A while back you were talking about wanting to get clinical trials of your donors vs. other donors. Though presumably given the fact that you aren't a doctor, you were talking about having
other people do the trials, but that doesn't mean funding is unnecessary, rather it means that you'd be requesting funding
and labor rather than
just funding.
There's nothing inherently
wrong with that if you have a good idea and can justify it, but the high expense of clinical research means that whatever agency would take this on would have to devote a considerable amount of resources to this. You seem to acknowledge this yourself when you speak of people giving you a million dollars.
2. Why should I? What benefit is there for me in doing that?
Getting your ideas on a more solid footing where you have more leverage to ask for favors from others to help you in your quest (to cure the world through gut microbes). You seem to imagine that people will beat a path to your door to give you large sums of money for your knowledge. However, you need to make a plausible case for having knowledge that is worth this kind of investment. In other words, make a case that investment will be returned with something (cures, scientific knowledge gained, etc.).
A. If you had public data showing an
improving trend for your donor results over time, this would support the idea that you have learned meaningful info during the process of being involved with FMT and that given enough resources you might find a cure. However, to my knowledge you don't have this. If anything, when you add your own personal data (pre-HM), it seems as though success rate might have
declined over time.
B. Even not having A., you could counter that by arguing that stool consistency and/or color are important variables and that they declined over time as well, explaining why results stagnated despite you learning valuable insights. However, you would actually need organized data (graphs, tables, etc.) of stool type vs. results, as well as a way for others, given actual stool pictures from the donors that you would provide, to verify for themselves the decline in stool type.
C. Barring A.
and B., you could claim that you identified a new important variable or a new source of high-quality donors
only after HM shut down, that then enabled your results to start improving again. However, you'd need to explain what this new variable or source was and what you did to find it. Disclosing this variable
might allow someone to "scoop" your idea, BUT at the same time having it publicly acknowledged as coming from you also means you could argue successfully for credit if it were. You might also need to show some evidence that the new donors were more effective (such as test results from your own doctor showing evidence of a cure), given that there is no recipient data for the new donors.
D. In fact, that last bit (test results from your doctor showing a cure) might be the only way you can make this at all convincing without any of the other data.
But as it is, it seems you are trying to argue that you have learned how to solve the donor quality problem when:
--your recipient data didn't show an improvement over time, which you attempt to explain by
--a stool quality score that
only you can calculate in your own head
--and that you don't even have recorded alongside the public results data for others to view
and now you are arguing that your donors HAVE drastically improved
--yet you don't have any public data showing this
--when you were effectively "crying wolf" by claiming you had solved donor quality even back when the success rates from your donors were NOT steadily increasing.
This is WAY too many holes, even if someone from the FDA or a major medical school agreed to devote his or her personal time for free to listen to you present why your idea is a breakthrough. And this is all
on top of the hurdle you have to jump over due to not being a medical professional.
Note that I am NOT saying that your FMT product
didn't help people, and I agree that you almost certainly learned some valuable information about how to do and not do FMT through the course of treating yourself and getting feedback from other recipients. However, what I don't see is the organization of data into a form that allows you to
show this. Without this, you don't have the "leverage" to get others to invest in this project.