DescentBB

Ok, yea, I know... but, here it is

NFLD

www.northfieldlabs.com

Do your due diligence, make your calls... make some money, be a part of history. There's talk of a nobel prize for this guy...

That's some pretty impressive and important tech right there. One size fits all \"blood\" - no more need to match blood types.

I wonder if it needs refrigeration, coz maybe it could become part of every emergency medical-kit.

wonder how it tastes lol.


edit: PolyHeme can be stored at room temperature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolyHeme

WIN!!!

edit2:

you know what? i recon investing in this is a bad idea. it seems easy to reproduce, it's just purified Hemoglobin arranged into tetramers.
i hope every country in the world rips this off and it becomes as commonplace (and unpatentable) as bandaids. we need it

can't O blood types donate to anybody?

ccb056 wrote:can't O blood types donate to anybody?

O negative is the universal Donor, AB+ is the universal reciever. So, yes, O negatives can donate to anyone.

dude.. you already posted this..

viewtopic.php?t=11188

snoopy wrote:O negative is the universal Donor, AB+ is the universal reciever. So, yes, O negatives can donate to anyone.

...which is handy seeing as they're the most common and the rarest types respectively

Ferno wrote:dude.. you already posted this..

viewtopic.php?t=11188

I'm confused... am I supposed to laugh or call you an idiot?

lol

Type O blood must be refrigerated, and is impure thus can easily carry pathogens.

This new stuff doesn't need refrigerating and carrys no pathogens.

hmm i was thinking that blood needed to be kept alive, but is blood even alive to begin with? It has no nucleus, does it even have mitochondra? to the wikimobile!

Meh, Doesn't effect me, but it would be beneficial for a lot of people.

I'm AB+ (universal receiver) and when it comes to blood donar drives, they've sometimes turned me away because the only thing they'd need my blood for is just the plasma and they usually have plenty of that already.

I agree that investing in this might not be such a hot idea... because I expect it'll get copied by others and after a while it'll be as common place as bandaids.

On the other hand... if they manage to hold tightly to the copywrites/patents ... they could make a pretty bundle... at the expense of people who need it.

Your choice.

TechPro wrote:Meh, Doesn't effect me, but it would be beneficial for a lot of people.

I'm AB+ (universal receiver) and when it comes to blood donar drives, they've sometimes turned me away because the only thing they'd need my blood for is just the plasma and they usually have plenty of that already.

I agree that investing in this might not be such a hot idea... because I expect it'll get copied by others and after a while it'll be as common place as bandaids.

On the other hand... if they manage to hold tightly to the copywrites/patents ... they could make a pretty bundle... at the expense of people who need it.

Your choice.

yeah kinda makes you wonder about what you'd be investing in. Selfish money making, or the future of the human race.

Human Race i choose you!!
*throws pokeball*

Patents are evil

http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/edgar_conv ... S_BUSINESS

Here's a link if you want to read up a bit more... goodluck

lol @ patents are evil

If no one could make money from patents, alot less people would attempt to create something like this, thereby reducing the probability of it being created altogether.

Patents are a great thing, they reward people with innovation, and those are the people who cure diseases.

Patents are a good way to encourage \"lazy but greedy\" people to work hard. So if most humans are \"lazy but greedy\", then you're right.

However the patent-reform movement is a rising ideological alternative.

(I'd like to say that ethics runs especially strong in the medical field. But tales i hear from lonely altruistic medical students corrected that view - it seems that most people get into medicine for the money.)

This medical development, like ALL medical developments, was created in a university. A venture capital company then would have then purchased the (sole rights) patent. The university would have researched and developed the technology not from a cost-return basis, but from a basis of medical importance.

A patent does not cure a disease, the application and availablility of that treatment does. The patent's purpose is to be in the way between people who need the treatment - and the people who will provide that treatment in the way that leaverages people's suffering against their profit margin.

This blood substitute should be in every medkit worldwide. Do you agree? However thx to profiteering i doubt it will ever be so affordable.

Patents are a good way to encourage \"lazy but greedy\" people to work hard. So if most humans are \"lazy but greedy\", then you're right.

I doubt years and millions of dollars in research constitutes lazy. And getting paid for your work isn't greedy.

when someone develops something this useful, and with this much demand, its only fair that they get compensated for it

the market will determine the price

patents don't last forever, after a few years anyone can legally synthesize the compound

ccb056 wrote:the market will determine the price

That market is "Human suffering".
Sure, price away! o_O

Here in Australia we have a medicare schemes designed to reduce this market of Human suffering. Drugs here are evaluated on a "how useful and effective are they compared to all the other drugs" by a medical panel and it's government rebate is "priced" accordingly. The only things forced outof the market are comparitively useless and/or overpriced products.

This hemoglobin blood substitute could be cheap for citizens to buy here. Within reason the government would subsidize it outof it's own pocket - it could well be forced outof the market depending on it's local price here, i won't discount the possibility. No doubt the drug company will decide it's local price here with all of this in mind. I'm thankful we remain relatively protected from the human-suffering ecconomy here.

roid wrote:

ccb056 wrote:the market will determine the price

Here in Australia we have a medicare schemes designed to reduce this market of Human suffering. Drugs here are evaluated on a "how useful and effective are they compared to all the other drugs" by a medical panel and it's government rebate is "priced" accordingly. The only things forced outof the market are comparitively useless and/or overpriced products.

That doesn't negate the license cost of the patent, its just spreading the cost of the license to everyone that pays taxes, and using those taxes to pay someone other than the patent holder to produce those drugs.

The market still sets the price, everyone happens to contribute in your case.

...using those taxes to pay someone other than the patent holder to produce those drugs.

what?