How a software engineer invented a breakthrough medical device

Post by nollidge » Sat, Sep 05, 2009, 3:10 AM UTC

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…

Post by brfox » Sat, Sep 05, 2009, 4:09 AM UTC

BigZaphod wrote: post #13

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…

From the article: "I found a 1987 Italian funded set of clinical studies that showed successful treatment of tumors by the application of chemotherapy directly into the tumors." It stands to reason that if it is true that directly treating the tumors themselves is effective, then this device will be effective since all it is is a delivery mechanism for the pre-existing drugs. While I guess it's possible that somehow…

Post by CamperBob » Sat, Sep 05, 2009, 8:07 AM UTC

marciovm123 wrote: post #66

Novash wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I can see your point. Thanks for the reply. However, this treatment is not only about localized toxin. It has a two-fold approach of both blocking the blood path the tumor is feeding of and using a localized chemo treatment. Wouldn't this approach be more effective than the actual ways? I have another question. Since you claim that localized toxin causes the recurrence to be much more difficult to treat because t…

sure =). I'm an engineer and not an oncologist so don't quote me on this. The main msg is that treating cancer is really, really hard; as another commenter noted biology is incredibly complicated. multi-pronged approaches do seem to work best; some variation of that already happens. Large tumors are surgically removed, anti-angiogenesis drugs work by blocking new blood vessels from growing, I mentioned some others. T…

Post by pageman » Sat, Sep 05, 2009, 11:26 AM UTC

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…

Post by Novash » Sat, Sep 05, 2009, 1:50 PM UTC

mahmud wrote: post #69

Novash wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, they arrived one month too late.

One month too late for whom? is there another product in the market, or is it too late for your own needs?