> "Peter Flass" <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:k4h7i4$a6s$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 10/2/2012 9:10 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> greyma...@mail.com wrote:
>>>> On 2012-10-01, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> writes:

>>>>>>> BEcause that is/will be where the treatment is legal.  Another
>>>>>>> reason is that it will be cheaper than having it done in the US.

>>>>>> Britain has National Health Service, and they also have private
>>>>>> doctors
>>>>>> who do noncovered work -- cosmetic surgery, mostly.  Canada has most
>>>>>> doctors who bill the single payer, and also some doctors who work
>>>>>> privately for noncovered treatments.  I don't see any reason it
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be different in the U.S.

>>>>> My sister's in-laws, who live in Canada, come to the US for medical
>>>>> services to treat cancer.

>>>> Frequently, here, there is an appeal for cash to send someone for
>>>> treatment to the US, where `treatments are being developed'. It is
>>>> widely believed in the medical profession that the owners of such
>>>> treatments are charlatans, but it is very hard to suggest to
>>>> parents of dying children that the treatment is bogus.
>>>> In one such case, the local doctor told me that only 50% survive
>>>> the operation, the rest die within a year.

>>> And I've heard of some who went to Germany for treatments which
>>> weren't legal in the US.  Our FDA is slow to approve some
>>> kinds of treatements.

>> Remember Thalidomide.

> A new use for Thalidomide was found... *not* for pregnant women of
> course. It has recently been used to treat multiple myeloma.  The late
> Geraldine Ferraro took it for that.  It is *not* a cure, but supposedly
> did help stave off the disease for a period of time.