And thank you for more proof of your CT membership. Again, why don’t you approach all those alternative medicine companies and have then donate some of their billions to the noble cause?
You continue to assert that I'm a member of a group that I've consistently explained that I'm not a member of, so you're the one putting words in *my* mouth. I've explained how the CTers could get the false impression of a conspiracy, when it isn't a matter of conspiracy at all, it's simply that two entities both dislike the same thing for different reasons. They have no need to conspire.
And if you'd bothered looking at my feedback, you'd see that most of the negatives I got are from the 9/11 troothers who've accused me of being a government shill.
You're simply wrong about the CT accusation. I keep explaining it, you keep twisting what I plainly say and ignore what I've consistently said. No conspiracy required. FDA is strictly a regulatory agency, and CS can't be regulated, so they don't like it. As you yourself pointed out, how are you going to regulate it if people can "make their own with socks" (embedded with silver filaments which suppress the growth of bacteria and athlete's foot)? FDA can't REGULATE it, so they try other means to suppress it, like promoting scare tactics and disinformation about it, and guys like you fall for the disinformation and spread it around.
I pointed out that it could be made more sensibly with Canadian coins and a 9V battery but I still don't recommend it.
Human trials are expensive, and the existing suite of antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents are very profitable. Why would any pharmaceutical corporation want to invest the money to put themselves out of business?
No conspiracy needed. Both are acting in their own vested interest, not for the general benefit of mankind. Saying so is far from "hating" either of them. Expecting us to "love" them for charging what the market will bear while ignoring the most-promising potential cures for diseases like AIDS, malaria, and cancer, is just plain stupid.
And yes, for about five years, after being Director of BioEngineering Research for one company (run by a snake in the grass), I started my own BioEngineering Research & Development company, and I have plenty of bad experiences that I'd rather forget about in trying to do business in the BioTech field, not the least of which being seeing two of my inventions stolen by two different large BioTech companies that had plenty of money for lawyers when I was struggling to keep the rent paid. I also had a $700,000 Phase II NIH grant application reviewed by an NIH researcher who literally could not read or write English, and received the review summary a week after my response to his comments were due, and when I complained about it, was accused of "racism" by the Director of the NIH SBIR Grant Program. Then, a large BioTech company that I'd approached with my technology seeking a partnership deal, me developing the technology, them manufacturing it and sharing the profits with percentages to be negotiated, tried stealing the idea outright, the Director of R&D asking me things like where I buy my wire, at which point I told him to "go to h3!!" and hung up on him. A year later, I got approached by another start-up corporation claiming to have plenty of financial backing, something I didn't have and, short of accepting Mafia drug-laundering money, wasn't going to get, hired me as their Director of R&D and had me reapply for the Phase II funding under their company, which I did, and when I started working as their Director of R&D, I discovered that their promotional literature already featured my device, only they were calling it something else, and that they claimed it was a product of another company they had a joint venture with, the President of that company being the Director of R&D that I'd told to "go to h3!!". That's when I quit the BioEngineering/BioTech field and went back to aerospace engineering, where people can be trusted (mostly).
So, you see, my personal feelings about the BioTech industry as a whole are flavored with first-hand experiences that are 99% negative, but I didn't related them because it was a painful time of my life, getting screwed by almost everyone I did business with. I only met a couple of people in those five years who were actually in the business to help people, the rest were out to make money any way they could, including outright theft. (The first invention that got stolen was patented and licensed to a company about a mile from here for $4million dollars by a former college professor of mine who read a 25 page feasibility study I'd written as a grad student on the miniaturization of an implantable insulin-infusion pump. When I started my own company, I thought I'd patent some of the ideas in that paper and did a patent search. There was my idea, with my former professor's name on it, dated 1 month after I'd turned-in the paper.) Why didn't I sue? He already had $4million dollars in his pocket and could afford OJ's defense team, and I was borrowing money to pay the rent.
Maybe *you* love people like that, but I don't, and it sounds like I know them better than you do.
While Director of BioEngineering Research for the first company, I went to a NIH/NINDS symposium, and met a genius (I use the term only when it applies) there who had both a doctorate in Electrical Engineering and an MD, both from Stanford, and he'd done trials with rats where he'd perfected the means of interfacing integrated electronics with rat nerves, and had maintained both the health of the "tapped" nerve and the viability of the nerve signal sensor for over a year in his tests, him being able to both read nerve signals and generate them. He gave a presentation on his research, making the modest claim that if this were pursued and funded adequately, that it could viably be used to treat spinal paralysis in humans within ten years. The NIH/NINDS stomped on him with both feet, demanding that he publish a full retraction and denunciation of his presentation, under threat of him never receiving another dime of research funding in his career if he didn't. So, having said nothing wrong, he fabricated a rationale as to why his prior statements were false and issued a formal apology for having been so naive as to think that paralysis could be cured within ten years. And he halted all further research into curing paralysis. That was in '91.
Find anything heartwarming in that story? It's true. I'd like to think otherwise, but I knew the guy, and wanted to partner my research with his and co-develop it, but the experience broke his spirit and he wants nothing more to do with any of it.
It wasn't an example of any sort of "conspiracy" by the NIH with wheelchair manufacturers, it was simply that the upper echelon of NIH/NINDS has been studying paralysis for decades using the rat-brain-in-a-blender approach, and he was approaching the problem as an electrical engineer would, and they didn't like his presumption, his being in his early thirties, claiming he could cure what they'd been studying their entire career. (And planned to *continue* studying for the rest of their career.)
Sorry if my actual experiences in the field contradict the way you *think* things work, and it isn't a warm&fuzzy picture that lets you sleep soundly at night, but I went into the field hoping to help people, translating my defense technology background into advancing the bioengineering field (turning swords into plowshares) at the end of the Cold War, but found virtually the whole field rotten to the core.
"Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by selfishness and ignorance."