|
Perhaps if the project represented a more familiar sphere, which many have already encountered here.... perhaps the forum users would have already decided for themselves what to expect from the project. Many have not yet realized what profit can be personally with them and when.
|
|
|
|
As I understood the project does not promise investors a quick profit, but promises them to participate in the profits of the company and ensures that the price of the token will not fall. That's interesting.
Yes, mine is very important in investing - some guarantees that there will be profit, and even if not immediately, but gradually there will be a plus. As I have said many times - now few projects can save the value of the token after going public, it’s a big deal right now. Many projects make different promises but not all of them are fulfilled. This project has one important point, they already have a working business and they do not raise money to start a business. Also, the project will be able to launch the opening of the clinic without all the registered capital collected. And this is very important. Of course there is nothing wrong with them trying to attract investment into their business through this project. Just chose the path through the cryptocurrency, the cryptosphere now attracts many. |
|
|
|
|
Ethereum seems to be better than bitcoin in terms of technology , but in the cryptosphere, that may not matter much. If we consider bitcoin only as an element of capital accumulation, then people use it much more willingly.
|
|
|
|
|
Of course there are cases of successful cancer treatment. Probably all depends on the type and stage of cancer. But I can't even imagine how I would feel if I was diagnosed with it.
|
|
|
|
I mean, a lot of people don't get well, they die. The problem of human mortality from cancer is very serious. I am not an expert in medicine but I think that it is not necessary to position the treatment of dogs and people as almost the same.
Let me tell you a true story. In 2003, the National Institute of Health (NIH) alone with biomedical and veterinary researchers around the globe, started the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A team led by Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, Ph.D., of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Mass., and Agencourt Bioscience Corp., Beverly, Mass., successfully assembled the genome of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). The breed of dog sequenced was the boxer, which was chosen after analyses of 60 dog breeds found it was one of the breeds with the least amount of variation in its genome and therefore likely to provide the most reliable reference genome sequence. They spent $30 million USD doing this. Now if you read that closely what was started was the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Yet they used a dog for sequencing or mapping the genome sequence.So you might ask why did they use a dog in a Genome Research project for humans? Well one of the reasons is that they believe the cures for most cancer in humans will come from cancer research in dogs. Because dogs get cancer like humans. Before this, when working with mice and such, they would insert under the skin a certain cancer tumor and then try to treat it. But with dogs, they get cancer in the same places as people. They get lung cancer, breast cancer, prostrate and others. So when researchers work with treating dogs that have cancer, 90% of that research will translate (also work on) to people. So the reason the NIH was willing to spend $30 million to map the genome of the dog as part of the National Human Genome Research is WHY I can say confidently that this treatment will work on both dogs and people. And remember, that it has already been working successfully on people since 2009. Gary You can read all about it at this link https://www.genome.gov/12511476/2004-advisory-dog-genome-assembledMany medicines and medical techniques are tested on animals. But develop and real use are not the same, especially if it's for people. I don't know all the testing stages, but should be clinical trials at least. I also think that different types of cancer need different drugs and techniques. Therefore, between the treatment of dogs and treatment of people from the point of view of official medicine must be a very big difference. I think there will be a lot of people who want to try treatment, especially if this is a chance to avoid chemotherapy, because it really has a very detrimental effect on the human body. Terminally ill people are probably willing to do anything just to recover. But, unfortunately, there is still no way guaranteed to cure cancer. |
|
|
|
I can only answer for myself. As I already wrote I not specialist in medicine and I at all fear different medical procedures. Therefore, there can be no question about the theft of your technology even if I have something to see. To invest or not here everyone has to decide for himself.
I think the main thing here is not to invest, or not, but to invest for what purpose, in such a project you cannot pursue the goal of only making money, here you need to think that this is a project designed to help people, the noble goal of the project. Everyone should help people to the best of their abilities. But still the project is positioned as an investment opportunity and promises income in the future. Therefore, you need to be realistic and decide for yourself the expediency of these investments. |
|
|
|
The use the same drugs. 90% of all drugs used to treat dogs for various issues are actually human drugs that are use on humans for the same thing. The are very few drugs created just for dogs. And only ONE cancer drug. The rest of the drugs used to treat cancer in dogs are human cancer drugs being use as "grey label or off label" when using a human drug on dogs.
If your method of treating dogs works well then why doesn't it work in humans? Drugs the same and probably have long approved by official medicine. People are being treated but many people continue to die of cancer. I do not argue that cancer is incurable at all. But there are different types and stages of cancer. Although the genome of dogs and humans are similar, but there are probably significant differences. |
|
|
|
I mean, a lot of people don't get well, they die. The problem of human mortality from cancer is very serious. I am not an expert in medicine but I think that it is not necessary to position the treatment of dogs and people as almost the same.
Let me tell you a true story. In 2003, the National Institute of Health (NIH) alone with biomedical and veterinary researchers around the globe, started the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A team led by Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, Ph.D., of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Mass., and Agencourt Bioscience Corp., Beverly, Mass., successfully assembled the genome of the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). The breed of dog sequenced was the boxer, which was chosen after analyses of 60 dog breeds found it was one of the breeds with the least amount of variation in its genome and therefore likely to provide the most reliable reference genome sequence. They spent $30 million USD doing this. Now if you read that closely what was started was the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Yet they used a dog for sequencing or mapping the genome sequence.So you might ask why did they use a dog in a Genome Research project for humans? Well one of the reasons is that they believe the cures for most cancer in humans will come from cancer research in dogs. Because dogs get cancer like humans. Before this, when working with mice and such, they would insert under the skin a certain cancer tumor and then try to treat it. But with dogs, they get cancer in the same places as people. They get lung cancer, breast cancer, prostrate and others. So when researchers work with treating dogs that have cancer, 90% of that research will translate (also work on) to people. So the reason the NIH was willing to spend $30 million to map the genome of the dog as part of the National Human Genome Research is WHY I can say confidently that this treatment will work on both dogs and people. And remember, that it has already been working successfully on people since 2009. Gary You can read all about it at this link https://www.genome.gov/12511476/2004-advisory-dog-genome-assembledMany medicines and medical techniques are tested on animals. But develop and real use are not the same, especially if it's for people. I don't know all the testing stages, but should be clinical trials at least. I also think that different types of cancer need different drugs and techniques. Therefore, between the treatment of dogs and treatment of people from the point of view of official medicine must be a very big difference. |
|
|
|
|
I can only answer for myself. As I already wrote I not specialist in medicine and I at all fear different medical procedures. Therefore, there can be no question about the theft of your technology even if I have something to see. To invest or not here everyone has to decide for himself.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, a lot of people don't get well, they die. The problem of human mortality from cancer is very serious. I am not an expert in medicine but I think that it is not necessary to position the treatment of dogs and people as almost the same.
|
|
|
|
|
I in no way want to underestimate the merits of your company, but to talk about reducing cancer mortality in people in my opinion is not worth it.. at least to draw attention to this project. Many people can react to this ambiguously and painfully
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly. Profitability indicators, which are presented above, everything looks good but these are indicators of existing business. It is necessary to consider the project in terms of buying tokens and prospects for the introduction of blockchain. Will it give profit to investors?
|
|
|
|
|
I feel sorry for people whose loved ones died of cancer and hope that this disease will be overcome. But here I have to consider the project only in terms of investment attractiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
I hardly understand anything from scientific and medical publications if there are such somewhere. Therefore, I try to evaluate the project only on the basis of its profitability.
|
|
|
|
Can investors decide for themselves? Well, according to the analogy of the shareholders ' meeting...Was it practiced in the cryptosphere? Or does it all depend on the team?
What exact do you mean, when you are asking if investor can decide for themselves? 2nd question is interesting for me too. The above was a conversation By the way, why you've decided to conduct STO instead of ICO? Moreover, I remember that there were several projects, that offered security tokens without vote rights, why you've decided to offer tokens with vote right?
...ect My question about investors related to this. I'm interested..Was there such practice in other projects? |
|
|
|
|
Can investors decide for themselves? Well, according to the analogy of the shareholders ' meeting...Was it practiced in the cryptosphere? Or does it all depend on the team?
|
|
|
|
|
I think you can always find a good project with good potential. The main profit I received only altcoins, and not bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that long-term holding cryptocurrency can afford people who have another good income. They may not respond to the fall of the market and do not sell cryptocurrency due to lack of money for current expenses
|
|
|
|
|
Money is not taken out of thin air. If someone made a profit it is likely that someone has suffered losses. There is no one to blame and even more so to blame the cryptocurrency itself.
|
|
|
|
|
The field of ICO and now IEO is already oversaturated with various projects that often repeat the same ideas. Even theoretically, all projects cannot be successful.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
