Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Replacement Organs (Score 1) 70

by jbeaupre (#47905263) Attached to: Medical Milestone: Scientists Reset Human Stem Cells

Oh, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction if I could. But this was 13 years ago. All I read were excerpts and summaries from dozens of old medical journals in half a dozen countries. I was the engineer, not the guy searching old archives, so didn't pay any attention to where the stuff was published. Heck, I've searched for information since, and can barely find anything useful. The only thing I found even related was through a link in Wikipedia: http://www.medscape.com/medlin...

Scattered in the old literature were about 100 reports of different forms of lavaging bowel to affect blood chemistry. Sometimes it was serious research on one or two patients. Sometimes it was accidental. In one case, a guy drank 4 gallons of colon cleanser each day and managed to stay alive. Most patients were extremely sick and didn't do well, but improved vs no treatment. We used some surgery to greatly improve outcome and potential quality of life. A breakthrough we couldn't make a dime from.

And unfortunately, the non-profit research hospital we donated it to did not publish the research (they were a consultant to the company for the work, so could have easily published). It was animal research, but still relevant.

Comment: Re:Replacement Organs (Score 1) 70

by jbeaupre (#47904617) Attached to: Medical Milestone: Scientists Reset Human Stem Cells

Active work was done the 1920's to 1930's. Accidental discoveries were made even decades later. There are over 100 different citations in as many publications. I wouldn't even be able to recall one of them. And you'd be hard pressed to access the publications.

If you want to claim that development was done by a non-capitalist system (which is a weird statement for other reasons), then you'd find they eff'ed it up big-time. They figured out bits and pieces but neglected to optimize, make it patient friendly (I swear one dude probably lived on a toilet), or roll it out for general use.

We made one critical breakthrough. But it was the procedure. Patenting it would mean suing thousands of individual customers for a thousand dollars. That's would have been stupid on so many levels, we didn't bother.

Comment: not sure that we want it controlled (Score 1) 113

by WindBourne (#47900877) Attached to: US Scientists Predict Long Battle Against Ebola
The truth is, that whenever the world has mass die offs due to nature, we do not get wars.
Right now, we have massive numbers of small wars popping up. This has gotten old. In addition, it could lead to a real war with nukes.

But, if the world takes a massive loss of life due to say Ebola going airborne, it would lower the likelihood of a nuke war.

Comment: Re:Replacement Organs (Score 1) 70

by jbeaupre (#47898939) Attached to: Medical Milestone: Scientists Reset Human Stem Cells

Sorry to rain on that thought, but it was a capitalist company that spent $250k doing research that from day 1 they weren't sure would make money. Then when they decided it wasn't a good fit, donated the research and some money to a non-profit institution. Trying to snatch victory form the jaws of defeat.

As far as I can tell, the government supported non-profit took the money and never did anything at all. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of government funded organizations.

Comment: Re:Replacement Organs (Score 1) 70

by jbeaupre (#47898869) Attached to: Medical Milestone: Scientists Reset Human Stem Cells

Sorry, there are no links. Take a look at the response to another guy for a description.

As for why we couldn't make money, the work was based on research 70 years old. Patents would have been nearly impossible. And the supplies were commodity already. As in Home Depot and supermarket commodity. And about as hard to make as baking a cake (probably easier).

The final straw was that it was in a market that was too different. It would have been like Apple deciding to sell oatmeal.

Comment: Re:Replacement Organs (Score 1) 70

by jbeaupre (#47898831) Attached to: Medical Milestone: Scientists Reset Human Stem Cells

Sorry, but we never published. The original work was 70 years old, so a bit hard to find online. But I can describe it.

We called it intestinal dialysis. In the early 20th century, there was research on 3 kinds of dialysis: hemo, peritoneal, and intestinal. Hemo made the first breakthrough. The others were forgotten until peritoneal was reexamined in the 80's.

If you google intestinal dialysis, you'll find something distantly related to the old research and what we worked with. But very different. We found in animal studies that you could isolate a section of small intestine to turn it into an "artificial kidney". Intestine has good blood flow and a huge surface area designed for gently moving fluids and compounds into the blood stream. We use an osmotic gradient to reverse how the intestine works.

In other words, we created precise diarrhea.

The only supplies required were tap water, a bucket, baby laxative, and a hose. Adding salts made it more precise. A touch of sugar is important (to feed the intestine). Our test system was computerized, but was essentially still just a bucket up on a shelf and a hose for siphoning.

The procedure was a bit like hemodialysis, but done non-sterile. The big difference is not removing blood from a patient. The dialysis unit is the patient's own section of intestine. Robust, self repairing, able to repel bacteria, etc.

But it was too different from our main business. It would be like Apple deciding to sell breakfast cereal. So we gave it away.

Comment: Re:Replacement Organs (Score 5, Informative) 70

by jbeaupre (#47896575) Attached to: Medical Milestone: Scientists Reset Human Stem Cells

It will be a lot more expensive than that. Harvesting from a donor means using a "free" kidney. Free in that no one had to be paid to make it. Here are some prices of dissimilar items:

I work with several biomedical companies. A simple metal part can cost $10k. And that's not gouging. Getting that metal part to clinical trials took millions of dollars and 15 years. The amount of testing and paperwork are outrageous. But easier to make than a kidney.

An artificial leg for above the knee amputation can cost $50k and up. Those guys are gouging. But easier to make than a kidney.

I would expect a lab grown kidney to go for $50k-$100k, not including implantation costs. And that's IF they figure out a cheap way to make them.

And ironically, your wife would probably be denied insurance coverage for it. Because she already has a kidney.

(On a related side note, I worked on a non-sterile dialysis system that was so cheap, we couldn't figure out how to make money from it. A few hundred bucks a year, could be done at home, 0% risk of infection. We donated the research and $100k to a research hospital.)

Comment: Re: Talking Point (Score 1) 421

by WindBourne (#47895451) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

The one who is lying is you.

Germany roughly 7tons per capita, USA roughly 18tons, that is close to a factor of 3, not 2.

Per the European Edgar DB, Figure 2.4, American per capita in 2012, was 16.4. In Germany, it was just under 10. That is a factor of 1.5, and no where NEAR 3x.

Chinas rate is still on the lower edge of European countries like Denmark or Germany.

in 2012, China's per capita was at ~7.2, while Europe's was at ~7.3. That was two years ago.
Since that time, Chinas CO2 emissions have risen more than 20%. China now accounts for more than 1/3 of the global emissions, with less than 1/6 of the world population.
And all of that is based on numbers that Chinese gov. has given up. OCO2 is about to shock the world and liars like yourself.

Secondly, over the last 20 years, Europe's rate has not changed much That is complete nonsense. Europes footprint dropped by 30%.

In POF, america is the only major nation to have made major cuts That is nonsense, too. Since 1997 you dropped perhaps in 5% ... if at all.

And while China continues to grow their emissions by 3-5% a year, and Europe is actually growing as well, only Americas continues to fall. wow three lies in one sentence, you are good at that.

Per edgar, EU27 was at 4.12 in 1992. In 2012, you were at 3.74. That is a 10% drop.
Now, in the same time span, we increased heavily due to W (from 5->5.91), and then due to our cheap nat gas, we dropped BELOW 5, though, edgar shows America at 5.19 in 2012. However, other groups show that 2013 was a major drop for America, pretty much a fixed level for Europe (esp. due to Germany's killing of their nukes and their massive build-out of coal plants), and a REAL MASSIVE increase for China's emissions.

Comment: Re: Been there, done that. (Score 1) 100

by WindBourne (#47895335) Attached to: China Targets 2022 For Space Station Completion
Several things wrong with that BS.
1) China has NEVER been transparent with their budget.
2) much of what is considered military in America and the west, goes under civilian budget, but military control, in china.
3) China is not a TRUE capitalism. As such, all those that work on the military side, are paid a fraction of what they are paid elsewhere. As such, building an AK-47 in China is a REAL fraction of what it would costs to build in America.

Far more important, is the speed with which China is growing their military, combined with the large number of military secrets that China has stolen from the west (esp. America).

: is not an identifier

Working...