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 neither are you.

​​​

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 repay the loans 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 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 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, just like everyone else.

​​​

What about government entrepreneurial programs?

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

​​

What about cancer charities?

While Innovative Potential and the CGP are rich subject areas for grant participation, you need university affiliation, permission, and  doctoral degree authorization to apply for the grants, period, this has more to do with how the government program policies accepts applications, I'm not a doctor, remember. 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 developmental strategy of the university itself. The development strategies of the universities are set and determined by the availability of state and federal funding programs that the university can access as set by the government, and since no government is able to acquire any licensure due to incompetency and communication breakdowns: no state has acquired any patent licenses from Innovative Potential to incorporate into their budgets so that their post-secondary institutions can participate. 

​

What about crowd sourcing?

The crowd-funding platforms don't allow medical devices, and there are a lot of limitations as to what can be funded.

​

What about philanthropy?

They're self-regulating as their own government now; also, good luck getting in contact with someone who is an actual person. They tend to offer grants for only what they want specifically, and this is new, id est: the education gap.

​​

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. They also don't know how their own government works, and how powerful a patent can be.

​

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 eight (8) years since, and that's pre-COVID.

​

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

Yes. Yes, they did. 

​

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 dangerous U.S. policy 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. The university problem still stands in the U.S..

​

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 (now Mark Carney's) 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 especially those technologies which are patented.

​

And if no one does anything?

1. No jobs; and,

2. No new construction projects; and,

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

4. 21 million people die by 2038 from an almost completely curable disease, imagine: no deaths by cancer at a population level; and,

5. 47 trillion dollars ($47T) of economic advancements never get spent; and,

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 USD, 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; and,

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

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

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

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 the creation of 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 manual for all others to be able to use, in every hospital, everywhere on the planet, forever for a fucking cancer cure mechanism.

​

You are the problem and it shouldn't be this hard.​

​