Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Themed Monthly Avatar Committee (TMAC) discussion thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Themed Monthly Avatar Committee (TMAC) discussion thread - Page 689

post #10321 of 11237

:-O

post #10322 of 11237
It would be nice if there didn't have to be a competition for research dollars - but the reality is that the competition is very fierce. I suppose one method would be to distribute the money according to incident rates. The more patients a disease has, the more money that research would receive. Curing the most prevalent diseases first would help the most people, and every time the top disease was cured, it would allow a huge amount of money to be put into the next one on the list.

Of course, if that was the method, then diseases like HIV would be far down on the list instead of it's current place near the top. The more celebrities you have on your disease, the more money you get. This is an old graph (2002 I think), but I think the relative comparisons haven't changed much.



The very widespread diseases are also a HUGE drain on the world's resources in many other ways besides just research money. The money spent treating and managing the top diseases is ENORMOUS. This is all money that isn't available for doing other things in our economy.

But, incident rates still don't tell the whole story. Diabetes (particularly Type 2), for example, is a major contributor to the increase in many other diseases - kidney disease, heart disease, strokes, vascular disease, neuropathy, etc. Cure Diabetes, and you would make a significant impact on all the other diseases where Diabetes is the actual underlying cause.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs236/en/
post #10323 of 11237
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

It would be nice if there didn't have to be a competition for research dollars - but the reality is that the competition is very fierce. I suppose one method would be to distribute the money according to incident rates. The more patients a disease has, the more money that research would receive. Curing the most prevalent diseases first would help the most people, and every time the top disease was cured, it would allow a huge amount of money to be put into the next one on the list.

Of course, if that was the method, then diseases like HIV would be far down on the list instead of it's current place near the top. The more celebrities you have on your disease, the more money you get. This is an old graph (2002 I think), but I think the relative comparisons haven't changed much.



The very widespread diseases are also a HUGE drain on the world's resources in many other ways besides just research money. The money spent treating and managing the top diseases is ENORMOUS. This is all money that isn't available for doing other things in our economy.

But, incident rates still don't tell the whole story. Diabetes (particularly Type 2), for example, is a major contributor to the increase in many other diseases - kidney disease, heart disease, strokes, vascular disease, neuropathy, etc. Cure Diabetes, and you would make a significant impact on all the other diseases where Diabetes is the actual underlying cause.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs236/en/

Whaaaat? Diabetes research funding is that small? D:

I would have at least thought it was more than breast cancer...AIDS is more understandable, but less than breast cancer? >_>

 

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that cardiovascular diseases (of which Type 2 diabetes can lead to) have lead to more deaths throughout the world than cancer (of all kinds), though I don't recall where I heard that. Maybe I'm just biased since I work in a lab collaborating with other labs in the area doing cardiovascular research.


Edited by miceblue - 11/24/13 at 1:25pm
post #10324 of 11237
Point, LaRusso!


post #10325 of 11237
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHorseNamedJeff View Post


And the obligatory post-surgery selfie.
Holy crud lol, must've been fun. tongue.gif
post #10326 of 11237

I had teeth pulled on numerous occasions many years ago, mainly because my teeth don't seem to fall out on their own. Definitely not fun. Unfortunately, novocaine doesn't work very well on me. Not for lack of trying--the one time they shot about four times as much as they normally would into my gums, but to no avail. The nitrous oxide wasn't enough to keep me under that time, either. The dentist had to remove not only four baby teeth but the four permanent teeth beneath them, so he was there for a while. And he had to get creative because the permanent teeth were fused to my jawbone--he actually had to use his drill like a saw to get them out. He said afterward he'd never seen anything like it. I'd certainly never felt anything like it, either. Excruciating pain pretty much from start to finish once he got to the permanent teeth.

 

And the punchline? I could have opted for oral surgery instead of having my dentist do it (and thereby avoided being conscious during any of it), but I decided against it because it was cheaper to have him do it and because I didn't want him to feel like I didn't trust him. I was a very considerate 12 year old, you see. :rolleyes: 

 

Oh, and pain meds? Yeah, they didn't prescribe me any of those. I lived on Motrin for about a week after that. In my experience, that's the only instance where Motrin has ever done anything for me.

post #10327 of 11237

New videos up

post #10328 of 11237
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

Whaaaat? Diabetes research funding is that small? D:
I would have at least thought it was more than breast cancer...AIDS is more understandable, but less than breast cancer? >_>

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that cardiovascular diseases (of which Type 2 diabetes can lead to) have lead to more deaths throughout the world than cancer (of all kinds), though I don't recall where I heard that. Maybe I'm just biased since I work in a lab collaborating with other labs in the area doing cardiovascular research.

Those are per patient numbers. I'm actually not sure how much total money is spent on each disease - but the total population of people with Diabetes is MUCH higher than either Aids or Breast Cancer. Both my Mom & my sister are breast cancer survivors. I think you are right about the cardiovascular disease - it is the leading cause of death in the USA - but it does depend on age. I found this on Wikipedia:



Diabetes is chronic & incurable - but in most cases, if managed, it isn't the primary cause of death. Malignant neoplasms (tumors) seem to have a weird relationship to age. I'm thinking that it goes down with age because if you get a tumor, you have a pretty small likelihood of living to be 80.
post #10329 of 11237
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post

It would be nice if there didn't have to be a competition for research dollars - but the reality is that the competition is very fierce. I suppose one method would be to distribute the money according to incident rates. The more patients a disease has, the more money that research would receive. Curing the most prevalent diseases first would help the most people, and every time the top disease was cured, it would allow a huge amount of money to be put into the next one on the list.

Of course, if that was the method, then diseases like HIV would be far down on the list instead of it's current place near the top. The more celebrities you have on your disease, the more money you get. This is an old graph (2002 I think), but I think the relative comparisons haven't changed much.



The very widespread diseases are also a HUGE drain on the world's resources in many other ways besides just research money. The money spent treating and managing the top diseases is ENORMOUS. This is all money that isn't available for doing other things in our economy.

But, incident rates still don't tell the whole story. Diabetes (particularly Type 2), for example, is a major contributor to the increase in many other diseases - kidney disease, heart disease, strokes, vascular disease, neuropathy, etc. Cure Diabetes, and you would make a significant impact on all the other diseases where Diabetes is the actual underlying cause.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs236/en/

Yeah, diabetes is one of the major more "dangerous" diseases since it's not only dangerous by itself, but also messes you up in more than one way, so you have several risks going on there.

 

I think it's a bit unfair, yes. I mean, as you said, diabetes can be an underlying reason for cardiovascular diseases. It's like with teeth here: drilling and pulling 'em out is a way to deal with bad teeth, but brushing them every day is a good way to prevent all of that happening. Finding cures and treatments that will work on cardiovascular diseases is good, but it would probably be better to prevent by finding cures and treatments against the underlying diseases. Of course, not every cardiovascular condition is caused by another disease, but I think you get the gist here. I've got several of those underlying diseases/disorders: bipolar, hypothyroidism, hemochromatosis - paired with the fact that I used to live pretty "wild" (with drugs, alcohol etc.) I'm somehow fairly sure I won't die at 90. Considering my biological father has been revived with defibrillators a couple of times and his father died from a heart attack, and I work in the cardiovascular department, I suppose I should be happy about cardiovascular research, but to be honest, I'd rather see some of that huge chunk of research money go to other research.

 

Oh well, that was just me ranting about the unfairness of research money. I think it's unfair, but on the hand, I don't have an alternative idea or suggestion either. Cardiovascular research money pays my salary, I should probably just shut up right here.

post #10330 of 11237

Just seen on imgur, with the caption, "Gang violence".....:smile:

1000

 

I got a laugh out of it....despite my not being an Apple hater.:D

post #10331 of 11237
I will never, ever understand mobile OS fanboyism (not directed at you). It makes no sense at all. confused.gif
post #10332 of 11237

I suppose the assumption is that the OS you choose says something about you, and in some circles Apple carries negative connotations. Personally, I don't have a problem with people who like iOS or the various iDevices, even if I probably won't ever buy one myself. That has more to do with wanting to avoid Apple's walled garden than any value judgments aimed at people who buy Apple. Honestly, though, about 20% of the 1% of the Internet that isn't devoted to cats is focused on anti-Apple or pro-Apple sentiments, and I just don't see why people care so much. I laugh when the jokes are funny, but I'm not out for blood like some people seem to be. There's just too many other things in life to spend my time on.

 

This all said, that picture is hilarious. I seem to remember reading that they ditched the glass back on the latest flagship (or was that just the 5c?), and that picture shows exactly why no phone should ever have a back made of glass.

post #10333 of 11237

I wonder....is it really any different than the car guys? Ford vs. Chevy, Ferrari vs. Lamborghini, etc.

 

Of course, I know a guy that loves Chevy muscle cars but prefers Ford trucks....then again, he loves Windows 7, has an Android Gingerbread phone, and loves his iPad 2.....so I guess he defies categorization....lol

post #10334 of 11237

Or RS-1 vs. HD650 about five years ago. Of course there were people who bought and enjoyed both, but I know it had to have been a pretty fierce battle otherwise. We ended up with this, after all:

 

:deadhorse:

 

The Grado crowd beating a dead horse about the Sennheiser Veil.

post #10335 of 11237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

I wonder....is it really any different than the car guys? Ford vs. Chevy, Ferrari vs. Lamborghini, etc.

Of course, I know a guy that loves Chevy muscle cars but prefers Ford trucks....then again, he loves Windows 7, has an Android Gingerbread phone, and loves his iPad 2.....so I guess he defies categorization....lol

Aside from my general dislike of most cars domestic, there's not an automobile marque that I hate. The closest is Dodge, but that's because, well, they build terrible vehicles. That aside, I do plan on buying an `01 or `02 Viper GTS, what a vicious looking car. very_evil_smiley.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Themed Monthly Avatar Committee (TMAC) discussion thread