·
The co-operative only funds research on one drug
at a time
o
If you are going to
go up against an entity who opposes you and they have a war chest of money the
only strategy you can enact is a focused one
o
If you want donors
to lobby against injustices you can’t confuse them about which drug being
tested is under fire. Keep the business
simple
·
The co-operative have limited partnerships or
ventures with outside entities
o
The purpose of this
is to help prevent corruption and situations of ‘I’ll scratch your back if you
scratch mine’
o
The funding of
testing has to come purely from donors and not outside entities. The
cooperatives’ donors are purely interested in the cure but outside entities may
have other motives
·
All research testing is to be completed in-house
and the facility funded 100% by donors
o
Stand alone to help
prevent corruption
o
The reputation of the
co-operative is independent of other entities
o
If the co-operative
didn’t have its own facilities (like lab rooms, hospital rooms, etc.) then a
cure blocking technique could be to block access to publicly available
facilities. This technique could slow or
even halt testing
o
In-house testing also
reduces the risk of research test tampering
·
The co-operative is not for profit. Donors know in advance of making a donation
if a cure is found it will be offered to the public at cost, even to people who
did not donate to the co-operative. There is no money to be made. The pure goal
of the co-operative to find a cure and not to make a monetary return
o
The end goal is
purely the cure
o
There is no money to
be made in today’s model of donating to cancer organizations so there should be
no money to be made in an improved business model either
o
If there was money
to be made larger donors would feel they deserve more of the profits then the
smaller donors. We have to take money
completely out of the equation
·
The co-operative operate as a simple business
with simple and transparent banking procedures
o
Testing only one
drug at a time allows for a simple focused structure with minimal employees
needed; and makes those employees more accountable too
o
There is more clarity
and trust in anything simple verses complex (think of derivative market: it is
so complex it is hard to trust)
o
A business like this
will hold a lot of dormant money and bankers will present the pros of the next
big investment vehicle to multiply the money ten times over; but if the vehicle
is anything other than a straight interest baring note there is risk
involved. Complex investment vehicles
change absolute dollars to relative guesstimates at the total dollars. The world’s financial markets are currently
not stable due to the high levels of complexity and it would be wise to stay
out of them
·
The co-operative financial statements are
audited yearly and made public
o
For clarity and
trust purposes
·
The co-operative preferably not be deemed a
‘registered charity’….
o
This condition is
interesting and defining it probably goes beyond my level of expertise but here
goes: if you are a registered charity you have to operate within the laws set
for registered charities. Today’s laws
are quite reasonable but they can change over time and limit registered
charities’ allowable actions. This is
true for any type of business but if I were setting up a business where I knew
in advance the headwinds would be so strong it might make the goal impossible I
would try my hardest to stay out of any kind of ‘box’ of rules some entity
could place on me in the future.
o
Staying out of the
registered charity ‘box’ means you are more like a not-for-profit pharmaceutical
company owned by multiple owners. A
not-for-profit pharmaceutical company should have the same laws as for-profit
pharmaceutical companies and thus future law changes would affect the whole
pharmaceutical industry – not just a not-for-profit pharmaceutical company. If you are going to be in any box be in the
same one as your competitors
o
It would mean donors
would not receive tax receipts
o
I personally would
rather find a cure then get a tax receipt, for this strategy to work I hope
others feel the same way. Maybe the
trick would be to go after a large volume of small contributions rather than a
smaller volume of large contributions
The Stickman Model is simply an
idea to improve cancer research’s existing business structure. The ‘what if the boogieman wanted to block a
cure’ scenarios are not based on any real truths of corruption; these made up
scenarios were just used to help identify the current system’s structural flaws
and to create a new business model resilient to the boogieman.
Lastly, I apologize for my
‘popcorn and candy’ remark. Today’s cancer
charities are wonderful and do great work.
There are charters and rules in place preventing charities from being
irresponsible with donations; and there are wonderful and hardworking people
working for them. With this remark I was
just pushing you down a road trying to get you to believe in my biased
conclusion which is: there is a flaw in the structure of these charities, not a
flaw in the charities themselves.
Now the Stickman Model is public
information. You have my permission to
use this idea and start a stickman co-operative, and I hope you do. I think this
idea is a good one and I hope one day it leads to a cheap cure for cancer. Good luck.
Disclaimer: This is an opinion site. It is non-factual
and completely made up on a whim. This
site is simply dedicated to solving non-existent problems. If you want the
facts on cancer it is homework time.
I am not going to tell you how much cancer is worth today, go do your
homework. You will trust the answer more
from your own sources then you would trust sources I find for you.
Continue Reading the Next Page - Worthy of Testing – DCA
Back to the Top of the Page
No comments:
Post a Comment