This section is read as a question and answer format from the Public to Innovative Potential.

​

What is the problem?

Money.

​

Have you tried a job?

Pay me.

​

What about my idea?

It was the first thing that failed.

​

What about my good idea!?

It failed worse than the first idea.

​

What about friends and family?

They're not equipped for this, and you know it.

​

What about crowd sourcing?

The crowd-funding platforms don't allow medical devices.

​

What about philanthropy?

They're self-regulating as their own government. Also, good luck getting in contact with someone who is an actual person.

​

What about angel investors?

Angels, dragons, sharks, lords, lambs, are all functioning as a lesser derivative of a venture capitalist, or bank. While there is more autonomy with angel investors, the educational gap is quite large to be fair, and the quid pro quo of good business is never realized, they're not time-rich enough to do their own due diligence. Additionally, they are trapped in the revenue trap.

​

What about venture capital?

Venture capital is roughly the same as the banks, they are sharing a similar financial structure, educational upbringing, and inbred culture with the banks. If the start-up is not generating 1.25% revenue-to-loan at the time of application then the investment is deemed too risky, and nothing happens.

​

What about banking loans?

Banks don't lend to start ups. Period. At least not without revenue, but since a start-up doesn't have revenue, no bank will make the loan. It's not that the start-up doesn't have assets or can't pay-back the loan, which is the real issue here: repay-ability, any invest-able start-up can through participation in government programs. It is a situation where the bank and its personnel appear to be incapable of overcoming their policy adherence that any loan requires the applicant to have a 1.25% revenue-to-loan ratio, no exceptions, no thought. The policy is rather stupid because the start-up is using that loan to create revenue-generating products. There is no capacity for oversight or overrule for this policy up to the national managerial level, the bank employees are actually incompetent.

​

What about government entrepreneurial programs?

Government small-business and entrepreneurial programs require financing to be 100% up-front and in-cash before contracts are ratified. They only participate in a 50% rebate model, and do not participate in a 50% up-front model, which is the better model. It is difficult to come up with 100% of funds up-front if banks don't loan to start-ups.

​

What about cancer charities?

While Innovative Potential and the CGP are rich subject areas for grant participation, you need university affiliation, permission, and  authorization to apply for the grants, period, this has to do with how the government program policy accepts applications. To get this university acknowledgment you need the university's senate to grant it, and for them to grant it: you must be within a development strategy of the university itself. The development strategies are determined by the availability of state and federal funding programs that the university can access.

​

What about political representatives?

It's one part that they are actually busy, and another part where they don't have any real power to issue the type of univeristy-influencing development strategies required to their committees, it's a budget allotment thing, and that budget is set at election time.

​

What about national health sciences grants?

In Canada:

In 2017 the Canadian Liberal government cancelled the medical device development program a year before it was to be concluded in 2018. No supplement has been re-instated since, meaning medical devices like the CGP are currently left without funding or a development program for the past six years since, and that's pre-COVID.

​

That's messed-up cause all those people died.

Yes. Yes, they did. Like, 4 million people died with cancer, and I don't know how many other patients died as a direct result of the cancellation of the Canadian national medical devices development program.

​

In the U.S.:

Innovative Potential doesn't qualify for grant programs because it is not 51% owned by a U.S. citizen. That's a policy failure because Innovative Potential is legally the only entity in the U.S. that is capable of building or using the device. Innovative Potential looks for qualified U.S. citizen-owned partners to license-to and build with, but finds only boutique engineering firms without the capacity or interest to participate in the grant writing to pay themselves.

​

So what's the solution?

There are several, as this is a wide-field problem:

1. Re-instate the Canadian medical devices development program so that the CGP and other medical devices can get the direct and proper funding they deserve; and,

2. Punish Justin Trudeau's Liberal government of Canada for cancelling the only medical devices development program in Canada, a stupidly-dangerous and short-sighted action which has directly resulted in the premature deaths of over five percent (5%) of the population (U.S. and Canada) since 2017; and,

3. Amend U.S. policy to better facilitate strategic technology trade and development with U.S.-allied nations, especially within the energy and human and veterinary heathcare industrial sectors.

​

And if no one does anything?

1. No jobs;

2. No new construction projects;

3. No new spin-off technologies (e.g., artificial organs);

4. 10 million people die by 2038 from an almost completely curable disease;

5. Ten trillion dollars ($10T) of economic advancements never get spent;

6. Inflation rises catastrophically because you've made your money worthless by ignoring all of the new solutions to disease-curing and life-extension on a planet with over 8 billion people and rising; and,

7. Ironically, your nation gets destroyed from within by exactly the same mechanism by which cancer kills. The People have zero confidence in your capacity to accomplish anything, period.
    

Fun fact: the death toll is closer to 20 million since invention, which is like 5% of the total geographic population of the U.S. and Canada, solely because of bad bureaucratic policy changes, and bad governance actions. I'm using the National statistics on this page, by the way.

​

- - -

 

So, how much money for a clinical trial?
Depends what you want for an outcome. Do you want everyone in the country to walk out of Stage-IV metastatic hospice-level cancer disease guaranteed everytime? One ($1) billion, and most of that is to account for the variation in population-level demographics. Or, do you want to ablate surface lesions? Because that latter option was already proven to be under $29.95 (CDN).

 

Or, do you want what I want?

What I want:

1. There's some electrical design and engineering that remains for the CGP base model, mostly to consolidate components into the single unit;

2. Analytical calibrations for the CGP in (1) according to previous in vitro experimental results (publications page);

3. Small-scale third party testing and feedback for the device from (2);

4. In vitro assessments of multiple human cancer cell lines with the device from (3) using protocols from (2);

5. A controlled intratumor injection survivability study against standard-of-care using the device from (3); and,

6. All of the intermediary accoutrements that go along with 1-5, like a standard operating procedure manual, technical reports, and anonymous peer-reviewed scientific articles, etc.

​

So what will that cost?

Two (2) million dollars via corporations, less if through the public university systems (see above); surprisingly, not that much considering this is the creation of the instruction manuals for all others to be able to use, in every hospital, everywhere on the planet, forever.

​​

​​

​

​