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 (3103)	5/25/1999 7:22:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3702

<What you're seeing is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The FDA works the way it does because our people want it that way. Sure, we want freedom, but too many of us want freedom without responsibility. > Bob, That's the popular descriptor, but if you were a negro in 1960, a homosexual any time, a woman in 1900, a minor or various other persons who wanted something different for themselves, you were disenfranchised or otherwise repressed. It sounds really nice 'by the people, for the people, hooray for the proletariat, the working classes' and all that jazz. But really, the rule is who has the numbers? The rest get the short end of the stick. In this instance, cancer sufferers, in a modern day human sacrifice, are left to die and are forbidden from trying to save themselves. This to retain the purity of the priesthood and mob rule. Individual wishes do not matter. I realize, as you say, that people like to escape the consequences of their ignorant or unlucky actions. The fact that the mob [presumably] agrees that the FDA shall decree who may pursue life, liberty and happiness doesn't make it right or constitutional. It wasn't constitutional to have slaves or tell negroes to sit at the back of the bus either, but that didn't stop it. A very ugly situation. Yuk. I wonder how the FDA people's consciences sit with them. It must be cruel irony when they watch their own children die of cancer when something could help them but it's not approved yet. I guess they are so imbued with their Priesthood beliefs that a loss of a child is a small cost to maintain discipline and the Priesthood in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Maybe it just doesn't happen enough to be a problem and when it does, the distressed person is simply outvoted by the rest of the Priesthood [becoming a non-person]. I guess that's how parents of human sacrifices in Aztec days were handled - sheer weight of numbers would keep them subdued and they might even believe their child was honored to be the sacrifice. Yuk! New Zealand has over the past few months had the ugly spectacle of 3 year old Liam and his parents being hunted down by the state to force Liam to have chemotherapy for a cancer of the jaw. He had been given two treatments but he and the parents became distressed and they absconded. The courts gave control to state agencies and the Medical Guild. The police failed to find him. Popular opinion seemed to be that the parents were the good guys so they were well supported by help. The parents decided to 'treat' him with some electrical gizmo provided by some 'alternative treatment' fraudster who obviously gave them to understand that this American invented device would cure the cancer. They have since had control of Liam returned to themselves by the court but they have not taken Liam to hospital for treatment and are not required to it seems. When he dies [which seems a reasonable statement since the chemotherapy treatments were too few to be considered complete] it will be interesting to see the debate and whether the parents will be prosecuted for neglect leading to wrongful death of a child. There is no happy outcome for Liam or his parents. One needs no more than a passing experience of the medical guilds to know that their expertise in diagnosis let alone treatment is so lacking that one is chancing death by depending on them. So the parents could be forgiven for having doubts about the efficacy of the treatment. I have direct experience of incorrect diagnoses, two of which would have lead directly to death but for our lay decisions about further investigation and treatment, one of which approached it, another which could have been [if the tumour had been malignant]. I'm sure many of you have your horror stories where the Priesthood were shown to have feet of clay. Who should decide in such a case as Liam? The mob? The Priesthood? The Mother? The Court? The Father? Liam? I know these things are not simple. I'm sure the FDA does their best and they genuinely do as well as they can. But they usurp individual autonomy. That's wrong and they should not do that. Maurice