{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remedyplan/remedyplan.github.io/issues/14","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remedyplan/remedyplan.github.io/issues/14/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remedyplan/remedyplan.github.io/issues/14/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/remedyplan/remedyplan.github.io/issues/14/events","html_url":"https://github.com/remedyplan/remedyplan.github.io/issues/14","id":85904220,"number":14,"title":"Comments from Jim Crimmins","user":{"login":"allisoncrimmins","id":12777924,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12777924?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins","html_url":"https://github.com/allisoncrimmins","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/allisoncrimmins/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2015-06-07T13:45:03Z","updated_at":"2015-06-07T13:45:03Z","closed_at":null,"body":"1.\t“stopping your life”  Certainly jarring.  Would “harming the rest of your body” be too wimpy or uninteresting?\r\nAllison: I don't like \"harming the rest of your body\" and I think we need both the \"stops\", plus there is the extra meaning of messing up your day to day life. My rec: keep as is for now. \r\n\r\n2.\t“disrupt cancer growth without harmful side effects”  Wonderful sentence, clear and clearly desirable.\r\n3.\tFact 1 is a great place for a graph.\r\n4.\tFacts 2 and 3 are good.\r\n5.\tMaybe you should explain what is meant by the metastatic properties of cancer cells. \r\nAllison: This is in the cancer containment section. I agree that we could use an 'information' button here next to the word metastatic.But there isn't exactly an FAQ that lines up perfectly with this one. Maybe it needs a popup definition? Not sure.\r\n\r\n6.\tCancer containment therapy is a nice phrase.  Is it yours?  Is it trademarkable?\r\n7.\t“For so many cancer patients,…”  You can probably drop “so many”\r\nAllison: agree\r\n\r\n8.\tGreg, you need a better picture.  That one makes you look more like a swindler than a scientist.  Allison, the glasses are a nice touch.  Make you look even smarter.\r\nAllison: agree Greg needs a better picture. Still waiting on Joan.\r\n\r\n9.\tThe page that says “We see the future in this work.”  I don’t get how this adds anything and I don’t quite understand it.  Up to now it seemed like you had a big idea, but this makes it seem like you are still looking for one.\r\nAllison: Hmmm... interesting point. We don't want people to think this. I wonder if we change the wording to something like \"This big idea was too good to let go\" or \"An idea too good to wait for\"?\r\n\r\n10.\t“If there were a safe and effective way to … go for it”.   Maybe simpler and more direct—“There is no safe and effective way to eradicate cancer tumors.  Methods that try, like radiation and chemotherapy, harm the rest of the body.”\r\nAllison: While I agree we could be more direct, the current wording fits with our tone and style. I could go either way.\r\n\r\n11.\tIn the same FAQ, drop the “we think” and go for “We can”\r\nAllison: YES. Please make the change.\r\n\r\n12.\tIn the “How is this different” FAQ, again drop the “We think”.  Makes you seem too tentative.\r\nAllison: YES\r\n\r\n13.\tIn the “Why should I fund you” FAQ you have a “because” clause that should probably be attached to the previous sentence.\r\nAllison: I wonder if we should move that \"because\" phrase to the very first sentence so it more directly answers the question?\r\n\r\n14.\tIn the “What do I get” FAQ, I love the first sentence.  Maybe it should be its own paragraph so it stands out.\r\nAllison: We may need to rewrite this paragraph if we are making tshirts.\r\n\r\n15.\tIn the “Is this a for-profit” FAQ, you may want to add “model” after non-profit in the answer.  \r\nThe “hung-up” clause seems flip.  Why not just drop it.  Also, it sounds like you are not going to spend much on research.  Why not just say that the total salary for all employees is less than (or less than half) the CEO salary…”?\r\nThe “old school” phrase also seems unserious.  How about simply explaining that the for-profit model gives you the best chance to accomplish your goal.\r\nAllison: Both my parents also noted this FAQ as being potentially offensive to people who have donated to old school charities. On one hand, I like our tone and style and this fits well with that. One the other, that's three people already who don't like it, or more likely, don't get what we're trying to say. What about:\r\n\"Yes, this is a classic startup company. Because our goal is to drive the development of cancer containment drugs all the way to patients, a for-profit model is more appropriate than a non-profit model. Making new drugs is an expensive process. Down the road we are going to have to work with venture capital and biotech companies, so we're aligning our corporate setup to provide the most flexibility for these future steps. Even so, our entire projected budget for salaries for all employees is less than [XX half or whatever] the CEO's salary of some better known non-profit cancer organizations. We also agree with the new way of thinking about businesses that do good: that you don't have to choose between being mission-oriented or profit-oriented.\"\r\n\r\n16.\tIn the “Are your drugs going to be…” FAQ, can the answer begin with “No.”?\r\nAllison: YES. Please make that change.\r\n\r\n17.\tI’m a little puzzled by the last FAQ.  It sounded like your approach would work against most if not all cancers.  In this answer, for the first time, it sounds like your approach will be specific to certain cancers.\r\nAllison: I actually think we should drop this FAQ. I don't think it adds much and I'm not sure we want to promise this before we have a experimental plan.\r\n\r\n"}}