In the article he claims that he owns the intellectual property. Does that not mean that there should be a patent availble for public study? If so what's the #?
How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
21–30 of 84 posts
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#22truly amazing. seems seriously unfortunate that it takes the FDA 7 years to approve a device like this. I wonder how much testing they actually spend and how much time is wasted in bureaucratic BS. regardless, the story is amazing and the device seems incredible
Considering the worst case situation, if this is unsafe, to be death, and best case is a slightly better treatment, I think thorough testing and a long approval process is certainly in order.
You would be right if it were an asthma or restless leg treatment. This is a cancer treatment. The worst case scenario is a slightly earlier death.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#23This article is inspiring but it fails to mention that no studies have shown that the device actually works. The FDA approval process for medical devices is very different then from pharmaceuticals; to oversimplify, efficacy does not need to be demonstrated, only safety (i.e. the device is not toxic). Thus the fact that the device is FDA approved doesn't really mean much (although it sounds great). As with renewable…
You sound like the doctors on the article that says that "it wouldn't work anyway". I understand that you have a far greater background than I have and I respect that, but you must keep your mind open. Most of the great anchievements of mankind 'wouldn't work anyway' in the minds of the specialists of the age. And they were wrong. With all due respect, you, giving you background on the matter, can find any technical…
Very valid points. I'm not saying this kind of work shouldn't be pursued, I just wanted to point out that it is premature to think of this device as a "breakthrough". As I said before, I hope it works, and new approaches are in general a good thing. I just think the way they are reported is more for entertainment purposes then spreading true knowledge.
Technically, the idea of killing a tumor w/ a localized toxin is in fact already widely used, not mechanically with tubes but with things like focused X-rays or molecular targeting (drugs that preferentially bind to cancer cells). While this helps, it rarely cures cancer because 1) by the time it is applied cancer cells have circulated throughout the body and seeded new tumors and 2) it's very difficult to kill 100% of cancer cells, and what winds up happening is you kill 99% of them that are most susceptible to being killed by chemo giving the 1% that is most resistant more room to grow. Hence the recurrence is much more difficult to treat.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#24And it has taken the FDA seven years and two months to approve the product for sale.
Even if (or especially if) the device does NOT work, the iterative cycle for any med. tech is far too long.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#25Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#26This article is inspiring but it fails to mention that no studies have shown that the device actually works. The FDA approval process for medical devices is very different then from pharmaceuticals; to oversimplify, efficacy does not need to be demonstrated, only safety (i.e. the device is not toxic). Thus the fact that the device is FDA approved doesn't really mean much (although it sounds great). As with renewable…
You sound like the doctors on the article that says that "it wouldn't work anyway". I understand that you have a far greater background than I have and I respect that, but you must keep your mind open. Most of the great anchievements of mankind 'wouldn't work anyway' in the minds of the specialists of the age. And they were wrong. With all due respect, you, giving you background on the matter, can find any technical…
> Most of the great anchievements of mankind 'wouldn't work anyway' in the minds of the specialists of the age. And they were wrong.
Really? Care to provide any examples?
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Nobel prize is usually awarded for basic science, uncovering the mechanisms of something, rather than engineering applications based on that science.
Engineers always have the option to settle for a boatload of money.
From the article, it sounds like he already had this prior to working on the invention.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#28I presume that it works by allowing chemo doses to the tumor that would be fatal if administered globally (or whatever the word is for (in the patient's bloodstream)? I wonder if this would reduce the side effects of chemo in non-terminally ill patients.
The term you are looking for is "systemic".
I think targeted delivery of chemo might be more effective in the non-terminally ill, and very likely would reduce side effects. Chemo is effectively poison, just somewhat more toxic to cancer cells than the rest of the body. (Often because it targets cells that are actively dividing - like in a tumor, or your hair follicles or you gut...)
In terminally ill cases, where cancer has metastasized to multiple locations in the body you might well still need systemic chemo, because you don't know where all the metastatic sites are.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#29And it has taken the FDA seven years and two months to approve the product for sale. Even if (or especially if) the device does NOT work, the iterative cycle for any med. tech is far too long.
[deleted]
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound like the doctors on the article that says that "it wouldn't work anyway". I understand that you have a far greater background than I have and I respect that, but you must keep your mind open. Most of the great anchievements of mankind 'wouldn't work anyway' in the minds of the specialists of the age. And they were wrong. With all due respect, you, giving you background on the matter, can find any technical…
> Most of the great anchievements of mankind 'wouldn't work anyway' in the minds of the specialists of the age. And they were wrong. Really? Care to provide any examples?
Storage and use of electricity, the lightbulb, the personal computer, the telephone, and the cathode ray tube.