6 ms·

For anyone else wondering on what types of cancer this might work on, from [1]: Q: Which cancers will 9DS work on? A: We don't have a definitive answer, but i

For anyone else wondering on what types of cancer this might work on, from [1]: Q: Which cancers will 9DS work on? A: We don't have a definitive answer, but initial tests show that it's strongest against some forms of renal (kidney) cancer, melanoma(skin) cancer, and triple-negative breast cancer. We have reason to believe that variants of 9DS will target different cancer types, as well. [1]: http://www.indysci.org/details.html http://www.indysci.org/details.html "Details"

ThomPete 13y ago
Well given I already had one melanoma I would be interesting in anything that solves that area. But how do a layman determine whether they are on to something or not?
- dnautics 13y ago
  (founder of indysci/main researcher on this project here). That's a great question. And I don't have a good answer for you. Any suggestions would be welcome.
  - ISL 13y ago
    This is the question you most need to answer. Why is this project, of all possible projects, a good scientific bet? Biology is complicated, which makes layman explanations a challenge. Perhaps the best you can do is lay out in clear terms what you know and what you don't. This compound has been shown to be XXX±XXX% effective against these three cancers. It has also been shown to kill 90% of test animals. These three respected theory papers [1,2,3] have highlighted the fact that, if only the animals hadn't died, this compound would be more promising than YYY,ZZZ, and QQQ. Furthermore, in these references [4-10], making the modification we propose to make (9DS) in other related substances has been shown to reduce lethality by 100x. Our goal is to explore this alteration to see if we can address the lethality of the compound while preserving its anti-cancer properties. Give people the references, and some laymen will dig all day long. Motivated people are really smart.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      like this? http://www.indysci.org/details.html http://www.indysci.org/details.html
      - ISL 13y ago
        Yes, but with well-supported numbers (and uncertainties) and links to references? Not trying to be a hard-ass, just stating what I'd look for in either a paper up for funding review or for making my own crowdfunded investment. You guys are doing something awesome.
        dnautics 13y ago
        totally understood. It's really good that you're holding my feet to the fire. It's a little bit buried, but linked from the "details" page is the full proposal: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By7AdX1eMEY2ZXZ5RzZ0Vl9QZG8/edit?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By7AdX1eMEY2ZXZ5RzZ0Vl9QZG8... I apologize, I had accidentally put in a wrong link there previously, it's been fixed, but the file has been publically available and visible for a while. Some non-scientific aspects (like our launch date) have obviously been changed at the last minute, but the proposal stands.
- JohnHaugeland 13y ago
  Generally speaking you don't. This is research funding. He's trying to raise money to see if it's something or not. If he can raise the money this way, then he can release it without patent encumbrance, and it's for everyone - including the world's poor. Most drugs fail. This one probably will too. I gave because I want to see intellectual property not be the only viable funding path anymore.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    I appreciate that but I guess I am a little more biased perhaps because of my history.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    well we are trying to stack the deck in the drug's favor. A few things: 1) it's a "natural product derivative". These compounds do way way better than most other drug classes. 2) it has single-digit nanomolar activity in the dish. This is on-par and competitive with currently used chemotherapeutics, a prerequisite for any sort of chemotherapy. 3) there is another compound in the same family called SJG-136 which has passed phase II. 4) phase I trials for SJG-136 apparently showed extremely mild side effects. I still need to double-check clinicaltrials.gov on this, this was a personal communication from the developer of SJG-136. Because SJG-136 and 9DS broadly share the same mechanism it's very likely that 9DS will also have mild side effects. To answer ThomPete's question, I'm not sure how I can verify this besides "trust me" to the layperson (especially #4). However, there is literature on #1 and #2, although, again I'm not sure how useful this is to the lay person. #1: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2010.00221.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2010.... #2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390171 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390171
    - ThomPete 13y ago
      Thanks I will have a look and just to be clear, I trust your intend 100%. I have been lucky enough to be accepted at Sloan Memorial en New York given I have more than a thousand moles. I wonder if I could ask my dermatologist there.

ThomPete 13y ago

Well given I already had one melanoma I would be interesting in anything that solves that area. But how do a layman determine whether they are on to something or not?

dnautics 13y ago
(founder of indysci/main researcher on this project here). That's a great question. And I don't have a good answer for you. Any suggestions would be welcome.
- ISL 13y ago
  This is the question you most need to answer. Why is this project, of all possible projects, a good scientific bet? Biology is complicated, which makes layman explanations a challenge. Perhaps the best you can do is lay out in clear terms what you know and what you don't. This compound has been shown to be XXX±XXX% effective against these three cancers. It has also been shown to kill 90% of test animals. These three respected theory papers [1,2,3] have highlighted the fact that, if only the animals hadn't died, this compound would be more promising than YYY,ZZZ, and QQQ. Furthermore, in these references [4-10], making the modification we propose to make (9DS) in other related substances has been shown to reduce lethality by 100x. Our goal is to explore this alteration to see if we can address the lethality of the compound while preserving its anti-cancer properties. Give people the references, and some laymen will dig all day long. Motivated people are really smart.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    like this? http://www.indysci.org/details.html http://www.indysci.org/details.html
    - ISL 13y ago
      Yes, but with well-supported numbers (and uncertainties) and links to references? Not trying to be a hard-ass, just stating what I'd look for in either a paper up for funding review or for making my own crowdfunded investment. You guys are doing something awesome.
      - dnautics 13y ago
        totally understood. It's really good that you're holding my feet to the fire. It's a little bit buried, but linked from the "details" page is the full proposal: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By7AdX1eMEY2ZXZ5RzZ0Vl9QZG8/edit?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By7AdX1eMEY2ZXZ5RzZ0Vl9QZG8... I apologize, I had accidentally put in a wrong link there previously, it's been fixed, but the file has been publically available and visible for a while. Some non-scientific aspects (like our launch date) have obviously been changed at the last minute, but the proposal stands.
JohnHaugeland 13y ago
Generally speaking you don't. This is research funding. He's trying to raise money to see if it's something or not. If he can raise the money this way, then he can release it without patent encumbrance, and it's for everyone - including the world's poor. Most drugs fail. This one probably will too. I gave because I want to see intellectual property not be the only viable funding path anymore.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  I appreciate that but I guess I am a little more biased perhaps because of my history.
- dnautics 13y ago
  well we are trying to stack the deck in the drug's favor. A few things: 1) it's a "natural product derivative". These compounds do way way better than most other drug classes. 2) it has single-digit nanomolar activity in the dish. This is on-par and competitive with currently used chemotherapeutics, a prerequisite for any sort of chemotherapy. 3) there is another compound in the same family called SJG-136 which has passed phase II. 4) phase I trials for SJG-136 apparently showed extremely mild side effects. I still need to double-check clinicaltrials.gov on this, this was a personal communication from the developer of SJG-136. Because SJG-136 and 9DS broadly share the same mechanism it's very likely that 9DS will also have mild side effects. To answer ThomPete's question, I'm not sure how I can verify this besides "trust me" to the layperson (especially #4). However, there is literature on #1 and #2, although, again I'm not sure how useful this is to the lay person. #1: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2010.00221.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2010.... #2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390171 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390171
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    Thanks I will have a look and just to be clear, I trust your intend 100%. I have been lucky enough to be accepted at Sloan Memorial en New York given I have more than a thousand moles. I wonder if I could ask my dermatologist there.