Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (193606)	7/8/2004 2:17:45 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573364

John, People can sue, regardless, but they will only win if their is negligence, not if, in the normal course of things, an operation is not successful. A jury thrown on these cases without rudimentary understanding of what is involved is going to be able to determine this in a foolproof manner? The doctor in my case was in his late 50s, spending his all life developing his procedure, writing in medical journals, speaking in conferences. How am I qualified to say his procedure is valid, that he performed it well? They showed us X-rays, models, MRI images. I am a computer programmer, some people on the jury did not even finish high school. What determines guilt and innocense is the talent, persuasion of the scumbag involved. The system is designed for abuse and self enrichment for people who have no qualms about ethics. It takes a certain type of individual to go into this profession, a scumbag. Edwards is one of them. And there is merit to the argument for reform. And the probability of that happening with fox guarding the henhouse? Why is Edwards where he is today (other than the personal fortune he accumulated ripping off the system)? Because the trial lawyers put him there, with their contributions. Joe