Page 65 of 145 FirstFirst ... 15555657585960616263646566676869707172737475115 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 1442

Thread: Stephen Davies Update

  1. #641
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    17,427
    Don’t be tricked to believe that a SCI cure is just around the corner, and don’t be tricked to believe a dollar from you’re heartfelt earnings will help much. What will help is that these folks begging for a dollar here and there really manned up and positioned themselves to get the real money needed for this research from where the big money lies for the cure. Everything else is bogus, and tell them that so that they can man up and concentrate on real tings instead of ripping money from peoples in distress and need. The ones in need for a cure, the researchers working for a cure, do have a moral responsibility as for this, and that is not to rip ppl already in trouble off their money. If some are working for funding, and working hard, it is no problem to get quite a lot of money from sources, which has money to research, and if more did that, the cure would have been here yesterday.

  2. #642
    Quote Originally Posted by Leif View Post
    don’t be tricked to believe a dollar from you’re heartfelt earnings will help much.
    I know that it may be hard to believe, Leif, but our dollars *do* make a difference. Last year private donations added hundreds of thousands of dollars to Dr. Davies' research budget. This money makes a big difference in what he is able to accomplish. Just to give you some ideas of how this actually works:

    a) Literally only about 1% of the University of Colorado's budget comes from the state! It operates almost like a private school (eg, Harvard or Yale). The rest of the money comes from tuition, grants, and private donations.

    b) Dr. Davies (probably like all university researchers) is supplied with a fixed amount of support (both financial and logistical) from the university itself. Any extra money that he receives, whether it is through Federal grants, private donations, or whatever, adds directly to the amount of money that he can spend on research. This extra money allows him to do things like hire additional lab workers, purchase lab equipment, and so forth.

    c) Obtaining Federal grants through the NIH is an extremely complex and time-consuming process. It takes months to write the proposals. Then they go through the system, and if all goes well, the money is available perhaps 8 to 10 months later. There are generally two types of NIH grants available. The more common type typically provides funding of around $1 million. During the Bush years, less than 10% of all of these requests were funded. There is another type of NIH grant that provides greater amounts of funding (I believe in the $10 to $20 million range). Currently the success rate for receiving funds for this type of grant is less than 1%. The bottom line is that a researcher knows it will take a lot of time to apply for an NIH grant, but is not so sure of the chances of actually being funded.

    Dr. Davies is going to continue carrying out his research regardless of the additional funding that he may or may not receive. It is just that additional funds will allow that research to progress more quickly, as he will have more resources at his disposal. And a really large amount of money could make an even bigger difference. For example, if a wealthy donor were to write the University of Colorado Foundation a big fat (tax deductible) check designated to fund Dr. Davies' research, then he could save months of time that would otherwise be spent writing grant proposals. So the gain would be two-fold -- additional funding for research resources and more time available to actually conduct that research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leif View Post
    it is no problem to get quite a lot of money from sources
    Unfortunately, that is not the case. Really large amounts of money can only come from one of two sources -- the government or a large pharmaceutical company. There are difficulties is both instances.

    From the point of view of the government agencies, they have to look at it purely from a numbers perspective. In the US, there are only 11,000 new SCI cases a year. Just to put that in perspective, in only one week more people than that die from cancer in the US alone! So it will take a lot of effort to get the government of any country to focus on our needs. We are not a big enough group to gain the attention of most politicians.

    The same problem of sheer numbers applies to the large pharmaceutical companies also. Their ideal product is a medicine that effectively treats the symptoms, allowing for the patient to live, but that is required to be taken for the rest of one's life. (For example, a blood pressure medicine.) Then they will make the maximum profit. They don't make nearly as much money when someone is actually cured! So when they are looking at funding therapies that actually provide a cure, they are only considering one factor -- how much profit can be made.

    As an example of how the drug companies look at the problem, let's assume that it will cost around $500 million to fund a successful research program and then run the subsequent human trials required by the FDA. In round numbers, there are 1 million people living in the US with SCI's. Since there is no guarantee that any research project would be successful, the drug companies would like to get at least a 10x return on their potentially risky investment. That means that they would have to be able to sell the cure to every single SCI victim in the country for $5,000 more than it cost them in order for it to even begin to be profitable.

    And that is where we come in. The more assistance we can give to researchers like Dr. Davies, the sooner he will be able to have *proven* results. Then much of the financial risk is taken out of the equation for the giant drug companies. If there is a *proven* technique with a known market, that is when a profit-driven company will step in.

    (The next step will be to get the insurance companies to cover the treatment. But if the cost of the cure is less than the cost of the "benefits" they have to pay out over our lifetime, then that part will happen also.)

    In the meantime, every dollar donated makes a difference. I recently saw a presentation that Dr. Davies made, and throughout he made several comments that a particular experiment or machine was paid for by the private donations he had received from us -- the people reading these message boards who will benefit so greatly from his work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Leif View Post
    the researchers working for a cure, do have a moral responsibility as for this, and that is not to rip ppl already in trouble off their money.
    I can promise you that Dr. Davies is not "ripping off" any of us. He is not driving a Ferrari. He does not have a yacht. He does not live in a mansion. He is working hard to find a cure for us. Each of us can choose to help him (or any other legitimate researcher) or not. It's up to us.

  3. #643
    Mr.Hansen
    thanks, very good information and realistic comment.
    I hope the new administration (prsd.Obama) breng some change in the situation.
    Last edited by alipur; 05-14-2009 at 06:44 AM.

  4. #644
    Quote Originally Posted by CareCureGirl View Post
    Hi everyone,
    Susan M, since you have spoken to Dr. Davies regarding publishing data, per your reply above, where does that leave the timeline for clinical trials ? We keep hearing two to three years. Is it any sooner if they publish in August ?
    Let's keep donating everyone....It seems like we are almost there!!!

    CC Girl:

    I do not know if there is a definitive timeline. I do know Dr. Davies is working on trial logistics simultaneously to his research. I'm excited to see him in person at Working 2 Walk this August in Chicago (www.working2walk.org) and discuss progress and next steps (no pun intended ).

    Susan

  5. #645
    Sadly to say, the private sector funding is drying up do to the obama administration.

    The attack the wealthy have taken on their pockets do to government regulations and taxes will hurt a lot more than the gains they get from the NIH.

  6. #646
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRainman View Post
    Sadly to say, the private sector funding is drying up do to the obama administration.

    The attack the wealthy have taken on their pockets do to government regulations and taxes will hurt a lot more than the gains they get from the NIH.
    Wow. Lame. It's all Obama's fault.

  7. #647
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRainman View Post
    Sadly to say, the private sector funding is drying up do to the obama administration.

    The attack the wealthy have taken on their pockets do to government regulations and taxes will hurt a lot more than the gains they get from the NIH.
    The tax rate will return to what is was prior to Bush. Our economy did well then and private sector funding did not dry up.

  8. #648
    Hi everyone
    In the UK there is an organisation which is funding medical reaserch for SCI treatmet. Maybe it's usefull to contact them.
    http://www.spinal-research.org

  9. #649
    Quote Originally Posted by Susan M View Post
    CC Girl:

    I'm excited to see him in person at Working 2 Walk this August in Chicago (www.working2walk.org) and discuss progress and next steps (no pun intended ).

    Susan
    Thanks, and we will wait for yours posts.

  10. #650
    Quote Originally Posted by antiquity View Post
    The tax rate will return to what is was prior to Bush. Our economy did well then and private sector funding did not dry up.

    The tax rate is not going back to the clinton years. Just because obama ran on that doesn't make it true. The amount of money he is spending is going to increase taxes to the 70's.

    Your going to see taxes on everything go way up. Here in florida they just raised the registration for a new tag on a car from 180.00 to 320.00.

    Tax revenues are heading down and spending is heading way up.

    The idiot was on tv yesterday talking about fiscal responsibility just after he plan's to run a 2 trillion deficit for 2010.

    The only good thing is that dodd and pelosi don't look reelectable. And I have a good feeling frank and obama will be falling from grace to, with all their BS.

Similar Threads

  1. Stephen Davies Lab Report
    By Schmeky in forum Cure
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 03:55 AM
  2. Quackwatch Update
    By Wise Young in forum Cure
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 09-18-2007, 03:42 PM
  3. Did you contribute to Dr. Davies?
    By litespeed4 in forum Cure
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-2006, 12:08 PM
  4. NABR Update
    By Wise Young in forum Cure
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2003, 01:28 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2002, 05:37 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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