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: The Dodgy Ticker who wrote (2777)	12/7/1998 10:05:00 PM
From: David Winkler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

amen- You hit the nail on the head. Something that is lacking from the oval office on down. Personal responsibility and integrity. Sorry to get political but I couldn't resist.

To: The Dodgy Ticker who wrote (2777)	12/7/1998 11:50:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

Robert, the FDA is not in a no-win situation. There could be competing approvals bodies. The FDA have got their system. The American Medical Association could have a competing system. Scripps Clinic could have their own one. An individual oncologist could become a 'My seal of good practise' provider. Even me! I could offer an approval system - Maurice's "I reckon this seems okay though I really wouldn't have a clue" recommendation. People could choose their advisor on whatever basis they like. I doubt that many would take my recommendation, but some might prefer Scripp's Clinic recommendation to that of the FDA. It's fair enough to sue people who lie, are fraudulent, dishonest, misleading or breach contracts. That's good and keeps them in line. It seems absurd for people to sue tobacco companies, though I have seen false advertisements claiming health benefits [from way back in the 1950s]. If an cancer treatment provider said, "Well, we don't really know, but this TNT looks as though it will kill most of the tumour, without doing that much damage, but everyone is an individual with individual responses so this product might kill you" and provides whatever information they have on the situation to the recipient, then it seems absurd to sue the provider and courts should quite rightly throw the case out. It seems to me that a glioma patient who is denied treatment with TNT could sue the FDA, the USA government and the individuals weilding that power for breach of their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without the treatment they will not have life. Being denied treatment is taking away their liberty to run their own life. Being dead will certainly preclude their happiness and being denied treatment wouldn't be a barrel of laughs either. The FDA can't get off the guilty hook like that. They are choosing to exert that power. They could resign. Abuse of power causing death is hardly endearing. It is going out of fashion in a big way. Pinochet, Serbian thugs and others are hiding out or in trouble for their belief that might made them right. Maurice