Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 122

Thread: NeuroRecovery Technologies, Inc. CEO presents at Working 2 Walk

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Mize View Post
    The only milestone aspect is some investors will state they will only participate in the next round if certain things happen, usually patents being awarded.
    Yes, more accurately called "stipulations" they feel are warranted to help safeguard their equity investment.

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,632
    Quote Originally Posted by nrf View Post
    Did somebody get hurt using the NRT device or a similar device in the meantime? Any other possible reasons?
    If you've ever used FES then you know exactly how dangerous transcutaneous stim is.
    T3-T6 complete since Sept 2015.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,440
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mize View Post
    If you've ever used FES then you know exactly how dangerous transcutaneous stim is.
    I have, a bunch, I’m using long used stim parameters that have been used for many years. I know in the early days of stim it was used as a form of non-surgical frontal lobotomy. I hope and think NRT is on to something very promising but also feel that receiving funding from other charities would not be needed if NRT had solid proof of safe efficacy.

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,632
    Quote Originally Posted by nrf View Post
    I have, a bunch, I’m using long used stim parameters that have been used for many years. I know in the early days of stim it was used as a form of non-surgical frontal lobotomy. I hope and think NRT is on to something very promising but also feel that receiving funding from other charities would not be needed if NRT had solid proof of safe efficacy.
    Why do you think that? What other private companies can you point to who've received funding from charities? I did a bunch of research and found ZERO history of SCI foundations funding private companies. That's why I did that Change.org petition that got 45,000 signatures. Please post any foundation funding of private companies links that you've found.

    Otherwise, meh.
    T3-T6 complete since Sept 2015.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by nrf View Post
    receiving funding from other charities would not be needed
    Funding is going to be a challenge for everything that comes out to help us.

    There are tons of medical companies out there looking for funding. For an investor obviously they are going to go where they can get the biggest return.
    So its about the size of the market. Cancer for example affects a huge amount of people (1 in 3), so the returns can be huge.
    Put that against SCI (1 in 25,000) and you know where they are going to invest.

    I think thats why the community are going to have to get behind these things. Its the desire for a cure, not financial benefits that will drive the decision.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,440
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mize View Post
    Why do you think that? What other private companies can you point to who've received funding from charities? I did a bunch of research and found ZERO history of SCI foundations funding private companies. That's why I did that Change.org petition that got 45,000 signatures. Please post any foundation funding of private companies links that you've found.

    Otherwise, meh.
    I don’t want any charitable donations I make going to some corporations bottom line. If they do then they better meet lots of stipulations and milestones. That’s why I choose to fund our gym with my wife and my own after tax money. No donations, no tax deductions ( I am able to write off some of my son’s expenses at the gym) I don’t want to be responsible for squandering or spending someone else’s money in a manner they don’t approve of.

    I agree that the work NRT is doing with Edgerton and Harkema is very promising. You know that we have tried to mimic some of their work with off the shelf stim units. Applying stim across the lumbar while we apply stim from the RTI in the gait mode with the client on a weight assisted treadmill. Our trainers notice improvement in self initiation of stepping with the lumbar stim. But we have no means of quantifying or qualifying how strong. I sure hope NRT is way ahead of us. But I would not choose to invest in them. I would hate for my charitable donation to A bona fide charity to be donated to a corporations bottom line.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,440
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by niallel View Post
    Funding is going to be a challenge for everything that comes out to help us.

    There are tons of medical companies out there looking for funding. For an investor obviously they are going to go where they can get the biggest return.
    So its about the size of the market. Cancer for example affects a huge amount of people (1 in 3), so the returns can be huge.
    Put that against SCI (1 in 25,000) and you know where they are going to invest.

    I think thats why the community are going to have to get behind these things. Its the desire for a cure, not financial benefits that will drive the decision.
    I haven’t experienced a bunch of that, even with charities, in my travels. I have learned that trust and money are mutually exclusive paradigms.

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,632
    nrf, you're simply wrong. I've developed products for over 20 years. The country is full of small businesses that develop new technologies - often through the Federal SBIR or STTR programs - and they come up with some very cool stuff. Then they try to cross the "valley of death" from R&D prototype to commercialization and about 99% never make it because investors (I am one as is niallel) look for two things before they will even consider investment (many more things come after the initial interest):

    1. what's the target market size?
    and
    2. what's the risk (chance of failure)?

    In the case of SCI the target market might as well be zero. That alone means most investors are simply not even interested.

    So you take a company like NRT which is a "spin-out" from researchers at UCLA, CalTech and Louisville. Academics developed the technology, published many papers, did trials, filed patents, etc. and now they want to bring their product across the "valley of death" so that it is commercially available to SCIs. The process of commercializing a medical device is arduous and expensive. Typically you are talking about several tens of millions of dollars to get FDA approval and launch the product.

    Where do you suppose the money for that will come from?

    Will it come from traditional investors?

    No. The market is too small - it would take several years to even break even on the up-front costs associated with FDA approval. A traditional investor would be better off putting their money in a mutual fund. The only way to get traditional investor on board is to target a larger market.

    Instead NRT and similar companies have to hope that those investors with SCI family members or friends (or even themselves SCIs) will pony up that money. Unfortunately, that's an incredibly small demographic.

    By the way, nrf, you do realize that "your money" is being used by all that government funded research into SCI cures, right? You didn't think that money just materialized for them out of thin air, right?

    There is simply ZERO profit motive to cure SCI.

    In a capitalist society that means relying on charity.

    Period.
    T3-T6 complete since Sept 2015.

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,440
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Mize View Post
    nrf, you're simply wrong. I've developed products for over 20 years. The country is full of small businesses that develop new technologies - often through the Federal SBIR or STTR programs - and they come up with some very cool stuff. Then they try to cross the "valley of death" from R&D prototype to commercialization and about 99% never make it because investors (I am one as is niallel) look for two things before they will even consider investment (many more things come after the initial interest):

    1. what's the target market size?
    and
    2. what's the risk (chance of failure)?

    In the case of SCI the target market might as well be zero. That alone means most investors are simply not even interested.

    So you take a company like NRT which is a "spin-out" from researchers at UCLA, CalTech and Louisville. Academics developed the technology, published many papers, did trials, filed patents, etc. and now they want to bring their product across the "valley of death" so that it is commercially available to SCIs. The process of commercializing a medical device is arduous and expensive. Typically you are talking about several tens of millions of dollars to get FDA approval and launch the product.

    Where do you suppose the money for that will come from?

    Will it come from traditional investors?

    No. The market is too small - it would take several years to even break even on the up-front costs associated with FDA approval. A traditional investor would be better off putting their money in a mutual fund. The only way to get traditional investor on board is to target a larger market.

    Instead NRT and similar companies have to hope that those investors with SCI family members or friends (or even themselves SCIs) will pony up that money. Unfortunately, that's an incredibly small demographic.

    By the way, nrf, you do realize that "your money" is being used by all that government funded research into SCI cures, right? You didn't think that money just materialized for them out of thin air, right?

    There is simply ZERO profit motive to cure SCI.

    In a capitalist society that means relying on charity.

    Period.
    I’m well aware of the government spending our money. Mostly on drug and alcohol abuse! While the NIH is hemorrhaging our money fixing drugs and alcohol it is also going out of its way to legalize and promote more drug use!
    why do you think it takes tens of millions of dollars to cross Death Valley?

    Am I correct thinking that you’re not an investor, but a charitable contributor? If there exists “Zero profit motive” then investing would be insane? Right?
    Last edited by nrf; 03-22-2018 at 06:12 PM.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by nrf View Post
    I haven’t experienced a bunch of that, even with charities, in my travels. I have learned that trust and money are mutually exclusive paradigms.
    I'm not sure I follow, do you mean that you think theses things will get funded by traditional investors?
    Last edited by niallel; 03-22-2018 at 06:36 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-17-2013, 12:36 PM
  2. Project Walk Melbourne presents WHEEL 2 WALK
    By rannie in forum Exercise & Recovery
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-30-2012, 06:31 AM
  3. Working 2 Walk
    By RyansWife in forum Cure
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 04:30 PM
  4. Man working to walk again
    By manouli in forum Cure
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2008, 08:15 PM
  5. Working 2 Walk
    By AlexAgain in forum Funding, Legislation, & Advocacy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-18-2007, 09:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •