Gamers help crack an AIDS question.

[Blackmarch]

I thought this was pretty ingenius, how they were able to enlist gamers to solve a problem regarding virus structure:

Online Gamers crack AIDS enzyme puzzle

[Traveler]

I thought this was pretty ingenius, how they were able to enlist gamers to solve a problem regarding virus structure:

Online Gamers crack AIDS enzyme puzzle

The other good news is that within 5 years we will know if Peter Gusberg was right about AIDS 30 years ago.

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

The other good news is that within 5 years we will know if Peter Gusberg was right about AIDS 30 years ago.

The Traveler

Do you mean Peter Duesberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure I buy the " AIDS only comes from drug use" theory lol but hey to each their own

[Traveler]

Do you mean Peter Duesberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure I buy the " AIDS only comes from drug use" theory lol but hey to each their own

Sorry about the typo. Peter is an internationally respected virologist and considered the world’s leading authority of viruses (especially retroviruses) - until his criticism of AIDS. But like so many things - it is best to learn about a person from that person actually says. BTW - the article does not say what Peter pinpointed as the AIDS problem in Africa. Hint - not drugs.

But - as I said - now that the AIDS use of protein has been cracked - if the cure is not found - Peter was right - again. (and the article failed to indicate that back in the 80’s Peter made several predictions about the AIDS virus. I read his book 30 years ago and so far he has not missed a single prediction concerning AIDS - including that there would be individuals with the AIDS virus that would not show any AIDS symptoms even after 25 years with the disease - despite the fact that a cure will not have been found.

Also he did not say what the cause of AIDS is - what he did is make a suggestion and then suggest that a study be done. A study was never done??? Not only has there been no study but the CDC has blocked any efforts to get government money to do the study???

I am not an expert - I do not know if he is right - but I do think anyone interested in AIDS should read his published works on AIDS.

The Traveler

The Traveler

[Soulsearcher]

Sorry about the typo. Peter is an internationally respected virologist and considered the world’s leading authority of viruses (especially retroviruses) - until his criticism of AIDS. But like so many things - it is best to learn about a person from that person actually says. BTW - the article does not say what Peter pinpointed as the AIDS problem in Africa. Hint - not drugs.

But - as I said - now that the AIDS use of protein has been cracked - if the cure is not found - Peter was right - again. (and the article failed to indicate that back in the 80’s Peter made several predictions about the AIDS virus. I read his book 30 years ago and so far he has not missed a single prediction concerning AIDS - including that there would be individuals with the AIDS virus that would not show any AIDS symptoms even after 25 years with the disease - despite the fact that a cure will not have been found.

Also he did not say what the cause of AIDS is - what he did is make a suggestion and then suggest that a study be done. A study was never done??? Not only has there been no study but the CDC has blocked any efforts to get government money to do the study???

I am not an expert - I do not know if he is right - but I do think anyone interested in AIDS should read his published works on AIDS.

The Traveler

The Traveler

ummm pretty sure he was very clear in what he thought caused the AIDS virus.

The Duesberg hypothesis is the claim, associated with University of California, Berkeley professor Peter Duesberg, that various non-infectious factors such as recreational and pharmaceutical drug use are the cause of AIDS, and that HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) is merely a harmless passenger virus.[1] The most prominent supporters of this hypothesis are Duesberg himself, biochemist and vitamin proponent David Rasnick, and journalist Celia Farber. The scientific community considers that Duesberg's arguments are the result of cherry-picking predominantly outdated scientific data[2] and selectively ignoring evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS.[3] The scientific consensus is that the Duesberg hypothesis is incorrect, and that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[4][5][6]

As for his thoughts on AIDS in Africa

According to the Duesberg hypothesis, AIDS is not found in Africa. What Duesberg calls "the myth of an African AIDS epidemic,"[21] among people"[22] exists for several reasons, including:

• The need, according to Duesberg, of the CDC, the WHO, and other health organizations to justify their existences, resulting in their "manufacturing contagious plagues out of noninfectious medical conditions."[23]
• Media sensationalism, with stories that "helped shape the Western impression of an AIDS problem out of control," resulting in high levels of funding.[21]
• Willing participation in deception by local doctors who wish to take advantage of this aid money: "African doctors themselves participate in building the myth of the AIDS pandemic."[24]
• Confusion or incompetence on the part of African doctors: "Many common Third World diseases are confused with AIDS even if they are not part of its official definition."[25]

Duesberg states that African AIDS cases are "a collection of long-established, indigenous diseases, such as chronic fevers, weight loss, alias “slim disease”, diarrhea and tuberculosis"[1] that result from malnutrition and poor sanitation. African AIDS cases, though, have increased in the last three decades as HIV's prevalence has increased[26] but as malnutrition percentages[27] and poor sanitation have declined in many African regions.[28] In addition, while HIV and AIDS are more prevalent in urban than in rural settings in Africa,[29] malnutrition and poor sanitation are found more commonly in rural than in urban settings.[30]

According to Duesberg, common diseases are easily misdiagnosed as AIDS in Africa because "the diagnosis of African AIDS is arbitrary" and does not include HIV testing.[1] A definition of AIDS agreed upon in 1985 by the World Health Organization in Bangui did not require a positive HIV test, but since 1985, many African countries have added positive HIV tests to the Bangui criteria for AIDS or changed their definitions to match those of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.[31] One of the reasons for using more HIV tests despite their expense is that, rather than overestimating AIDS as Duesberg suggests, the Bangui definition alone excluded nearly half of African AIDS patients."[32]

Duesberg notes that diseases associated with AIDS differ between African and Western populations, concluding that the causes of immunodeficiency must be different. Tuberculosis is much more commonly diagnosed among AIDS patients in Africa than in Western countries, while PCP conforms to the opposite pattern.[33] Tuberculosis, though, had higher prevalence in Africa than in the West before the spread of HIV. In Africa and the United States, HIV has spurred a similar percentage increase in tuberculosis cases.[34] PCP may be underestimated in Africa: since machinery "required for accurate testing is relatively rare in many resource-poor areas, including large parts of Africa, PCP is likely to be underdiagnosed in Africa. Consistent with this hypothesis, studies that report the highest rates of PCP in Africa are those that use the most advanced diagnostic methods"[35] Duesberg also claims that Kaposi's Sarcoma is "exclusively diagnosed in male homosexual risk groups using nitrite inhalants and other psychoactive drugs as aphrodisiacs",[1] but the cancer is fairly common among heterosexuals in some parts of Africa,[36] and is found in heterosexuals in the United States as well.[37]

Because reported AIDS cases in Africa and other parts of the developing world include a larger proportion of people who do not belong to Duesberg's preferred risk groups of drug addicts and male homosexuals,[38] Duesberg writes on his website that "There are no risk groups in Africa, like drug addicts and homosexuals," However, many studies have addressed the issue of risk groups in Africa and concluded that the risk of AIDS is not equally distributed.[39][40] In addition, AIDS in Africa largely kills sexually active working-age adults.[41][42]

Quotes from wikipedia

Edited September 25, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[talisyn]

That was pretty neat, getting gamers to use their skills to break a code. And they didn't even have to pay them?

[Traveler]

ummm pretty sure he was very clear in what he thought caused the AIDS virus.

As for his thoughts on AIDS in Africa

Quotes from wikipedia

Again you should read Peter's works. He spoke to a specific demographic dying of AIDS in the USA. He showed where the drug in question had caused the exact same symptoms as was being experienced by that specific demographic with AIDS. He then showed that the particular demographic was using the drug that was known to cause the very symptoms causing their death.

He predicted that the symptoms of AIDS would change pending on the demographic. He then used the Africa example. He pointed out that the symptoms of the exact same virus in Africa were causing death with very different symptoms. He pointed out two things. First that the world organizations would subsidize local African clinics over 100 times for diagnosing AIDS than for other “problems” that had existed for hundreds of years. In particular undernourishment or in essence death by starvation - He also pointed out that the symptoms of death by AIDS in Africa were very similar to immune failure because of starvation which is very different that AIDS symptoms in the USA. Also that the life and death population growth cycle in Africa did not change with the plague of AIDS in Africa. What he pointed out was that the people getting rich because of AIDS in Africa were what changed.

Peter also addresses why the CDC is involved - It is a simple matter of money. The same people directing the CDC also sit on the board of companies making billions on AIDS research and treatments. He predicted that until there is an end to the mingling of funds there would never be a cure to what would end a multibillion dollar business.

And so I have been watching AIDS kill millions and companies getting very rich - and nothing changing now for more than 30 years - while everything Peter said has come about and everything his critics have said has quietly been dismissed and forgotten. The biggest of all - that the same demographic is getting sick and dying and there still is not a cure.

You would think that those that have lost friends and family to AIDS we be willing to consider Peter’s suggestions - at least after 30 years of going nowhere. But money can buy just about anything in this world - including opinions.

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

I wonder what it was about this problem that called for an army of modeler gamers instead of just using their idle processing time.

[Traveler]

I wonder what it was about this problem that called for an army of modeler gamers instead of just using their idle processing time.

Interesting comment - both ideas - according to my understanding, both have yielded results.

The Traveler

[LittleWyvern]

I wonder what it was about this problem that called for an army of modeler gamers instead of just using their idle processing time.

With problems like these it's a contest between human ingenuity (gamers) and brute force (idle processing time). Depending on the problem one may be faster than the other.

[Dravin]

With problems like these it's a contest between human ingenuity (gamers) and brute force (idle processing time). Depending on the problem one may be faster than the other.

Much like how both a Literature Department and an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters can both recreate the works of Shakespeare but the Literature Department has the upper hand because it isn't going to be trying ;lkjks jlhsd kljhsdg lkjlkjhdg ewiou34 089 n34 n-9nh2. as lines (or even bubble bubble banana sky cloud fantastic machine).

[annewandering]

People think different than machines and that is why they used people. Scientists had spent 8 years, if i remember right, using standard methods like computers but had no luck. In THREE weeks people figured it out. Go Gamers!!

[Blackmarch]

It seems what happened is that the game supplies the rules or limits of how things can or may connect together and a bunch of other stuff, and gamers came up with a solution that worked within the game parameters... which was then taken and sent to a bunch of the scientist guys to see if it worked, and it basically did.

[Traveler]

Much like how both a Literature Department and an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters can both recreate the works of Shakespeare but the Literature Department has the upper hand because it isn't going to be trying ;lkjks jlhsd kljhsdg lkjlkjhdg ewiou34 089 n34 n-9nh2. as lines (or even bubble bubble banana sky cloud fantastic machine).

I wanted to comment on the false theory of infinite monkeys on key boards creating the works of Shakespeare. In the scientific development of understanding complex systems and coming out of quantum mechanics or physics - Chaos Theory is the predominate means to understanding, define and provide explanation. Contrary to many popular interpretations - that anything is possible if we consider infinite possibilities. It would be better understood as anything within the limits of defining parameters is possible. In other words even though the structures of snowflakes are infinite and no two snowflakes are exactly alike; no snowflake will ever be a cow. The reason is that the structure of snowflakes and cows are sufficiently incompatible in defining parameter that it just will not happen - ever.

The Traveler

Edited September 27, 2011 by Traveler

[slamjet]

Gamers solving this is not a surprise to me. Computers only know what we tell them, thus only know what we know. The rest they predict from algorithmic thinking we put in them to try to confirm human intuition. I really can't think of anything that a computer has dug up and given us in way of a new, creative idea. Just a different probability.

[Dravin]

I wanted to comment on the false theory of infinite monkeys on key boards creating the works of Shakespeare. In the scientific development of understanding complex systems and coming out of quantum mechanics or physics - Chaos Theory is the predominate means to understanding, define and provide explanation. Contrary to many popular interpretations - that anything is possible if we consider infinite possibilities. It would be better understood as anything within the limits of defining parameters is possible. In other words even though the structures of snowflakes are infinite and no two snowflakes are exactly alike; no snowflake will ever be a cow. The reason is that the structure of snowflakes and cows are sufficiently incompatible in defining parameter that it just will not happen - ever.

The Traveler

The monkey keyboard theorem has a a proof and you have? Snowflakes aren't cows. Feel free to make your case on Wikipedia or some place though, they might be interested in how snowflakes not being cows disproves the supposition that the odds of an infinite series of random key-presses generating a given string is non-zero (which is not to say it must happen, just that given infinite time the odds that it does not happen decreases but it's never actually zero, a graph of the odds would display asymptotic behavior at y=0).

Edited September 27, 2011 by Dravin

[LittleWyvern]

I wanted to comment on the false theory of infinite monkeys on key boards creating the works of Shakespeare. In the scientific development of understanding complex systems and coming out of quantum mechanics or physics - Chaos Theory is the predominate means to understanding, define and provide explanation. Contrary to many popular interpretations - that anything is possible if we consider infinite possibilities. It would be better understood as anything within the limits of defining parameters is possible. In other words even though the structures of snowflakes are infinite and no two snowflakes are exactly alike; no snowflake will ever be a cow. The reason is that the structure of snowflakes and cows are sufficiently incompatible in defining parameter that it just will not happen - ever.

The Traveler

Except, this isn't a infinite chaos problem. With finding a drug to cure AIDS for instance, there's a lot of concrete parameters to the problem (i.e. this is the AIDS virus, this is how proteins work, this is how enzymes interact, etc). The only problem is there's billions of different proteins and billions of different compounds to try. So, you have the human ingenuity way, shown in the OP, and the brute force way.

[Dravin]

Except, this isn't a infinite chaos problem. With finding a drug to cure AIDS for instance, there's a lot of concrete parameters to the problem (i.e. this is the AIDS virus, this is how proteins work, this is how enzymes interact, etc). The only problem is there's billions of different proteins and billions of different compounds to try. So, you have the human ingenuity way, shown in the OP, and the brute force way.

I don't think he was talking about the OP so much as he was my mentioning of Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in my effort to back you up in that even if a way can get something done it's not necessarily the fastest/most efficient way.