I wish someone would design ... (my suggested design & other suggestions)

[Daniel Ross]

Found it - here you go: http://www.3ders.org/articles/201301...d-concept.html

Interesting and simple design. The legal disclaimer seems disingenuous. I think that the designer thinks he has a workable product. 3D printing was essential to the design, but appears unnecessary if some manufacturer picks up on it. So be it. There is no need to add complication. 3 points regarding the comments at the end. 1st, boiling is an effective means of sterilization, readily available to everyone. 2nd, insertion could be performed by doctors or by trained midwives. 3rd, open source design prevents profit gouging by patent holders. The liability issue is no worse than for any other IUD design. This is an example of 3D printing living up to its initial promise.

[Geoff]

Interesting and simple design. The legal disclaimer seems ingenuous. I think that the designer thinks he has a workable product. 3D printing was essential to the design, but appears unnecessary if some manufacturer picks up on it. So be it. There is no need to add complication. 3 points regarding the comments at the end. 1st, boiling is an effective means of sterilization, readily available to everyone. 2nd, insertion could be performed by doctors or by trained midwives. 3rd, open source design prevents profit gouging by patent holders. The liability issue is no worse than for any other IUD design. This is an example of 3D printing living up to its initial promise.

"I think that the designer thinks he has a workable product. 3D printing was essential to the design, but appears unnecessary "

**editing my post.
I think Dan, you summed up my feelings in that sentence, and simultaneously proved alot of peoples arguments here

[Daniel Ross]

I think Dan, you summed up my feelings in that sentence, and simultaneously proved alot of peoples arguments here

At the time that we all posted, we were unaware of this new design. I wanted experimentation, possible improvement. I thought 3D printing a promising vehicle for experimentation. If improvement involved customization, 3D printing would be a promising vehicle for customization, too.

Please forgive me if I now misinterpret the objections that I received. The fact is that Lippes loop once had FDA approval, but approval has been revoked because superior designs now exist. The posted objections were that (1) further experimentation is unnecessary because the Lippes loop is obsolete, and (2) any improvement will not require customization because the Lippes loop did not involve customization. The logic of those arguments escapes me.

Let us not beat a dead horse. Please confine your reply to my (this) post, to a single comprehensive post. I will not reply to your post. You may have the last word.

Also please, no more personal abuse. It can escalate and destroy the value of the thread.

[Geoff]

At the time that we all posted, we were unaware of this new design. I wanted experimentation, possible improvement. I thought 3D printing a promising vehicle for experimentation. If improvement involved customization, 3D printing would be a promising vehicle for customization, too.

Please forgive me if I now misinterpret the objections that I received. The fact is that Lippes loop once had FDA approval, but approval has been revoked because superior designs now exist. The posted objections were that (1) further experimentation is unnecessary because the Lippes loop is obsolete, and (2) any improvement will not require customization because the Lippes loop did not involve customization. The logic of those arguments escapes me.

Let us not beat a dead horse. Please confine your reply to my (this) post, to a single comprehensive post. I will not reply to your post. You may have the last word.

Also please, no more personal abuse. It can escalate and destroy the value of the thread.

Hi Dan, I apologize if in any way that members conflicting ideas about your topic somehow transcended into what you would consider personal abuse, I don't feel that was the intention of anyone posting here, but remember this is a public forum and for all purposes an open session for debate - but I am genuinely sorry if you were made to feel that way.

Since I have absolutely no experience in any medical field whatsoever, and also don't possess a Uterus myself, it would be silly for me to make any comment on the actual device's practicality, I was more sticking to the lines of financial interest as that what seems to drive the majority of the pharmaceutical companies.

[Daniel Ross]

Update on new technologies, thanks to my friend Nick.

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/mandelbulber.html Mandelbulber is open source software for visual rendering of 3D fractals. The 2nd image on the Web page reminds me of pollen. If there were a 3D printer that could make objects sufficiently small, it MIGHT be possible to develop a non-allergenic vaccine against hay fever and asthma.

http://www.micronautomata.com/ This is a totally new hardware architecture that could vastly speed up the digitization of complex objects such as real life pollen, that approximates a 3D fractal.

[3D OZ]

At the time that we all posted, we were unaware of this new design. I wanted experimentation, possible improvement. I thought 3D printing a promising vehicle for experimentation. If improvement involved customization, 3D printing would be a promising vehicle for customization, too.

Please forgive me if I now misinterpret the objections that I received. The fact is that Lippes loop once had FDA approval, but approval has been revoked because superior designs now exist. The posted objections were that (1) further experimentation is unnecessary because the Lippes loop is obsolete, and (2) any improvement will not require customization because the Lippes loop did not involve customization. The logic of those arguments escapes me.

Let us not beat a dead horse. Please confine your reply to my (this) post, to a single comprehensive post. I will not reply to your post. You may have the last word.

Also please, no more personal abuse. It can escalate and destroy the value of the thread.

You have chosen to misinterpret the objections.
The Lippes Loop lost FDA approval because it was proven over time to NOT BE EFFECTIVE and therefore better options exist.
No inert IUD (your proposal) has approval in any major Western Nation.
There is no reason to expect any 3D Printed IUD design to ever be approved anywhere in the world, the fact that it could be customised adds further reason for it to never be approved.
Nobody said customisation is not required because the Lippes Loop didn't require customisation. IUDs in their entirity DO NOT REQUIRE CUSTOMISATION.
There is essentially no such thing as a customised IUD and no need for one. One size fits all.
The current range of commercial hormonal and Copper IUDs work perfectly fine, there is no realistic scope for improvement through design.

Google "customised IUD" and you get no hits other than this forum.

Personal abuse? Where?

[Daniel Ross]

I still am trying, with yet another idea. If you object, please make it substantive like 3D OZ's objection above, not merely abusive about what I have been smoking. OK, on to the idea. It is a project that can be done now. Use a 3D printer to experiment with geometric shapes of objects that interlock or entangle with each other. Once an effective shape has been found, 3D printing has completed its job. Use 3D printed models to patent the shape. Develop applications or license the patent to application developers.

Application 1: a coarse powder that promotes blood clotting. Potential beneficiaries include hemophiliacs, burn victims, surgery patients.

Application 2: sealants. There are many varieties of sealants. I think some still use asbestos, despite being carcinogenic.

Application 3: riprap. Global warming will cause more severe weather, increased coastal damage from storms.