Well, with regards to the "magic bullet", the most promising thing I know of is being developed by Benitec. They trade on the Australian exchange, but are supposed to IPO in NY at some point (my guess is early next year, but I don't know for sure). There is nothing that I am aware of out there in any stage of development that comes close. These guys are light years ahead of the pack. They've maneuvered through almost all the FDA hurdles, and pending the final go-ahead from the FDA (expected any day now), Phase I trials are scheduled to begin early next year.
I happen to know some of those involved personally. They are brilliant, and absolutely cutting edge.
Re nano applications to medicine.... I happen to be involved in that, and in that vein, there's a lot of information on the NCI site that is very realistic, and will give you an idea of where the field REALLY is, and also the level of commitment from the NIH and NCI, also the NSF (very very high---they know this is the wave of the future). Here's a link:
cancer.gov
There's a lot of other links on the NIH and NSF sites as well that have a lot of good info.
On one level or another, I know many of the people involved, and they are the best of the best, most of them are just astonishingly brilliant, and work hard, efficiently and fast. I can guarantee you these projects will lead the field. There is no better expertise or resources anywhere in the world. This is the cream of the crop.
<< what can you share about the 'nano' means or methods they are suggesting they can work with? >>
You mean NNVC? The only thing "nano" about them is the nanobank accounts they will leave in their wake when they finish ripping people off.
A very limited description of the kinds of things the real nano players are up to can be found at the NCI link above. These are highly diverse, there are many many applications being developed, that's why they have so many centers. Each center has about 6 or 7 separate (but related) projects, and there is little or no overlap or redundancy. These particular projects relate just to cancer, but that is probably the hottest "nano" field out there right now in terms of medical applications in the not-too-distant future.
I'm not trying to be vague or evasive, it's just that asking that kind of question is a little bit like asking "what can you share about digital applications to technology?" It is just a very difficult question to answer in anything other than general terms. So... that's about the best I can come up with.
<< You actually think that someone could run stuff through the testing facility that NNVC is using - and then 'shine it' if the people there and at Harvard knew it didn't have any merit. >>
Yes.
Happens all the time. Money talks. I have personally seen this happen many, many times. But the ways this can occur vary. There are subtle pressures, and not-so-subtle pressures, and outright falsification, fabrication and fraud. We have seen news lately of big pharma (Merck, for example) suppressing unfavorable results. There is nothing surprising about this. They just happened to get caught. This is standard practice. Remember, they are trying to sell a product. You don't talk about the disadvantages of your product, you talk about its advantages if you hope to make a sale.
Personally, I am not convinced any real animal trials are being conducted at all, except perhaps in a very crude way that doesn't really address any real issue (e.g., inject some vague and poorly characterized concoction into mice and see if it kills them or not, and if it doesn't, then crow about the "Breaking Results from the Prestigious Harvard University Proves Breakthrough NNVC Bird Flu Cure is Safe and Effective!!!! Fast-Track FDA Approval Expected Soon!!!!" I highly doubt any such "results" will ever be submitted for any kind of rigorous peer-review in published form or grant form (this is standard procedure with reputable companies). If you have names of the people at Harvard who are supposedly involved, I'd love to see that. But for obvious reasons, I doubt the company would divulge that. And by "obvious reasons", I do NOT mean that they are protecting intellectual property, that's a non-issue. I mean they are protecting the opportunity to fabricate and falsify data in a way that will enhance stock price, which is the only objective here IMHO. And I fully expect that is precisely what they will do. I would be shocked if the supposed "results" were negative or equivocal.
By the way, this is the best argument for public funding of such developments. The NIH and NSF and so forth have no conflict of interest, in the sense that they are not interested in profiting from selling any product. All other sources of funding (aside from nonprofit foundations and such) are guilty until proven innocent because they always have a built-in, inescapable conflict of interest. Integrity flies out the window in direct proportion to the size of the potential fortunes involved. There are many ways of shielding oneself from the fallout. Never underestimate the ability of people (ALL people, myself included) to justify, rationalize, and engage unwittingly in self-deception, especially when faced with the prospect of personal gain. That's why we have peer-review systems, such as journals and granting agencies. These systems inject input from people who don't have any axe to grind, or who at least have much different axes to grind. That tends to counter the inherent bias. Anybody who won't submit to such review (NNVC doubtless will be one) is, therefore, guilty until proven innocent, and you can bet the farm whatever they come up with will be at best very biased and misleading, at worst outright fraud.
T |
