Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

blogs.zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 84 posts

Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

#31

Post by anamax »

by wrote: post #19
marciovm123 wrote: post #9

This 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…

I have long felt that there is a massive and well funded lobby for curing things, but an impoverished prevention programme. There is no real financial incentive to prevent cancer etc, but lots of money and glory for curing people who have got cancer. This applies right across medicine. Similarly there is a massive and well funded lobby for power production and very little for power efficiency, which effectively achie…

> I have long felt that there is a massive and well funded lobby for curing things, but an impoverished prevention programme. There is no real financial incentive to prevent cancer etc, but lots of money and glory for curing people who have got cancer.

I see lots of people spending money on things that they're told will protect them from cancer, so there's clearly a huge financial incentive.

> Similarly there is a massive and well funded lobby for power production and very little for power efficiency, which effectively achieves the same result.

Likewise.

And, I see people buying things to get them better mileage too.

In fact, it's hard to avoid seeing this stuff, at least in mainstream US.

In short, I'm pretty sure that the "there's no real financial incentive" stuff is "why don't the proles see what's obvious to people like me". The only question is whether it comes from cocooning or just not paying attention.

Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

#32

Post by anamax »

windsurfer wrote: post #11
meterplech wrote: post #5

truly 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.

> I think thorough testing and a long approval process is certainly in order.

Huh?

Suppose that it costs $1 and a quick test shows that it seems to help "a bit". Why not let folks skip a Coke for on the chance that the benefit is real while "thorough testing" goes on?

Costs and benefits apply to testing as well as deployment.

Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

#33

Post by anamax »

darien wrote: post #21

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 #?

Trade secrets are intellectual property too. (As are copyrights, but I don't see how they'd apply here.)

Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

#34

Post by windsurfer »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #22
windsurfer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are other treatments for cancer.

Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

#35

Post by noss »

akd wrote: post #18
acangiano wrote: post #2

Assuming it's effective, this guy deserves the Nobel prize.

The Nobel prize is usually awarded for basic science, uncovering the mechanisms of something, rather than engineering applications based on that science.

That changes over time. Nobel's intention was to give it to people that gave the greatest benefit to mankind during the year. A few prices in the later years have been directed toward less base-research like inventions.

Also... why do people keep refering to the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" as a nobel prize in economics? It's not one of the subjects that Nobel himself thought worthy.

Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

#36

Post by daeken »

darien wrote: post #21

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 #?

The patent number, as far as I can tell, is 20080208118. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0208118.html

Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

#37

Post by spoonyg »

marciovm123 wrote: post #9

This 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…

Not exactly correct. For an FDA market approval a medical device must be proven to be safe AND effective. This can be proven in several ways: through a trial or as I believe in this case, through similarity to another proven device. And this is not the only bar. If you have a new device you also have to get reimbursement from health insurance. This is not guaranteed just because you have FDA approval.

Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

#38

Post by Novash »

dcurtis wrote: post #30
nixme wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Plus radio, navigation, flight, supersonic flight, space flight, sattelites, computers that break the 1 GHz clock barrier (remember that one?). I daresay everything that was invented since the Greeks owned the world.

Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

#40

Post by berntb »

marciovm123 wrote: post #23
Novash wrote: post #15

Earlier 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…

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…

>>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.

Isn't the point of a device like this that it can increase the concentration of chemo in tumors while keeping the concentration as low as possible in non-cancerous tissue?

Which should help that point (that is, manage to kill off enough cancer cells that the immune system or some other treatment can wipe out any surviving).

(As someone else noted, the article referenced some paper supporting doing this method.)

Let us all hope this works really well.

Post reply on HN