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: GregSL who wrote (3132)	6/6/1999 3:55:00 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 3702

Greg, Cool, 100 possible real treatments! Not to mention many other possible 'alternative medicines'. How does one choose? First of all, check the local Medical Guild's url for oncologists registered with them. Then look up their individual specialties [skin cancer, glioma, lymphoma, NHL, Diffuse Large B-Cell NHL etc]. Then check their individual scoreboards for patient longevity, treatments offered, customer rating, costs and all that stuff - in the same way one consider form for a racehorse or the statistics for a football player [yards gained per run etc]. See if the good ones have space on their probably busy schedules. If not, pop into one of the second division oncologists for an early analysis of the position. See what they recommend. Check out the statistics, costs and all that guff and read up on the treatments and how it fits with the condition the customer has. Get quotes from a couple of competing oncologists [just as one would do for getting a new kitchen built - get suggested plans and quotes]. When people start talking about your ying and yang being all messed up, tell them to go away. If they talk about steak and tea and anecdotes, you tell them to get lost too. Get their name and address, plus copies of any literature they offer, record the things they say. Then pop down to the fraud squad and lay a complaint and sue for attempted fraud, if they have made claims about facts which are falsifiable, such as saying they have cured 20% of the people they've treated if all have actually died from the disease. If the ying and yang suggestions are opinion only, such as "Hay, how about this ying and yang? That could be the cause of the cancer and maybe if you rejig your ying, it'll go away". You say, "How many have you cured?" They say, "Well, this many say they rejigged their Ying and this is how many are still alive". That wouldn't be fraud as it is an idea with facts rather than a false claim. If people want to experiment on themselves with ying and yang, that should be up to them, unless they are children or wards of the state or otherwise not capable of self-determination, in which case the decisions should be made by competent authorities rather than some good-natured relative or friend. The key to it is to actively prosecute fraud. Fraud isn't that hard to separate from opinion or experimentation. All one needs is some facts which can be proven false to a court. A bit like slander is a bit slippery, but the courts are happy to prosecute slander and libel. Same for financial fraud. If people are so naive that they prefer to try drinking tea, instead of having their head drilled and filled, then that's their free choice. I know from personal experience that there are any number of people who have favourite concotions and concepts on how to cure cancer, all offered in good faith and real concern. I also know from personal experience that doctors are not specially good at identifying and treating serious disease properly. Staying alive really is problematic. The post before this one described the sort of person I'm thinking of. A real one, not a hypothetical tea drinker. She didn't have the time for the paperwork. I know of another real person who tried the 'tea' approach, rather than trust Medical Guild treatment [she died]. I know of two people who went to the Medical Guild for melanoma treatment, both being given the 'keep an eye on it' treatment programme. One died from it a couple of years after taking the advice, having returned 6 months later to report further growth. The other declined the advice and had the 'black spot' removed, confirmed as melanoma and seems to be free of the disease. Another person I know had the 'keep an eye on it' professional medical treatment programme for a lump in the neck, which advice we decided to ignore and sought more skilled advice which was to have it immediately diagnosed for certain. It was NHL. The 3 months which the 'keep an eye on it' treatment could have involved would probably have seen distant metastastes leading to fatality. I keep my fingers crossed that the sooner treatment was soon enough. Free choice and deregulated, competitive medical treatment seems to be the way to handle disease, with prosecution for fraud to punish those who would steal from sick people. The USA already prosecutes doctors for professional negligence not involving fraud. Prosecuting fraud should be easy by comparison with errors of professional judgement. Fear and mistrust of the overbearing medical system is real to many people. When people fear something, they often avoid it, even at great risk to themselves with sometimes fatal consequences. If the medical profession was deregulated, competitive and customer oriented, the fear factor would reduce a lot. I know that one can get quite dazed when confronting a fatal disease and it's hard to understand or remember anything, let alone absurdly complicated medical stuff. Those who just want to trust somebody could just head for the Medical Association approved oncologist and trust in the FDA. I'm sure that would be by far the most popular approach. Those professionals should have the self-confidence to not force people to deal with them on a basis of total mindless trust. I still think this is on-topic and hope that Techniclone products might be the harbinger of freedom in NHL treatment. I bet the lady in the previous post would wish it had been. Who feels guilty about her sighs of disappointment and, I suppose, her subsequent death? I doubt many in the Medical Association would think more than to shrug their shoulders and put her down as a statistic. Maurice