Does anyone know what kind of software he actually worked on previously?
It just says that he sold intellectual property to Intellectual Ventures.
How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
51–60 of 84 posts
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#52Earlier 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.
> 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.
"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?"
You missed the part about the worst case being death. What if using the device provides short term relief but makes 15 percent of patients die within half a year after its usage?
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not to draw it out much further, but I don't think a majority of domain experts in a field would (or have in the past) completely discounted the possibility of an invention or achievement. It's usually journalists, pseudo-intellectuals, or self-proclaimed experts who make these types of claims. Are you saying that leading physicists and engineers in the mid-20th century didn't think space flight and satellites were a…
You're going too little backwards in time. Spaceflight was proposed in the begining of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard#A_Method_of_R...
And yes, it was very criticized at the time but as you said, mainly by the media, as it seems. I doubt, however, that they did it without any backing.
And I was wrong about satellites, it seems. I was pretty sure that the idea of using them as communications relay was also dissed, but I couldn't find any references about it.
I can, however, give you one solid example of something that was completely discredited by the scientists, which is flight. It was widely believe at the time that no object heavier than the air could fly.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#54I found this gem in the comments on that page: I appreciate the kind comments. If you or a friend / family member could benefit from the catheter, please do not hesitate to contact us on our website at www.vasculardesigns.com No one will be turned away if they can not afford the catheter. Robert Goldman
Everyone needs beta testers.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
I'd like to see how they apply this 'basic science' rule for the Peace Prize.
They don't, (nor do they for Literature, of course), and often the Peace Prize is used as a political platform for the Nobel Committee. E.g. Al Gore.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#56truly 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
The FDA, on the whole, is quite reasonable and well-run. For treatments where there isn't an alternative and the disease is fatal, they do accelerate approvals and they allow more people to use the drug experimentally. For things like Rogaine they are very cautious and even then sometimes make fatal mistakes.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see how they apply this 'basic science' rule for the Peace Prize.
They don't, (nor do they for Literature, of course), and often the Peace Prize is used as a political platform for the Nobel Committee. E.g. Al Gore.
I was joking, but thanks for asking anyway.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#58I have two questions, maybe somebody with expertise could answer them.
1. What is the breakthrough here? Delivery of medicine through feeder vessel? The idea of how to implement it (needle, robots, tube, etc)? Or just the actual design of the rig to do it?
2. In what situations can you target a tumor up through a blood vessel and not have the option of cutting it out? Is this a brain situation?
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#59Assuming it's effective, this guy deserves the Nobel prize.
A Nobel Prize wasn't even given for the first heart transplant.
Re: How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device
#60This 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…
Isn't part of the prevention program the billions of dollars which are spent on health research, vitamins, etc.? Sure some of them are bogus, but there is continuing effort on uncovering things which actually might work - calorie restriction, vitamin E, fish oil, resveratrol,...
Some of these aren't represented by a massive lobby, but isn't that a good thing?