The US government can require a US company lots of things. After POTUS declared that he wants Greenland I can totally understand Danmark wants to get rid of everything US.
What will make development sustainable? I mean it could take some time until it gets trackson and also usually open source works if there is a supporting company behind it.
I am going to get it to a point where moderately technical people would be happy to use it over other options, and build a community that contributes. I will continue to work on making it easier to use over time.
It would be great to see a business model behind it too. You had to manufacture all the products in a factory and every product would be breaker down to the very basics. This was my idea for ages but never started to build it...
If the ownership is with the publishing studio then AFAIK they pay the producing, distribution and promotion. It is an investment into the artist, so they shouldn't have these costs.
> I wouldn't necessarily say abandoned. I still work on it from time to time, but progress is very very slow and I cannot prioritise it over other things atm
Which is fine but they didn’t merge any PRs either. I might have a go at a fork of this but I don’t take a phone with me running or track them these days.
They are running a phase 2 trial for this right now (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04528680?term=Sonaben...). It's scheduled to complete in late 2025. Phase 3 will probably be a few years past that, and then probably at least a year or two for approval.
That said, the clinical trial is for the combination of a drug treatment + implantable device. The implantable device itself (Sonocloud 9) has been granted fast track status by the FDA (https://www.fusfoundation.org/posts/cartheras-sonocloud-9-sy...). The fast track status should help speed up how quickly the FDA authorizes the overall treatment once clinical trials are complete.
So... completely pulling a number out of my butt, probably 5-7 years.
It will take 2 of those 5 years just to ascertain at what levels it is safe, and then another two years to determine whether it is better than the current standard-of-care.
While we're all desperate (some more than others) for a break-through in cancer treatment, it seems perfectly reasonable to demonstrate that something is both safe and better than the current standard-of-care before physicians start rolling this out to everyone affected by the brain tumours this therapy would help.
I sympathize with the sentiment that delaying rolling out a therapy like this seems inhumane, it would be no less (and arguably more) inhumane to roll out a therapy where we didn't establish safe doses and effectiveness to the best of our ability. Both potentially result in deaths.
Maybe there are some efficiencies to be found, but we are talking about experimental treatments where the efficacy takes weeks to years to measure. You can't run an overnight benchmarking test.
But in saying that, if a trial is showing very positive results then it can be fast tracked, as it is unethical to withhold that kind of treatment. Conversely, plenty of trials that look good in phase I/II fail in phase III and are terminated early.
To your point, as soon as enough evidence is obtained in Phase III that the drug is better than standard of care, the trial ends early and patients in the trial get switched to it. At least, that was the case in the case studies we looked at in my lectures.
Calling this Europe data when you're comparing data from 5 European cities is a bit exaggerated. We have 44 countries in Europe and even within a country there can be significant differences.
Those are the only relevant locations for somebody who is considering emigrating for career purposes. The other countries do not have job markets big enough and salaries high enough to merit the effort of moving there, considering we are talking about actual countries, with different languages and cultures.
Steel is very problematic. 90% comes from China. Proven reserves of iron will run out at some point and we'll need to find new ones. Smelting uses coal. Iron mining is environmentally destructive.
Amount in the crust is hardly relevant. After all there are trillions of tons of lithium etc. in the Earth's crust. Transition to a "hydrogen economy" would put unprecedented demand on existing sources. It's not realistic.
reply