Abiraterone, NICE and John

[Unknown]

Hello all.

Just a brief piece from me (John) now although I plan something longer
for the near future.

Point One:

The BBC has just announced that NICE (the UK National Institute for
Clinical Excellence), which determines which drugs can be used by the
National Health Service, has done a U-turn on its draft report
recommendation *against* the use of abiraterone in the NHS, mainly on
grounds that it was too expensive. The manufacturer has negotiated a
lower price but the draft was challenged on several points which were
said to be misinformed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18076137

Point Two:

At the end of February, having abandoned taxotere chemo at the end of
August 2011, and come to the end of what could be done with estrogen
and a strontium 89 injection, I was given abiraterone. At the time, I
was taking about 80mg of morphine per day to combat bone pain,
suffered severe nausea and was too weak to leave my bed for more than
a few hours at a time.

By March 20, I was using no pain killers at all and the nausea had
vanished. There have been zero side effects from the abiraterone
except that my legs have taken a long time to get stronger.

My psa dropped from 346 to 150 but has now bottomed out so I can
expect only a short continuation of my present incredibly healthy
state.

Abiraterone is the only treatment that gave me my quality of life
back. Right now, it is a beautiful morning and I am about to take a
short walk on the local hills.

--
John

[Alan Meyer]

On 05/16/2012 04:26 AM, John wrote:
...

> Abiraterone is the only treatment that gave me my quality of life
> back. Right now, it is a beautiful morning and I am about to take a
> short walk on the local hills.
>
> --
> John

We're all walking beside you John.

Best of luck to you.

Alan

[cmdrdata]

John I am hoping you'll have plenty of many good years yet ahead of
you. I hope abiraterone is your magic fix. I wonder if you can give us
a little background on your health state just before taking taxotere.
Two of the people in this group and myself took months of taxotere,
and to best of my knowledge, all three of us has very little SE,
relatively. All of us have been able to do normal activities,
including going to work after the chemo infusions.
Thanks.

[Gourd Dancer]

Commander, my understanding based on research brought about by Obamacare is
that in the UK Taxotere is a last ditch effort only after conventional
treatment has failed. Taxotere or Docetaxel is a treatment option for only
those who are hormone-refractory and only then if they "can care for
themselves." Once given and cancer returns, the drug is no longer authorized
for use. If there are serious side effects, the drug is discontinued
immediately and can no longer be used according to NICE.

John, please correct me if I have misstated NICE treatment policy. I wish
you all the best and I too walk with you.

Note the following article on a gentlemen from England who was told that
early chemo was not an option.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1297927/Saved-death-cancer-drug-NHS-wouldnt-fund.html#ixzz1v48JjZ8n

This gentlemen is now undetectable after having mets....... Note the
following quote:
"Mike’s recovery is nothing less than miraculous, says Professor Roger
Kirby, chairman of the charity Prostate UK, adding: ‘Taxotere was probably
the key factor. The Americans tend to go for maximum therapy but here we’re
sparing with Taxotere for prostate cancer."

I think that you will find that Professor Logothetis used a similar protocol
as Professor Amato.

Obamacare should scare every American!

Gourd Dancer

"cmdrdata" wrote in message
news:5a08ab35-953a-4b04...@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

[Gourd Dancer]

John, this in the papers today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2144903/Prostate-cancer-drug-Abiraterone-set-approval-England-Wales-Scotland.html#ixzz1v45PZTag

Good news for England and Wales; not so good for Scotland. It seems that NHS
has reversed their stance on Abiraterone.

Gourd Dancer

"John" wrote in message news:uco6r7lpe6brl01l9...@4ax.com...

[MikeHi]

John, great news of the success of aberiterone for you. Are you
actually in the UK? because you received aberiterone in February?
Wherever - may your good news long continue.

Needless to say I was delighted too at the news that those miserble
misanthropes of NICE had agreed to aberiterone. It could be really
useful to add to my armaments to blast the bastard out of the water at
some stage. In response to my fast rising PSA, which I posted
recently, my convoy commodore - commonly known as onc.- has remained
calm - indeed silent - no doubt waiting for more of the periscope to
be seen rising above the water before giving the order to chuck more
stuff at it. This may be based on the fact that he knows Zoladex sunk
it from 30+ to scraping furtively along the bottom at 0.001 in a few
months, last time it was exploded. And with secret weapons now being
unveiled - it had better watch out!

Good luck and good progress to all on the NG.

MikeHi

[George Richardson]

>
> Obamacare should scare every American!
>
> Gourd Dancer
>

Care to say Why?

George Richardson

[I.P. Freely]

To Gourd Dancer's

>> Obamacare should scare every American!

George Richardson wrote:

> Care to say Why?

It's been said, to the tune of tens of thousands of pages, by
economists, health care professionals, Prime Ministers, medical
statisticians, and billionaires who come to the U.S. for their
life-threatening procedures. It has also been debated at length here,
and its supporters don't want to hear any more about it.

I.P.

[Unknown]

cmdrdata <cmdrd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>John I am hoping you'll have plenty of many good years yet ahead of
>you. I hope abiraterone is your magic fix. I wonder if you can give us
>a little background on your health state just before taking taxotere.
>Two of the people in this group and myself took months of taxotere,
>and to best of my knowledge, all three of us has very little SE,
>relatively. All of us have been able to do normal activities,
>including going to work after the chemo infusions.
>Thanks.

I'm sorry to put a dampener on your hopes but, frankly, in light of
the facts, it would be ludicrous to expect that I will be alive at the
end of this year.

I went refractory in May of 2011, after unsuccessful radiotherapy and
several years of successful treatment with zoladex. At the end of
2010, I started a hormone holiday but as soon as there was a
significant increase in my testosterone level, around April 2011, my
psa rocketed, metastatasis was detected all over and I jumped on to
the taxotere option in May 2011. I went through five cycles, each one
more debilitating than the one before until, in the fifth cycle, I had
almost no quality of life due, mainly, to incredible weakness.

All of this, and much else, was reported in five posts during 2011 and
in the summary entitled 'John reporting life after aborting chemo in
Aug 2011' which I posted on the 14th February 2012.

If those posts are unrecoverable, I can email to you, copies of what I
wrote at those times.

--
John

[Unknown]

"Gourd Dancer" <!!!noreply!!!@gmail.com> wrote:

>Commander, my understanding based on research brought about by Obamacare is
>that in the UK Taxotere is a last ditch effort only after conventional
>treatment has failed. Taxotere or Docetaxel is a treatment option for only
>those who are hormone-refractory and only then if they "can care for
>themselves." Once given and cancer returns, the drug is no longer authorized
>for use. If there are serious side effects, the drug is discontinued
>immediately and can no longer be used according to NICE.
>
>John, please correct me if I have misstated NICE treatment policy. I wish
>you all the best and I too walk with you.

I have never examined NICE policy on taxotere. It was simply offered
as 'standard chemo for PCa' when zoladex had stopped working and the
metastases had invaded. I stopped the taxotere chemo at five cycles
when it was clear that the severe side effects were destroying QOL
with no prospect of an extended remission if I was able to complete
the full ten cycles. I was put on estrogen which held things down a
bit for a while until I started getting serious bone pain. I was then
given a strontium 89 injection and I started on abiraterone, hoping
that I would get some relief from nausea and pain, albeit with the
average expectancy of only four months before the monster took over
again.

Abiraterone has now been sanctioned for NHS use as an 'end of life'
treatment.

I've been taking abiraterone since early February 2012 and have had
two marvellous pain and nausea-free months while my strength has
steadily increased. I have been unable to detect any adverse side
effects. The abiraterone brought my psa down from 340 to 150 but the
effect has now 'bottomed' and the honeymoon is clearly coming to an
end. I also know this from 'little signals' which I am beginning to
recognise.

--
John

[Unknown]

MikeHi <mik...@anon.co> wrote:

>John, great news of the success of aberiterone for you. Are you
>actually in the UK? because you received aberiterone in February?
>Wherever - may your good news long continue.

Yes, I live in the UK

>
>Needless to say I was delighted too at the news that those miserble
>misanthropes of NICE had agreed to aberiterone.

I have had my dark thoughts about NICE but the charitable truth is
that their negative report was a draft to which they invited
responses, to which they have responded in a logical fashion. Their
role is a little unclear to me as it is evidently tempting for them to
use their reports as a bargaining chip when it comes to fixing a price
with the drug companies. I can see that temptation but it doesn't
feel comfortable to be a PCa patient who is effectively being used as
a shuttlecock in the battle between the drug companies and the health
authority.

--
J

[c palmer]

I'm sorry to put a dampener on your hopes but, frankly, in light of the
facts, it would be ludicrous to expect that I will be alive at the end
of this year.

I went refractory in May of 2011, after unsuccessful radiotherapy and
several years of successful treatment with zoladex. At the end of 2010,
I started a hormone holiday but as soon as there was a significant
increase in my testosterone level, around April 2011, my psa rocketed,
metastatasis was detected all over and I jumped on to the taxotere
option in May 2011.

--
John

===> hi john - you could still be here among the living this christmas.

studies have shown that the time of death from the point of going
refractory is from 12 months to 48 months with the average time being 24
months.

if you went refactory may 2011, then, if you fell into the average
range, that means that you've got at least another year.

have you considered trying lupron with the casodex?

~ curtis

[Steve Kramer]

Obamacare should scare every American!

---
It's not just Obamacare. It's not just Obama. It's not just Democrats,
Progressives, or Liberals. It is one, and only one, thing - GOVERNMENT.

No government cares about people. No government program cares about people.

It's not a bad thing. The job of government has nothing to do with caring
for people. The only time it's a bad thing is when we let the government
try it.




PSA OCT 2000 @ 46
Biopsy NOV 2000 3+4=7, T2c
RRP DEC 2000 3+4=7), T3cN0M0, SVI, Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT MAY - JULY 2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD 0.56 years
Lupron started JULY 2003 @ 48
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.40 years
Casodex added JUL 2006 @ 51
Last PSA <0.05 Next draw AUG 2012 @ 57
Illegitimati non carborundum

[Unknown]

PALME...@webtv.net (c palmer) wrote:

studies have shown that the time of death from the point of going
refractory is from 12 months to 48 months with the average time being
24
months.

if you went refactory may 2011, then, if you fell into the average
range, that means that you've got at least another year.

have you considered trying lupron with the casodex?

_______________

Goodness, I was at that point in 2008! :)

[c palmer]

===> john, i saw a cartoon that summerizes up our position.....

it showed two people talking at the grocery story and the one says, "at
my age, i think i'm past my best if use by date...."

:))

have a great day....

~ curtis

[Alan Meyer]

On 5/20/2012 5:37 AM, John wrote:

> ... it would be ludicrous to expect that I will be alive at the
> end of this year.

I've wondered what I should do if and when I get my own expiration
notice (the "if" here meaning only that sometimes we're carried off
suddenly by a heart attack or an accident with no notice at all.)

I think that one thing I might do is make a digital video of myself.
I'd smile and look as good as I could and tell my children and
grandchildren and anyone else who might possibly be interested enough to
look, about what a wonderful life I had and what a great family and
great friends I had. I might tell them about some of the things I liked
to do, and some of the things they have done that I really appreciated.
I'd want them to be able to look at it and think well of me and, most
especially, to think well about themselves. I'd want them to know how
much they meant to me.

Or if I looked lousy I might just write it all down instead.

Fortunately, I have a son who lives nearby and is very technically
minded. So I won't have to try to write down instructions explaining to
my wife how to handle her computer and Internet problems. I don't think
I could face that! But I would like to prepare a special message for her.

Then, of course, it would be great if I could write down something about
who all of those folks are in the old photographs - many of them people
who the younger generation have never met.

There's a lot to do and I know it won't all get done, but I won't feel
bad about that. We do what we can.

Alan

[Alan Meyer]

On 5/20/2012 2:24 PM, Steve Kramer wrote:

...

> No government cares about people. No government program cares about people.
>
> It's not a bad thing. The job of government has nothing to do with
> caring for people. The only time it's a bad thing is when we let the
> government try it.

I know I shouldn't take the bait. I know I'm bad. But what can I do?
Sometimes I just lose control and say things like:

Fortunately, we don't need government to care for us. We can count on
insurance companies to insure everyone who needs it, even the old and
the sick, and never to deny claims or raise prices just to increase
profits. We can count on food and drug companies to only produce foods
and drugs that are good for us and to always tell the truth about what
they're selling. We can count on car companies to make safe vehicles,
coal and oil companies to keep our air and water clean, private
detectives to police our streets, private schools to educate all of our
children, forest products and mining companies to protect our national
parks, private investors to invest in basic research on cancer and other
diseases - even rare cancers that won't sell a lot of drugs. And of
course who needs parks, fire departments, libraries, senior centers,
public playgrounds, municipal water works, public trash collection or
public road building and maintenance? People can do all of that stuff
for themselves, can't they?

We can cut way back on all of those things. They live without most of
them in India and Ecuador and Kenya. We could live just like those folks.

Steve,

I know that you are a great guy and your intentions are at least as good
as mine. I even know that there is an important kernel of truth in your
criticisms of government. But I think all of us are a lot better off in
America now than we were in the bad old days before government
regulations and programs cleaned up our food and water, educated our
children, protected our old folks, and did all of the hundreds of things
that government does that private industry can't do.

My own view is, let's get government out of things that private industry
can do better, but let's make government stronger and more effective in
those areas that private industry just can't do, like protecting the
young, the old, the sick, the poor, and the ordinary consumer who has
zero chance against powerful corporations.

Alan

[Gourd Dancer]

Just a little civics lesson..... Discourse and problems happen when one type
of government expands beyond what is authorized by the United States
Constitution..... Can't help myself, like Obamacare......

Powers Reserved for the US Government
* Print money
* Regulate interstate (between states) and international trade
* Make treaties and conduct foreign policy
* Declare war
* Provide an army and navy
* Establish post offices
* Make laws necessary and proper to carry out the these powers

Powers Shared between the US Government and State Government
* Collect Taxes
*Borrow money
*Build roads
*Establish courts
*Charter banks and corporations
*Take private property for public purpose with just compensation
*Make and enforce law
*Spend money for the general welfare

Powers Reserved solely for State Government

* Issue licenses
* Regulate intrastate (within the state) businesses
* Conduct elections
* Establish local governments
* Ratify amendments to the Constitution
* Take measures for public health and safety
* May exert powers the Constitution does not delegate to the national
government or prohibit the states from using

Gourd Dancer



"Alan Meyer" wrote in message news:4FBBF7FD...@yahoo.com...

[I.P. Freely]

Alan Meyer wrote

> let's make government stronger and more effective in
> those areas that private industry just can't do, like protecting the
> young, the old, the sick, the poor, and the ordinary consumer who has
> zero chance against powerful corporations.

You're implying no one has the right to make themselves poor, as tens of
millions in the U.S do. I have neither a right or an obligation to deny
them that option. Studies all over the world throughout history have
consistently shown that when people are no longer paid to remain
jobless, they find jobs.

BTW ... the latest analysis of the employment fiasco shows that 34% of
Americans of employment age are unemployed or underemployed.

Why does the ordinary consumer have no chance against corporations?
Hundreds of millions of us every day vote for or against them with our
dollars, and I've beaten them ... and lawyers ... in some 30 battles so
far with facts and logic without spending a dime on legal assistance. My
win/loss/tie record is about 28/1/1, with victories including several
blue chip corporations and their legal depts, the U.S. Air Force in
federal court, and many corporations way larger than Small Business
limits. Competent people who fuhgheddabout sports and American Idol and
beer and pot and buying stuff they can't afford and put that time and
effort instead into the business of life can reduce or eliminate most of
life's hassles. However, as long as there are bleeding hearts willing to
pay scores of millions to do the former, responsible citizens are forced
by the government to fund their misguided generosity, not only enabling
but encouraging dependence.

Keep in mind, too, that the living standards of poor Americans, as
measured by many metrics, far exceed the living standards of the
*average* European.

I.P.

[Alan Meyer]

I.P.

I actually agree with a lot of your points. I agree that people must
take responsibility for themselves. I agree that government should
encourage that. I agree that welfare can and does encourage laziness
(but you'll note that I never argued for welfare in my posting.)

I agree that when people have to work or starve, more people find ways
to work since starving is never a good option. Almost everyone would,
for example, accept a hard labor, sub-minimum wage job in hot, dirty,
and dangerous conditions if the alternative were starving. I would.

I also believe that if we cut wages and benefits to Chinese levels we
could bring back a lot of jobs from China - not all and not quickly
because a lot of the manufacturing infrastructure has also moved there.
But that would not, in my opinion, be a good thing. A "race to the
bottom" is not, in my opinion, a good solution to our problems.

I also do NOT believe that every American could find a job if he just
got off his butt and hustled. There are a lot of people with very
successful lives before 2008, people who know how to work hard and have
always done so, people who prided themselves on their resourcefulness
and self-sufficiency, people who saved their money for the future,
people who have gone out to look for work every day - and who have been
out of work now for three years and have eaten through all of their savings.

There was a study done during the great depression in the 1930's to find
out who was out of work. The big surprise result was that unemployment
hit a complete cross section of American citizens - doctors, architects,
musicians, teachers, skilled workers - not just uneducated, unskilled
workers. Some like architects and musicians, both very high skilled
occupations, were doing much worse on average than unskilled workers.
That's the nature of economic downturns. When times were tough nobody
bought new buildings or went to concerts.

Most of us like to believe that we're self-made men and we like to look
down on those of us who have not got what we have. There is some truth
to it. But there's also a lot of luck involved, and I think we need to
give a helping hand to those who haven't been as lucky.

I also agree that consumers sometimes can win against corporations.
However I think that 1) it is mainly done with the aid of the government
in at least this sense: Federal and state laws are on the books that
protect citizens from many exploitative practices such as false
advertising, unsafe ingredients in food and drugs, employment
discrimination, unfair labor practices, etc., 2) federal and state
agencies exist to enforce those laws and threats to bring in the
attorney general or the FTC, or whoever will often bring a corporation
around, especially when the amounts of money are small, and 3) there are
still many honest judges and juries that cannot be bought. However, I
recommend that you read John Grisham's novel _The Appeal_ for a
fascinating look at what is happening to state supreme courts all around
the nation. I also suggest that you look at the records of some US
Supreme Court justices such as Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. I have read
of Roberts, for example, that in all of his years on the bench he has
never once ruled in favor of an individual who was suing a corporation.
You are fortunate, I think, that your lawsuits weren't heard by him.

I'm very curious about your 28/1/1 win/loss/tie ratio against
corporations. That's an astonishing record, both for the number of
times you've been to court (I assume we're talking about court
appearances here and not demanding that the local supermarket take back
their can of spoiled asparagus), and the number of victories. I can
point you to any number of stories about workers unable to enforce
health and safety conditions, consumers unable to get redress for unsafe
or shoddy merchandise, deceptive advertising, etc., women unable to get
wages comparable to men, and so on. It's sometimes possible but rarely
easy to fight against the high priced lawyers that corporations can hire.

Finally, I agree that the average and median standards of living in the
U.S. are significantly higher than most of the countries of Europe,
though there are a few that are on a par with the U.S. This has been
true since well before the American Revolution (Benjamin Franklin was
shocked by the poverty he saw in England) and is still true today. I
think that the causes of that disparity include a lot of factors, but
one of them is almost certainly the dynamism of American capitalism as
compared to European capitalism.

But, if you read my statement again you'll see that I never argued for
welfare or against capitalism. What I argued for was, and I quote:

" ... let's get government out of things that private industry can do
better, but let's make government stronger and more effective in those

areas that private industry just can't do, like protecting the young,
the old, the sick, the poor, and the ordinary consumer who has zero
chance against powerful corporations."

In other words, I'm arguing that there is a legitimate role for
government in protecting people against exploitation by the rich and
powerful, in protecting people against calamities that are beyond the
means of the average person to cope with but which can be beaten by
collective action, and in giving people better lives.

Here's one one example that all of us can relate to. In 1965, the year
Medicare was enacted, only 14% of American citizens over the age of 65
had health insurance. I would go further and say that, in 1964, just
about none of us in this newsgroup would be able to buy new health
insurance and most of us would find ourselves cut off from our existing
health insurance once the contract period ran out. Medicare and health
insurance regulation has saved a lot of lives.

Alan

[I.P. Freely]

Gourd Dancer wrote:
> *Spend money for the general welfare

And before some disingenuous wag claims that means entitlements -- even
unearned ones -- or health care or waivers from health care mandates or
mortgage bailouts or free cellphones or student loan waivers, it most
definitely does not. The Supreme Court sided with the founders decades
ago that "general welfare" means explicitly that EVERY citizen must
benefit, not just some subgroup no matter how large. In case it's still
not obvious, Obamacare benefits only a very few, at great dollar and
performance costs to the vast majority.

And to the vast majority of the Left, including Nancy Pelosi at the
dais, who claim the Constitution is irrelevant, realize again that it is
by definition the supreme law of our nation, from which all other laws
must derive. If it can be ignored by politicians or legislators, I can
just as (IL)legally rob a bank, drive my Subaru 145 mph on public
highways, or shoot the next jerk who lights up a cigar I can smell.

I.P.

[Gourd Dancer]

Be careful of what you wish for Alan.

"I also believe that if we cut wages and benefits to Chinese levels we
could bring back a lot of jobs from China - not all and not quickly
because a lot of the manufacturing infrastructure has also moved there.
But that would not, in my opinion, be a good thing. A "race to the
bottom" is not, in my opinion, a good solution to our problems."

Let's see, minimum wage in the United States ranges from $1280 to $1440 a
month depending on state or district. Compare that to minimum wage in the
People's Republic of China of $84 to $295 a month (after currency
conversion; which by the way is not available for use outside of the
country) depending on the province, city, and region where one works.

Furthermore the average manufacturing job in China pays $.58 per hour ($92 a
month) compared to the average manufacturing job in the US paying $20.70 per
hour ($3312 a month).

Gourd Dancer

"Alan Meyer" wrote in message news:4FBC21C6...@yahoo.com...

[I.P. Freely]

I gather this thing is not working. I cannot post, and see no posts from
anyone else since Wed or early Thur, on any of my USENET or Google
access accounts. If this appears, I'll try for the fifth time to respond.

I.P.

[I.P. Freely]

OK, let's try a fourth or fifth time. Alan and I spent too much time on
this for it to let it evaporate into the ether.

Alan Meyer wrote:
> I.P.

>
> you'll note that I never argued for welfare in my posting.)

But it's the very backbone of the Obama administration and the
Democratic platform.

> I agree that when people have to work or starve, more people find ways
> to work since starving is never a good option. Almost everyone would,
> for example, accept a hard labor, sub-minimum wage job in hot, dirty,
> and dangerous conditions if the alternative were starving. I would.

Anecdotally, the occutard Hannity interviewed at length in his studio
refused the job Hannity offered him because it paid less than $80,000 a
year. On a national scale, it is VERY difficult to get Caucasian
American citizens to pick produce when they get paid by the government
to watch TV and file an occasional sloppy application for a job way
above their ability.

> I also believe that if we cut wages and benefits to Chinese levels we
> could bring back a lot of jobs from China - not all and not quickly
> because a lot of the manufacturing infrastructure has also moved there.

Technology will solve that problem, according to global experts who
expect high-tech manufacturing such as 3-D printing of anything from
pencils to automobiles, rendering "manufacturing" as we know it obsolete.

> But that would not, in my opinion, be a good thing. A "race to the
> bottom" is not, in my opinion, a good solution to our problems.

What is the forced redistribution of existing wealth from the productive
to the non-productive, Obama and the Dems' stock in trade, but a race to
the bottom? What is socialized medicine if not a race to the bottom?
What is bailing out failed businesses and homeowners and lazy
individuals with money taken by force from their successful counterparts
but a race to the bottom?

> I also do NOT believe that every American could find a job if he just
> got off his butt and hustled.

Zero unemployment is not even close to a realistic objective, especially
from our present lofty perch of the 34% of employable adults who do not
have the jobs they want and are qualified for.

> There are a lot of people with very
> successful lives before 2008, people who know how to work hard and have
> always done so, people who prided themselves on their resourcefulness
> and self-sufficiency, people who saved their money for the future,
> people who have gone out to look for work every day - and who have been
> out of work now for three years and have eaten through all of their
> savings.

Identifying and helping them is far more productive than just giving
money to anyone who says they need it. Many of exactly the ones you
describe drop their jaws in astonishment when a potential employer or a
government aid official suggests they actually *move* to get a job. My
own BIL, once a very successful degreed corporate engineer, could not
feed his family of five because his wife refused to move away from her
healthy parents to follow his career.

> There was a study done during the great depression in the 1930's to find
> out who was out of work. The big surprise result was that unemployment
> hit a complete cross section of American citizens - doctors, architects,
> musicians, teachers, skilled workers - not just uneducated, unskilled
> workers. Some like architects and musicians, both very high skilled
> occupations, were doing much worse on average than unskilled workers.
> That's the nature of economic downturns. When times were tough nobody
> bought new buildings or went to concerts.

So why the fascination with a President and his appointed administration
who abhor capitalism, who are doing everything in their power to
eliminate it, many of whom including Obama come right out and publicly
beat their drums and gums against it? "Private enterprise is the enemy"?
"Socialized medicine is our goal, but might take 10-15 years"? Forcing
the nation's largest manufacturers to accept taxpayer money and
governmental controls they don't want? Rewarding the CEO of a
corporation which sells vital military weapons components to enemy
nations, has sent tens of thousands of jobs to China, and pays no income
taxes on billions of income by appointing him as his Job Czar? How does
any of that help create jobs for competent unemployed people in the U.S.?

> But there's also a lot of luck involved, and I think we need to
> give a helping hand to those who haven't been as lucky.

Please don't tell us that getting successful or even rich is only, or
even predominantly, for "f o r t u n a t e" people. Tell the millions of
people who began with zip, worked their butts to the bone on many menial
jobs simultaneously while they developed job skills, and are now worth
7-10 figures ... that they got there because they were lucky.

Even more egregious is the Marxist concept that it is sane or kind to
take money earned by successful people by force expressly to give it to
the less successful. It violates the Constitution, global history, all
tenets of self-reliance, and the dreams millions of free men and women
had when risking and even sacrificing their very lives to defeat
communism and its various spinoffs. You're welcome to give those
starving workers all you want, but what right does anyone have to steal
money from non-volunteers to give it to someone else? Why is it not
anti-American to hire the government to take money at gunpoint from a
man making $50k a year and giving it to a millionaire earning $80,000 a
year who *refuses* to cash in his investments to prevent foreclosure on
his upside down mortgage?

AND WHY DOES ANYONE *OWE* ANYONE ONE CENT TO BAIL OUT AN UPSIDE DOWN
MORTGAGE? My car, stock, clothes ... virtually everything I own ... is
worth less than it was wen I bought it; IS THAT THE TAXPAYERS' FAULT? My
*GOD* but that one frosts my butt!

> I have read of Roberts, for example, that in all of his years on the
> bench he has never once ruled in favor of an individual who was
> suing a corporation

That came from the Huffington Post. which no one with an IQ > 80 reads
for information.

> You are fortunate, I think, that your lawsuits weren't heard by

[Roberts].

Lawsuits, my butt. I consider lawyers the opposition, not an ally, so
long as I can beat them with facts, logic, and the law. All my battles
cost me was time and postage.

> I'm very curious about your 28/1/1 win/loss/tie ratio against
> corporations. That's an astonishing record, both for the number of

> times you've been to court ...

Court? See above. My only court appearance in that win/loss history was
as a key witness in federal court, in which I helped a whistleblower
defeat some crooked Air Force officers.

> (I assume we're talking about court appearances
> here and not demanding that the local supermarket take back their can
> of spoiled asparagus)

> It's sometimes possible but rarely easy to
> fight against the high priced lawyers that corporations can hire.

Some examples of my triumphs over lawyers or and executives include
false billings from blue chip corporations, false accusations from a
neighbor (his lawyer abandoned him after I pointed the lawyer to
relevant police complaints), a lemon automobile (my complaints to my
Congressman were part of the evidence that led to federal crackdowns on
lemons), preventing foreclosure threatened by the world's largest
mortgage corporation (they admitted their error and changed their global
accounting procedures to prevent recurrence), false charges against my
auto insurer by scam artists, policemen who didn't know the law when
ticketing me and others, lawyers who didn't know the law and/or the
facts or wrongfully presumed that I didn't, and a large team of federal
contracting lawyers who had halted the 10-figure U.S. high-energy laser
weapons program without valid cause until I persuaded every one to
reverse his official documented executed decision.

> and the number of victories.

Those 30 don't include the military officers' careers I've saved or
ended, as appropriate. Facts and logic prevail quite often.

> women unable to get wages comparable to men

Another wild media and administration fabrication. Those Bureau of Labor
figures refer to women and men as groups -- all women vs all men. They
do not include the fact that the men are executives or engineers or
lawyers or plumbers while the women are secretaries and clerks, nor that
the men work 50 hours a week while the women work 35, nor many other
distinct differences*. Job for job and hour for hour, women are doing
just fine, but you won't hear that from Obama or his media any more than
you will learn that Obama's claim that he spends less than previous
presidents is such a proven lie the far left NYT refused to print it.

* How many mothers -- or fathers worthy of the title -- would spend 50
weeks on business travel or 300 evenings at the office each year while
his kids are growing up, as many men I know have done?

> the causes of that disparity include a lot of factors, but
> one of them is almost certainly the dynamism of American capitalism as
> compared to European capitalism.

So why does the Left, including the most leftist-voting of all U.S.
Senators, Barack Obama, so rabidly support replacing capitalism with
European economic systems ... just when so many of the world's nations
are conceding their various -ism systems are failing and are shifting
gears towards capitalism?

> In other words, I'm arguing that there is a legitimate role for
> government in protecting people against exploitation by the rich and
> powerful

You're kidding, right? How is providing jobs and products and
compensation "exploitation"? That's occutard rhetoric.

> in protecting people against calamities that are beyond the
> means of the average person to cope with but which can be beaten by
> collective action

That, not condoms or free ambulance rides to the mall, is expressly and
exactly what insurance is for. Yet many millions of people *choose* to
buy bling or have kids they can't afford rather than buy insurance
because they know they will get medical care for those calamities and
their stubbed toes.

> and in giving people better lives.

Again, that violates the Constitution at the federal level.

> Here's one one example that all of us can relate to. In 1965, the year
> Medicare was enacted, only 14% of American citizens over the age of 65
> had health insurance. I would go further and say that, in 1964, just
> about none of us in this newsgroup would be able to buy new health
> insurance and most of us would find ourselves cut off from our existing
> health insurance once the contract period ran out. Medicare and health
> insurance regulation has saved a lot of lives.

Obama stole $500,000,000,000 from Medicare to make us believe O'care
would be revenue neutral.
Only under repeated Congressional grilling did Sebelius admit she lied
about double booking that HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS.
Medicare fraud runs from $100 to $500 *BILLION* every year, according to
Congressional testimony from the nation's leading expert on Medicare.
Medicare is going bankrupt.
Medicare has cost ten times what the government originally projected.
Doctors by the hundreds of thousands have already stopped or are
threatening to stop accepting Medicare.
THAT'S your chosen example of an exemplary program?

I.P.

[Steve Kramer]

I see one from 2138 hrs

PSA OCT 2000 @ 46
Biopsy NOV 2000 3+4=7, T2c
RRP DEC 2000 3+4=7), T3cN0M0, SVI, Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT MAY - JULY 2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD 0.56 years
Lupron started JULY 2003 @ 48
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.40 years
Casodex added JUL 2006 @ 51
Last PSA <0.05 Next draw AUG 2012 @ 57
Illegitimati non carborundum

"I.P. Freely" wrote in message news:UbOvr.597$JK2...@newsfe12.iad...

[Gourd Dancer]

Your doing fine son. This group has been real quiet.

GD

"I.P. Freely" wrote in message news:UbOvr.597$JK2...@newsfe12.iad...

[I.P. Freely]

Not really. I cannot find posts others have quoted, and four of mine did
not show up.

I.P.

[jloomis]

Sun Spots or the Eclipse?

Computers can be daunting unless you are a computer nerd.
I know a "few" nerds who can just about diagnose anything.
Too bad they were not prostate cancer specialists?
john

"I.P. Freely" wrote in message news:UbOvr.597$JK2...@newsfe12.iad...

[I.P. Freely]

The problem was not at my end. I've changed nothing and now it's working
again, although I stopped using Infernal September last year when it had
so many problems.

[Steve Kramer]

Apparently it wasn't their fault either.

Who's your carrier?








"I.P. Freely" wrote in message news:%L4wr.19875$3y3....@newsfe20.iad...

[MZB]

It's Obama's fault

Mel

[I.P. Freely]

Steve Kramer wrote:
> Apparently it wasn't their fault either.

This time, no.
>
> Who's your carrier?

Charter.
>
> "I.P. Freely" wrote