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.

Biotech / Medical : Techniclone (TCLN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: john dixon who wrote (970)	12/31/1997 4:07:00 PM
From: EZLibra	Respond to of 3702

John, I thought I'd wait until the close to respond. I think you made a good buy, it looks like the tide has turned. To A Great '98, Happy New Year To All.

To: john dixon who wrote (970)	12/31/1997 4:55:00 PM
From: shero	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

John, you win the BOTTOM FISHERPERSON of the Year Award. I paid $2 and $2 1/32. My bet--TCLN at $4 in April. Davis--this is 1998, not 1968. No more mention of napalm. No one who has smelled it, morning, noon, or night has pleasant memories. Even those who think the sound of B-52's and Phantom Jets are the sound of Freedom get sick thinking about the smell of napalm. Of course the difference between this and Vietnam is this time we're the guerillas. And we've won. I hate to sound like a technician but todays volume looks like that classic sell off I talked about months ago. Better late than never. And does anyone here remember what an uptick is. Ah, how sweet it is. Lets see if we can keep these gains Friday. Happy New Year everyone. Be safe and healthy tonight. Next year ya'all will be rich. Just ask Dr. Wallner!!

To: john dixon who wrote (970)	12/31/1997 6:25:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

John, "...if our product is half as good as we have been led to believe the fda will have to act fast. It is crazy to continue to let people die when there is at least a chance of survival with Oncolym." Is it even constitutional? Stopping people, by force, from gaining the only means of survival available to them. Since the intention of the FDA is to protect people from injury and fraud, they are chucking the baby out with the bathwater. Causing more injury and death than they prevent. It would be better to use many brains who are vitally concerned about the outcome to decide on the best treatment for individuals rather than compulsorily leave the decisions to a committee of government bureaucrats, even if they are medically trained. The communist, centrally planned methods of regimenting human choice haven't been successful. The FDA is performing the same function as the Kremlin used to. Stultifying people, stopping innovation, causing huge loss of life and unhappiness. It is insane that a treatment which definitely saves people is illegal - the edict from the FDA is that these people shall die. They may not live. The FDA have spoken. Anyone trying to save themselves from death by obtaining and using the treatment shall be imprisoned, jailed and left to die. Or maybe they would just jail the supplier - the outcome is the same, the FDA victim dies. It's tempting to think that the FDA people have family or even themselves suffering the same fate and therefore they would not support this process. It is an amazing fact about people that they will indulge all sorts of crazy ideas, even when those ideas destroy them, because they have a distorted idea of what they are going to achieve. Hundreds of millions of people all making their own decisions in their own interests, with protection by the state against fraud would be a much more effective way of helping people live and survive cancers. It seems like a crime against humanity. An evil usurpation of an individual's autonomy over their life. Causing their death. It is amazing that in the land of the free and brave, there isn't uproar. If people were free to choose, the FDA could still perform their function of approving products, "THIS PRODUCT APPROVED BY FDA". People could choose to require products they use to have that seal of approval. Or take their chances with whatever a supplier was offering. If a supplier was fraudulent in their claims, then people could sue them for fraud and damages. 1998 here. It looks like a good year! Sunny, beautiful. New Year's resolutions in tatters around the country already. Maurice [If I believe you all about Lon, between him and the FDA, there are going to be a lot of dead NHL people who should be alive. I hope those soon to be dead enjoy what little of 1998 they get to see. A shame they could see 1999 as well.] PS: Jim, I can't resist it: "... I'll match my 25-year track record against yours". Can I play too? You oughta see how big mine is!!!