pro if you are rich or the server market.

If anything new processors seem to be trending above the line since 2000:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg/667px-Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg.png

cespinal
October 28th, 2011, 08:22 AM
I am sorry for your losses. Cancer is certainly the toughest thing.

But medical science is truly at the verge of a revolution. As material science switched from macro to nano, medical science is getting into DNA manipulation and therapy... the possibilities are becoming wider...

PRC09
October 28th, 2011, 08:27 AM
I for one am very gratefull for the newer technologies as I am now the owner of one of the following devices implanted a couple of weeks ago.Without it things would be pretty grim for me......



http://www.medtronic.com/health-consumers/heart-failure/device/cardiac-resynchronization-therapy-defibrillators/consulta-crt-device/index.htm

Paqman
October 28th, 2011, 09:20 AM
I for one am very gratefull for the newer technologies as I am now the owner of one of the following devices implanted a couple of weeks ago.Without it things would be pretty grim for me......

http://www.medtronic.com/health-consumers/heart-failure/device/cardiac-resynchronization-therapy-defibrillators/consulta-crt-device/index.htm

Awesome, you are now a cyborg.

My dad had a pacemaker fitted to deal with the opposite problem (very slow heartbeat) and it's improved his quality of life immensely. And very likely added several years to his life. Very impressive pieces of kit.

nec207
October 29th, 2011, 02:50 AM
Than looking at the stats below a i7 or i5 should be 2 times faster than a core 2 duo or core 2 quad .


But I thought the benchmarks say not?




If anything new processors seem to be trending above the line since 2000:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg/667px-Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg.png




I for one am very gratefull for the newer technologies as I am now the owner of one of the following devices implanted a couple of weeks ago.Without it things would be pretty grim for me......


In 1942 there was renal hemodialysis which could save the lives of patients with endstage renal disease but only at the cost of utterly destroying their quality of life. The same situation obtains today. In 1922 there was insulin to treat diabetes, but the treatment dosing was onerous and dangerous, and no amount of precision obtainable could prevent neurological and vascular complications and premature death. The situation is still the same today.




But medical science is truly at the verge of a revolution. As material science switched from macro to nano, medical science is getting into DNA manipulation and therapy... the possibilities are becoming wider...



Can you elaborate.

What is macro or nano ?

I do not want to come across too pessimistic with life

smellyman
October 29th, 2011, 04:21 AM
too much spending on hair loss and impotence.....

oldsoundguy
October 29th, 2011, 05:38 AM
too much spending on hair loss and impotence.....

and boob jobs and cosmetic surgery and fat removal that could be done with diet and exercise.

But, slowing down? NO WAY .. I have had a quad bypass, cancer .. gone thanks to both surgery and radiation .. aortic artery repair .. and I am still putting one in front of the other, contributing to the conversation and consuming oxygen with out artificial aids. All to the thanks of skilled medical professionals and advanced medical diagnostics.
What will be next? Since my time is bonus time .. bring it on!!

polardude1983
October 29th, 2011, 05:56 AM
Slowing down definitely not.

Check to see if you can find this video somewhere online or on your Discovery channel listing

Curiosity: Can You Live Forever starring Adam Savage

http://nerdreactor.com/2011/10/15/curiosity-can-you-live-forever-starring-adam-savage/

3rdalbum
October 29th, 2011, 09:55 AM
Than looking at the stats below a i7 or i5 should be 2 times faster than a core 2 duo or core 2 quad .


But I thought the benchmarks say not?

The sheer raw number of transistors doesn't translate into raw speed. For a start, there are inefficiencies in the CPU architecture that cause bottlenecks. And secondly, benchmarkable speed isn't all that the CPUs are designed for - for example, CPUs are now coming with integrated GPUs, virtualisation support, and other features that boost the number of transistors. But those transistors don't get used for improving the speed of benchmarks.

nec207
October 29th, 2011, 05:31 PM
The sheer raw number of transistors doesn't translate into raw speed. For a start, there are inefficiencies in the CPU architecture that cause bottlenecks. And secondly, benchmarkable speed isn't all that the CPUs are designed for - for example, CPUs are now coming with integrated GPUs, virtualisation support, and other features that boost the number of transistors. But those transistors don't get used for improving the speed of benchmarks.


If I had a pentium 4 and upgrade to core 2 duo or core 2 quad it would be 3 times faster or more.But if I had a core 2 duo or core 2 quad and upgrade to a i7 or i5 it will not be 1.5 or 2 times faster.

In others words CPU raw power gone up alot between 2000 and 2008.But CPU raw power between 2008 to 2011 not that much.

Paqman
October 29th, 2011, 06:43 PM
If I had a pentium 4 and upgrade to core 2 duo or core 2 quad it would be 3 times faster or more.But if I had a core 2 duo or core 2 quad and upgrade to a i7 or i5 it will not be 1.5 or 2 times faster.

In others words CPU raw power gone up alot between 2000 and 2008.But CPU raw power between 2008 to 2011 not that much.

Only if you're looking at performance from one narrow perspective, as 3rdalbum said. Performance in benchmarks isn't a perfect indicator of a chip's sophistication. They can be affected by the software, for example. Run a number crunching task on the same chip using a 32-bit and 64-bit OS and you'll get two different benchmarks, for example.

There are also other measures of a chip's capabilities than raw speed. The ability of a chip to handle graphics processing or execute instructions with the minimum power use are both important and useful benchmarks, for example. The relevance of a benchmark as an indicator of a chip's performance depends on a lot of factors (use case, choice of benchmark, software, chip architecture, etc, etc). You can't just run the same benchmark against everything and get useful numbers.

nec207
October 29th, 2011, 09:01 PM
Only if you're looking at performance from one narrow perspective, as 3rdalbum said. Performance in benchmarks isn't a perfect indicator of a chip's sophistication. They can be affected by the software, for example. Run a number crunching task on the same chip using a 32-bit and 64-bit OS and you'll get two different benchmarks, for example.

There are also other measures of a chip's capabilities than raw speed. The ability of a chip to handle graphics processing or execute instructions with the minimum power use are both important and useful benchmarks, for example. The relevance of a benchmark as an indicator of a chip's performance depends on a lot of factors (use case, choice of benchmark, software, chip architecture, etc, etc). You can't just run the same benchmark against everything and get useful numbers.

That is true if you are using old software or old OS.

Old games or not so good video editing software will not know how to work best with 3 ,4 or 6 core CPU.

The problem with CPU the GHz it a brink wall of 3 GHz around 2003 thus CPU could not get faster so they started to through cores at it and they are hiting a brink wall with this too now:(

The OS and software are always slow at keeping up with the leatest hardware .

Apple has mac pro a ugly desktop that one can get 12 core CPU and video editing software for it that know how best to work with it ..But I caution it :( the mac pro or PC semi supercomputers not the real supercomputers are not for amateurs !! You have to be rich and do not mind spending 4,000 to 8,000 or more on a computer that can render 1 hour HD movie in minutes.


Has of now my slow crappy computer takes 4X the time of any HD movie clip. That means a 5 minute clip takes 20 minutes and a 10 minute clip takes 40 minutes and 1 hour HD clip takes 4 hours.

If I was doing special effects or making the the movie look sharp and clear it would take very long day.Try to make a VHS look near HD would take years of computer power.

dh04000
October 30th, 2011, 02:16 AM
I read the OP's first post, and then flipped to the last page, and now we're discussing 64 bit vs 32 bit OS's and benchmarks????

To answer the original question, medical progress isn't slowing down, it just EASY targets are drying up. Pancreatic cancer is a hard target due to the biochemical/physiological nature of the cancer itself. It would take me a while to explain, but I'll just leave it as that. Some cancers may NEVER have a cure. There isn't an answer to everything, even though we as we scientists work hard to find them.

apo1l
October 30th, 2011, 03:58 AM
Actually we are progressing nicely in the medical field.

My cousin's friend was going to have triplets but in the ultrasound last month, one of the babies had no heartbeat which is so sad. So the doctor opted to take out the dead baby inside her womb but left the two healthy babies inside the womb and patch her up.

If everything goes well, she will give birth to twins this January.

Before the medical field couldn't and wouldn't attempt that.

nec207
October 31st, 2011, 01:02 AM
sorry see my last post .


I think that goes more into CPU power and what I was talking about.





Than looking at the stats below a i7 or i5 should be 2 times faster than a core 2 duo or core 2 quad .


But I thought the benchmarks say not?








In 1942 there was renal hemodialysis which could save the lives of patients with endstage renal disease but only at the cost of utterly destroying their quality of life. The same situation obtains today. In 1922 there was insulin to treat diabetes, but the treatment dosing was onerous and dangerous, and no amount of precision obtainable could prevent neurological and vascular complications and premature death. The situation is still the same today.




Can you elaborate.

What is macro or nano ?

I do not want to come across too pessimistic with life
[/QUOTE]

jackdale
October 31st, 2011, 02:01 AM
I think we are advancing in medicine at a much faster pace than ever before. However, many the diseases where we are making huge breakthroughs are as well known as in the past and naturally they get less publicity than (for example) discovering antibiotics for the first time. In particular, we have made a huge improvement we have in our understanding of the role of the brain/nervous system, immune system, genetics, life-style factors, etc in conditions traditionally not thought to involve these systems. This understanding is being put to very good use in treating a variety of conditions that only 5 years ago could not be treated very well or at all.

The other area that gives us a false impression is in the area of Chronic Illnesses. We are now very good a treating many of them to enable people to live normal or almost-normal lives. However, these are not "cures". Unfortunately, our society seems to belittle the significant progress that we have made in these areas and helping people to remain productive members of society in general and their families in particular. I've seen too many people put their lives on hold while they wait for a "cure", when they could be out there living and enjoying their lives.

Medical Progress is alive and well, but what has lagged behind is our ability to educate the general population about principles of health and "well-being".

nec207
October 31st, 2011, 08:06 PM
The other area that gives us a false impression is in the area of Chronic Illnesses. We are now very good a treating many of them to enable people to live normal or almost-normal lives. However, these are not "cures". Unfortunately, ".

You mean like (ALS) ,MS, Parkinson's, strokes or spinal cord injury ?

jackdale
November 2nd, 2011, 12:48 PM
You mean like (ALS) ,MS, Parkinson's, strokes or spinal cord injury ?

Sure, we can't cure motor-neuron disease, and many strokes and spinal cord injuries can be quite debilitating (although we are much better at treating patients with less severe forms of these). But Parkinson's Disease and particularly Multiple Sclerosis have a much better prognosis now than ever before.

I was just trying to point out that, for example, conditions like Ulcerative Collitis, Crohn's Disease, Myasthenia Gravis, SLE, and other autoimmune conditions that are less well known (compared to Rheumatoid arthritis and diabetes).

Also, we are making huge advances in our understanding and treatment of chronic pain conditions such as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, "Phantom Limb" pain/sensation and even "simple" old non-specific back pain. Very exciting developments in these areas are helping people with these conditions in non-pharmacological and non-surgical ways.

So I was trying to say that when taken individually, these developments are nothing compared to discoveries like antibiotics. However, taken collectively I believe they form the basis for much optimism in the future of medicine.

And then there's the search for better cancer treatments (sometimes stupidly called the search for a cure for cancer). There is an enormous amount of research into novel areas of focus that is only speeding up.

One could argue that there are a few areas where this does not seem to be happening, such as Psychiatry. It has been quite a long time since any truly revolutionary developments in this area. Sure, we have the psychotherapies. With a few exceptions these are in the process of being refined rather than discovered. And yes we have the psychotropic medications, but these are very blunt instruments in the treatment of very specific afflictions. And while there are huge benefits from the past discoveries in the psychotherapies, the pharmacotherapies and ECT, these are now well and truly "Old News". I think that there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the apparent obsession with syndromic diagnosis rather than aetiological diagnosis, which naturally weakens the ability for researchers to formulate groundbreaking theories that would otherwise lead to faster progress. However, even in psychiatry, there is some genetic research that is proving interesting and may be the source for future optimism.

Humans are such complex creatures from the fundamentals of our genetic code, to the various electro-chemical processes that happen in cells, to the complex interactions of organs and systems, to the function of our brains, and even to our social interactions! Of course there will be illnesses and conditions that we will struggle to treat for a very long time yet, but if you ask me the question "Is medical progress slowing down?", my answer is an clear: No, it's actually speeding up!

oldsoundguy
November 3rd, 2011, 05:25 PM
You know, instead of bemoaning the lack of "quick fixes" for medical science (or ANY science for that matter) .. why not help:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/ Go there and download their background program. and then select a project or two or three (if you have multicore processing) There are many deserving projects on this list:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php Utilize that idle time on your computer .. ESPECIALLY if you have a box that is powered up 24/7 (server users take note!!)
The more computers involved, the quicker the answers!

nec207
November 3rd, 2011, 08:03 PM
Sure, we can't cure motor-neuron disease, and many strokes and spinal cord injuries can be quite debilitating (although we are much better at treating patients with less severe forms of these). But Parkinson's Disease and particularly Multiple Sclerosis have a much better prognosis now than ever before.


Okay .

But you still did not reply to this part.



In 1942 there was renal hemodialysis which could save the lives of patients with endstage renal disease but only at the cost of utterly destroying their quality of life. The same situation obtains today. In 1922 there was insulin to treat diabetes, but the treatment dosing was onerous and dangerous, and no amount of precision obtainable could prevent neurological and vascular complications and premature death. The situation is still the same today.

del_diablo
November 3rd, 2011, 08:37 PM
For those who don't belivie:
These days we can actually CURE infections, and we have vaccines that effectivily killed of a lot of those really pesky viruses.
So we have removed a really large problem.
However, we have still not figured out how to give proper implants yet(cyborg limbs), nor how to regrow lost arms and eyes. Cancer is still a problem, and so is nervological diseases.

Some day we will be able to cure those problems just like we got vaccines around, and we managed to cure infectionous disease. But not today, or tomorrow. Perhaps something will be started next year, or in 10 years.
Basically the medical progression is 100% flat, what has changed is that it advances a bit faster due the money pooled into it.
One of the problems will also be that the pharmasuitical companies will keep on using money on the wrong research, delaying "salvation" for us all.

jackdale
November 4th, 2011, 11:58 AM
Okay .

But you still did not reply to this part.



In 1942 there was renal hemodialysis which could save the lives of patients with endstage renal disease but only at the cost of utterly destroying their quality of life. The same situation obtains today. In 1922 there was insulin to treat diabetes, but the treatment dosing was onerous and dangerous, and no amount of precision obtainable could prevent neurological and vascular complications and premature death. The situation is still the same today.

OK so now you're talking specifics again and I will answer this, but first let me say again: medicine is progressing tremendously in general. Like the stock market which has a trend, which is made up of many companies going up and many going down. The trend is determined by the balance. On balance, medicine is progressing at a fast pace.

Now, for your answer to above. Yes haemodialysis has not fundamentally progressed since it started. It is much safer than before. But yes, quality of life is restricted, especially if you have it several times a week. However, for some people there is now (and has been for a while) peritoneal dialysis, which is still annoying, but infinitely better quality of life than haemodyalisis. It is still immensely underused (even though it is cheaper and more convenient), but even then there would still be patients for whom haemodyalisis would be the only alternative. In these cases patients have to make the choice between improved quality of life, albeit much reduced quantity or impaired quality of life (esp on dialysis days) but longer quantity. True, at the moment there is very little research which offers immediate hope for those who have end-satge renal disease. However, since 1942 we know a lot more about risk factors and we are vastly better at preventing end-stage renal disease and this is an area where research is active and progressing well.

Now diabetes. Obviously you're talking about Type 1 Diabetes not Type 2. Type 2 diabetes rarely requires insulin (provided the patient is compliant with diet, exercise and medications, and they are receiving proper medical care) and the current medical armament available means that this condition can be managed well. As for Type 1 diabetes, in which there is a deficiency of insulin, I don't know what planet you live in, but we are much better at predicting doses. Even more important than dosing, long-acting insulin preparations are now able to more accurately mimic the body's natural circadian insulin requirements (e.g. Lantus). Also in some countries (too few) there are now insulin pumps that are able to measure blood glucose levels and titrate the amount insulin delivered to more closely resemble the body's normal function. There is now a vast amount of knowledge about adjunct medication that can help prevent or at least delay end-organ damage (including cardiovascular, optic, neural and renal). The important thing here, again, is that life-style factors are just as important in preventing end-organ damage as taking the right amount of insulin.

Education programs are now routinely run for children and adolescents with Type 1 diabetes to help them learn about their role in preventing/delaying complications.

So again, I cannot agree that these mean that there is little progress in medicine. Progress is slow in areas that involve massive physiological changes (such as end-stage renal failure in a type 1 diabetic getting haemodyalisis). However, even in this situation there has been progress made in helping patients to improve their quality of live during the days when they are not having dialysis. One example is the introduction of erythropoietin, which helps improve the anaemia of end-stage renal failure. As tired as patients can feel now, they felt even worse before.

So, yes you can always find examples of diseases that are difficult to treat, but if we look at medicine in general I still think that we are making much progress.

End-stage renal disease and type 1 diabetes: is the situation still the same? No way.

jackdale
November 9th, 2011, 01:07 PM
Wow, talk about a thread killer... :redface: